# comment

text:
<p>There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually- </p><p>This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess. Abijam his son reigned in his place- </p><p>His mother's name is twice stressed (see on :21). The records of the kings so often mention their mothers, in reflection of the huge spiritual influence of a mother upon her children.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat began Abijam to reign over Judah- </p><p>Abijam means "father of the sea", but 'father of' can mean 'worshipper of', as 'Abijah' means 'father / worshipper of Yah'. The sea god was worshipped, and so we conclude this was reflective of pagan devotions. He is called Abijah in 2 Chronicles, 'worshipper of Yah'. Having both a pagan and Yahwistic name was typical of the times, and Maacah / Michaiah his mother had a similar two names (see on :2). <a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a> shows that Rehoboam had 28 sons. Abijam wasn't the firstborn, but rather the firstborn son of the favoured wife. Abijam had 38 children (<a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>), so he must have been a reasonable age when he came to the throne:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He reigned three years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom- </p><p>Maachah, Rehoboam's beloved wife (<a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>) was an idolater (<a href='B:140 15:16'>2Ch 15:16</a>). She is called Michaiah in <a href='B:140 13:12'>2Ch 13:12</a>, "Who is like Jehovah?", but was known by her more pagan name Maachah, "oppression". She was the granddaughter of Absalom, but "son" and "daughter" are used in Hebrew with wide latitude.</p><p>The records of the kings so often mention their mothers, in reflection of the huge spiritual influence of a mother upon her children. The three years is a figure inclusive of parts of years, as he became king in the 18th year of Jeroboam's reign in Israel and died in his 20th year. "Three days / years" is often not a literal figure, and this must be recalled when considering the chronology of the Lord's three days in the tomb.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God, as the heart of David his father- </p><p>And yet we read of Abijah's apparent devotion in :15 and <a href='B:140 13:10-12'>2Ch 13:10-12</a>. The comment of <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a> is that his heart wasn't perfect with Yahweh as David’s was. David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his ethics and spirituality as he got older. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Whereas Abijah, despite peaks of spirituality, did not have that total devotion to Yahweh as the dominant position of his heart throughout his life. Whatever peaks of obedience and devotion we may attain at points in our lives, it is the overall core position of our heart which is judged. Men like David may sin terribly at some points, those like Abijah may achieve wonderful levels of devotion at some points. But those high or low points play no major part in the final, unknowable equilibrium of Divine judgment. We need to remember this, as we encounter our brethren and ponder what to make of them, in their pits of sin and heights of devotion. Those points on their graph ought not to unduly weight our overall position on them.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem- </p><p>The way God allowed David’s dynasty to continue for nearly 400 years therefore reflects His deeply positive overall impression of David. See on :3. By contrast, there were nine different dynasties in the ten tribe kingdom over 250 years. </p><p></p>


text:
<p>because David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite- </p><p>As noted on :3, David was seen as having had a perfect heart for Yahweh all his days. The highs and lows of his graph were not unduly significant in that overall judgment. But the matter of Uriah was so awful that it did weigh heavily. I suggest this was because it had many ongoing implications, and I have noted throughout the Psalms that David failed to maintain his intensity of contrition about it, and came to rationalize it as he entered older age.</p><p>These words must be given their due weight, as they would appear to imply that David’s feeling of guilt and sin over taking the census in <a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a> was therefore a case of a man taking false guilt. For it was allowable to take a census of Israel, although there was to be a half shekel tax paid at the time, which if not paid would result in plague (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>). Joab perhaps guessed that those numbered would not pay this and therefore the census would lead Israel into sin. This is why God chose the punishment of plague; not upon David, but upon Israel. Yet David perhaps realized all that, but knew that his lack of faith in wanting a census, his lack of consideration for the weakness of others, would lead them into sin and punishment. And therefore he felt guilty. It could be argued that his sacrifice atoned for himself and for the people, but they still suffered for not having paid the required "atonement money". But then we must balance against this the comment that "David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (<a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>). No mention is made of the matter of the census. There is true guilt, the guilt we should take for our actual sins; and false guilt, the guilt put on us by others and the malfunctioning of the human conscience. In this matter of David’s guilt about the census, we may have an example of a man taking false guilt. The fact Israel and not David were punished with plague would rather confirm this. It may be impossible for us to sort out within us what is true guilt or false guilt, at least not be any intellectual process. But we can rest assured that all our guilt, of whatever kind, is met in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate guilt offering.</p>


text:
<p>Now there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life-</p><p>This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>). The terrible sin and tragedy of fighting ones own brethren is noted twice (also in <a href='B:110 14:30'>1Ki 14:30</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? There was war between Abijam and Jeroboam- </p><p>Again, the sin of fighting ones own brethren is stressed as in :6,16; see on <a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his place-</p><p>One meaning of "Asa" is "physician", and he ended his days trusting physicians rather than Yahweh. Perhaps he trained as a physician and ended up therefore having more faith in science than in Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Asa to reign over Judah-</p><p>Far more information is given in <a href='B:140 14:1-15'>2Ch 14:1-15</a>, where we learn about the Ethiopian conflict, the prophecies of Azariah and Hanani and his covenant with Syria.</p>


text:
<p>He reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom- </p><p>The reference seems to be to his grandmother Maachah, Rehoboam’s favourite wife, who seems to have retained her position, perhaps because Asa’s mother was dead. The word for "mother" here can specifically mean 'the queen mother', an official title.</p>


text:
<p>Asa did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father- </p><p>Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Sometimes the purges of idolatry by the kings is described in undoubtedly exaggerated language- such was God’s joy that at least something was being done? As discussed on :3, Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God’s overall judgment was that he "did right", despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Indeed as noted on :23, Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right".</p>


text:
<p>He put away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made- </p><p>These sodomites were associated with the idol shrines (<a href='B:110 14:23-24'>1Ki 14:23-24</a>). They may well have been Gentiles from Phoenicia, hence they were expelled from the land rather than killed. They may well have been involved with homosexual practices, but the Hebrew qadesh means literally a devoted person.</p>


text:
<p>Also Maacah his mother he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and burnt it at the brook Kidron-</p><p>I suggested on :10 that this may refer to Maachah, Rehoboam’s favourite wife, who seems to have retained her position, perhaps because Asa’s mother was dead. The word for "mother" here can specifically mean 'the queen mother', an official title. The Lord Jesus may well have recollected the bravery of this act when He crossed the Kidron just before His final sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>But the high places were not taken away: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect with Yahweh all his days- </p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn’t (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Partial cleansing of idolatry amounted to no cleansing. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. See on :18. Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread... inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p><p>As discussed on :3, Asa like David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his faith as he got older, as the Chronicles record shows. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Despite all the ups and downs, of which his final faith in doctors rather than Yahweh was one of the down points, his overall deepest heart was for Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He brought into the house of Yahweh the things that his father had dedicated, and the things that himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels-</p><p>We note that Abijah did dedicate things to Yahweh, but as discussed on :3, despite peaks of devotion and generosity, the dominant desire of his heart was not to Yahweh. And it is this dominant desire which is critically important to God.</p>


text:
<p>There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days- </p><p>Again, the sin of fighting ones own brethren is stressed as in :6,7; see on <a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and built Ramah, that he might not allow anyone to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah- </p><p>Ramah was a strategic point on the road which led to Jerusalem from the north. He maybe particularly feared that his people were still attracted to the idea of worship at the Jerusalem temple; for it seems it was access to Jerusalem which he particularly wanted to cut off.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa took all the silver and the gold that were left in the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king’s house, and delivered them into the hand of his servants; and king Asa sent them to Ben Hadad son of Tabrimmon son of Hezion, king of Syria, who lived at Damascus, saying- </p><p>Benhadad was the grandson of Hezion, a name which uses similar characters to Rezon who led the first attempted revival of Zobah and Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>) after David’s victories against them in <a href='B:100 8:3-8'>2Sa 8:3-8</a>.</p><p>Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God’s riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>). See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>There is a treaty between me and you, between my father and your father. Behold, I have sent to you a present of silver and gold. Go, break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me-</p><p>The intent of the treaty, however, was that Benhadad would attack Baasha (:20). Perhaps this was not stated specifically because Asa wanted to give lip service obedience to the command not to fight with his own brethren in (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>. So the Lord's money was spent on effectively getting others to fight their own brethren; and in essence the same can happen today in church politics. We also see how fickle are relationships when not governed by Divine principle; Benhadad's treaty with Baasha was broken when money was received from a third party, and he not only trashed the treaty but attacked him.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hadad listened to king Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel, and struck Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maacah and all Chinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali- </p><p>These cities were in the far north of Israel. It was an invasion of the border area rather than of all Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Baasha heard of it, that he left off building Ramah, and lived in Tirzah- </p><p>Asa's plan appeared to have worked. Baasha stopped the attempted blockade of Jerusalem. Even though Asa did wrong in how he used the Lord's money / wealth, that isn't commented upon. It all seemed to work out. But we are left, naturally, with the question as to whether this was right or not.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Asa made a proclamation to all Judah; none was exempted: and they carried away the stones of Ramah, and its timber, with which Baasha had built; and king Asa built with them Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah- </p><p>We see here the value of stones and timber and the huge amount of labour needed to move them. This corroborates the way that Solomon's huge demand for these things led him into debt financially (see on <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a>) and into abusing his people for labour.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>These are the "fortified cities" of <a href='B:140 14:6'>2Ch 14:6</a>. See on <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>.</p><p>But in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet-</p><p>The record of Asa here is far more positive than that in Chronicles. For in <a href='B:140 16:12'>2Ch 16:12</a> we read that "his disease was exceeding great... yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians". As discussed on :3,11, Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God’s overall judgment was that he "did right in the eyes of Yahweh" (:11), despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Indeed it seems from <a href='B:140 26:12'>2Ch 26:12</a>&nbsp; that Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right". This surely affects our thinking about those who die in the low point of suicide. This doesn't necessarily preclude them from God’s salvation.</p>


text:
<p>Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place-</p><p><a href='B:140 16:14'>2Ch 16:14</a> gives far more information about the funeral: "They buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art, and they made a very great burning for him".</p>


text:
<p>Nadab the son of Jeroboam began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah; and he reigned over Israel two years- </p><p>"Nadab" means "liberal". "Two years" means parts of two years, rather than 24 months. Because his reign began in the second year of Asa and the next king began reigning in Asa's third year.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>If the "sin" in view were simply the worship of the golden calves, it is hard to see how all Israel sinned in this; for not all worshipped them. "His sin" may therefore refer to the sin of schism amongst God’s people, in which all Israel were involved, and the sin of division in that sense therefore touched all Israel literally, including Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Baasha the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar, conspired against him; and Baasha struck him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines; for Nadab and all Israel were laying siege to Gibbethon-</p><p>It appears that the prophet Jehu had apparently sanctioned what Baasha did (<a href='B:110 14:1-2'>1Ki 14:1-2</a>). But it was tragic that whilst fighting their common enemy the Philistines, tribal jealousies led to God’s people being less effective and fighting amongst themselves. Jeroboam’s family were from Ephraim (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>), so perhaps there was a tribal jealousy factor in someone from Issachar now trying to exterminate the whole family of Jeroboam, and thereby found a new dynasty. The infighting amongst the Israelites led to the siege being lifted, because in <a href='B:110 16:15'>1Ki 16:15</a> we find the siege resumed, and again a king of Israel is slain during a siege of the same city. We see here how Biblical history intentionally repeats itself. Situations repeat in our lives, so that we may learn from them. And often we fail, as Israel did in this matter. Within a period of 25 years at the most, two kings of Israel (Nadab and Elah) were killed by usurpers whilst the same city was being besieged.</p>


text:
<p>Even in the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha killed him, and reigned in his place- </p><p>"Reigned" is literally 'to be made king', perhaps suggesting he was anointed.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as he was king, he struck all the house of Jeroboam: he didn’t leave to Jeroboam any who breathed, until he had destroyed him; according to the saying of Yahweh which He spoke by His servant Ahijah the Shilonite- </p><p>The fact this had been prophesied didn’t mean it was the right thing for him to do. We note the radical difference with David, who expressly sought to show grace to the family of Saul the previous ruler- when the usual thing was to destroy the family of the previous king.</p>


text:
<p>for the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and with which he made Israel to sin, because of his provocation with which he provoked Yahweh the God of Israel, to anger- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Nadab and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>These comments suggest that this volume was available to the initial audience. It seems that the school of the prophets in Babylonian exile had access to the Old Testament scriptures, and I have often suggested that under Divine inspiration, they rewrote and reapplied parts of them with relevance for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days-</p><p>These notes about the conflict between Judah and Israel run as the saddest refrain throughout the historical records; for the division amongst God’s people, and their conflicts, were the greatest tragedy for God. The wars were all in defiance of His command not to do this (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha the son of Ahijah began to reign over all Israel in Tirzah for twenty-four years- </p><p>It seems the capital of the ten tribes moved away from Shechem to Tirzah, a location famed for its beauty (<a href='B:260 6:4'>Son 6:4</a>). These 24 years are reckoning as usual that parts of years are whole years (<a href='B:110 15:33'>1Ki 15:33</a> cp. <a href='B:110 16:8'>1Ki 16:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He did evil in the sight of Yahweh, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>The eyes of Yahweh may refer specifically to His Angels (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>; <a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>), who informed Yahweh, as it were, of human actions on earth. Whilst God is omniscient and omnipotent, He always seems to prefer to work through some human or Angelic mechanism.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying- </p><p>The prophet Jehu rebuked Baasha (<a href='B:110 16:1'>1Ki 16:1</a>) and yet he also wrote a history of Jehoshaphat's reign (<a href='B:140 20:34'>2Ch 20:34</a>), implying that he outlived Jehoshaphat. This means that Jehu must have been a young man at the time of his rebuke of Baasha. It's hard to keep on keeping on in ministry over a long lifetime, and those who do should be deeply respected. His father Hanani had rebuked Asa for his alliance with the Syrians against Baasha (<a href='B:140 16:7-10'>2Ch 16:7-10</a>), and now Jehu rebukes Baasha. Having to be constantly critical of people is not a nice ministry.</p>


text:
<p>Because I exalted you out of the dust, and made you prince over My people Israel, and you have walked in the way of Jeroboam, and have made My people Israel to sin, to provoke Me to anger with their sins- </p><p>Baasha was intended to learn from the path of Jeroboam, who had also been "exalted" (s:w. <a href='B:110 14:7'>1Ki 14:7</a>) from nothing to be prince over Israel, having been the son of a whore (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a> LXX). Baasha like Jeroboam made the people sin. We are intended to learn from the life path of others. This is why we have Biblical history, and it is why God controls the encounters of those we meet in life.</p><p>We can limit God’s plans to save others in the ecclesia by our attitude to them. We can make others stumble from the path to His salvation. Baasha made other people sin and thus provoke God to anger; his own sin and that of the people are described in identical language, to portray how he influenced them (<a href='B:110 16:2'>1Ki 16:2</a>; <a href='B:110 16:7'>1Ki 16:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>behold, I will utterly sweep away Baasha and his house; and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat- </p><p>This was the language of Jeroboam's judgment (<a href='B:110 14:10'>1Ki 14:10</a>). Baasha had failed to learn the lessons of Jeroboam and so he was judged in the same way.</p>


text:
<p>The dogs will eat Baasha’s descendants who die in the city; and he who dies of his in the field- the birds of the sky will eat- </p><p>This repeats the language of Jeroboam's judgment (<a href='B:110 14:11'>1Ki 14:11</a>). As noted on :3, Baasha was really intended to discern the wrong path of Jeroboam. As we may be with people who come into our lives. And he didn’t, so he went to the same destination which Jeroboam's "way" led to.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>These comments suggest that this volume was available to the initial audience. It seems that the school of the prophets in Babylonian exile had access to the Old Testament scriptures, and I have often suggested that under Divine inspiration, they rewrote and reapplied parts of them with relevance for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah; and Elah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The idiom of 'sleeping' for death implies resurrection (<a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a>). We will see these men again, at the day of judgment- and yet presumably they will be condemned to the "second death".</p>


text:
<p>Moreover by the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of Yahweh against Baasha, and against his house, both because of all the evil that he did in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. This is a major theme of this chapter (:2,7,13,26,33). He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p><p>And because he struck him-</p><p>Yet God had raised up Baasha to strike the house of Jeroboam. Perhaps we have a similar position was in <a href='B:290 47:6'>Isa 47:6</a>, where the nations raised up to judge Judah are themselves judged because they did so without showing mercy. There are times when we have to judge, not in the sense of condemning (<a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a>), but in the sense of judging righteous judgment (<a href='B:500 7:24'>Joh 7:24</a>). But we shall be condemned if we do so without the mercy which we ourselves are saved by. And this seems to be the reason for Baasha's condemnation, amongst other things.</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Baasha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah for two years- </p><p>"Elah" means "oak", which was associated with idolatry (s:w. <a href='B:330 6:13'>Eze 6:13</a>; <a href='B:350 4:13'>Hos 4:13</a>). This reflects upon Baasha's idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>His servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him. Now he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, who was over the household in Tirzah- </p><p>"Arza" is 'man of the earth'; "Zimri" means 'musical'. We note the lack of the 'Yah' suffix in the names, and how Elah was drunk when he was killed.</p>


text:
<p>and Zimri went in and struck him and killed him, in the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his place- </p><p>Elah began to reign in the 26th year of Asa, died in Asa's 27th year, and is counted as having reigned two years (:8). This means that the 'years' are counted as parts of years rather than literally 24 months.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he struck all the house of Baasha: he didn’t leave him a single male, neither of his relatives, nor of his friends- </p><p>We note the radical difference with David, who expressly sought to show grace to the family of Saul the previous ruler- when the usual thing was to destroy the family of the previous king. David’s behaviour was radically counter cultural, as is all displays of grace.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Zimri destroyed all the house of Baasha, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke against Baasha by Jehu the prophet- </p><p>As noted on :11, such destruction of the family of the usurped king was typical of secular behaviour at the time, but was not the way of grace. And yet God worked through this failure to fulfil His prophetic word. We learn from this that we may be used by God to do His will, but that doesn't of itself mean that what we are doing is right, nor are we justified by means of having been used to fulfil His will.</p>


text:
<p>for all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, which they sinned, and with which they made Israel to sin, to provoke Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger with their vanities- </p><p>We frequently read of the sins by which men sinned (AV "the sins of Baasha and the sins of Elah by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin"). How do you 'sin by a sin'? Surely in the sense that sin leads to sin.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Elah and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>See on :5. This "book" may not be the book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, Zimri reigned seven days in Tirzah. Now the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines- </p><p>The infighting amongst the Israelites led to the siege being lifted at the time of <a href='B:110 15:27'>1Ki 15:27</a>, because here in <a href='B:110 16:15'>1Ki 16:15</a> we find the siege resumed, and again a king of Israel is slain during a siege of the same city. We see here how Biblical history intentionally repeats itself. Situations repeat in our lives, so that we may learn from them. And often we fail, as Israel did in this matter. Within a period of 25 years at the most, two kings of Israel (Nadab and Elah) were killed by usurpers whilst the same city was being besieged.</p>


text:
<p>The people who were encamped heard say, Zimri has conspired, and has also struck the king: therefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the army, king over Israel that day in the camp- </p><p>The captain of the army was effectively second in common politically (<a href='B:120 9:5'>2Ki 9:5</a>, and consider the example of Joab with David). Zimri was an outsider and had slain all Elah's supporters, relatives of whom were likely in the military. So to make Omri king was logical, and the record is absolutely credible.</p>


text:
<p>Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah- </p><p>As noted before, the infighting amongst God’s people blunted their fulfilment of God’s will and the establishment of His Kingdom. Instead of besieging Gibbethon (:15), they left that important work and went to besiege their own brethren.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the castle of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over himself with fire, and died- </p><p>That palace had doubtless been the object of his envy for a long time. He destroyed himself along with it, for Zimri was identified with his envy. What he coveted was identified with him as a person. His death was his judgment (:"for his sins", :19), but was self inflicted. All judgment is in the end self-judgment.</p>


text:
<p>for his sins which he sinned in doing that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin- </p><p>We can make others sin (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 16:19'>1Ki 16:19</a>). There is an urgent imperative here, to really watch our behaviour; e.g. to not drink alcohol in the presence of a brother whose conscience is weak. Zimri was given just seven days in power, and was judged and condemned for how he behaved during those seven days. Other kings reigned many years. God in His wisdom knows how long to test a person.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he committed, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>Treason, assassination, short lived leaders and division (:21) were the experience of the ten tribes at this time, and this must be contrasted with the long and stable reign of Asa over Judah at this period. Clearly division and instability amongst God’s people is a work of the flesh, but it is used by God to show His displeasure and judgment upon a people. We can note the quick succession of rulers which brought the kingdom of Judah to an end. Division and instability within a church or community is in the end not just the works of the flesh, but a sign of Divine judgment upon them.</p>


text:
<p>Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri- </p><p>Again we note the lack of the Divine Name or suffix 'Yah' in these names. "Tibni" means 'man of straw'.</p>


text:
<p>But the people who followed Omri prevailed against the people who followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned- </p><p>See on :20. LXX adds that Tibni's brother Joram was also killed at this time. Such infighting and division within a community is a sign of Divine judgment, even if the individual participants are also guilty of wrong behaviour. The struggle between them went on for about four years (<a href='B:110 16:15'>1Ki 16:15</a> cp. 23).</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri began to reign over Israel for twelve years. He reigned six years in Tirzah- </p><p>The average length of reign of the ten tribes kings was far less than that of Judah's kings. See on :20. The four years of the civil war (see on :22) are not counted to neither Omri nor Tibni. The simple point is that in conflict between brethren, nobody really wins. See on :29.</p>


text:
<p>He bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver; and he built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built Samaria, after the name of Shemer the owner of the hill- </p><p>AV gives 6000 shekels. Abraham was an alien, and needed approval from the local community council to buy a burial place; and even then, the council had to speak with the owner and as it were do Abraham a favour. Further, the price of 400 shekels for some land with a cave in it to bury the dead was exorbitant (<a href='B:10 23:14'>Gen 23:14</a>). There are records of the sale of whole villages in northern Syria dating from about this time, recorded in the Alalakh Tablets. They were sold for between 100 and 1000 shekels. Jeremiah paid 17 shekels for a field (<a href='B:300 32:9'>Jer 32:9</a>); Omri paid 6000 shekels for the entire site of Samaria (<a href='B:110 16:24'>1Ki 16:24</a> AV). If ever we feel ripped off by this world, unreasonably treated in this land which is eternally ours, powerless to protest, left without option as Abraham was- then we are following in his steps, and are truly his "seed".</p>


text:
<p>Omri did evil in the sight of Yahweh, and dealt wickedly above all who were before him- </p><p>This phrase is common in the records, implying that there was on overall downward slide into apostacy until the people were at such a point that there had to be Divine judgment and intervention.</p>


text:
<p>For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sins with which he made Israel to sin, to provoke Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger with their vanities- </p><p>Giving our lives to vanity rather than to God provokes Him to great anger. It is a sin. And yet at no other time has God’s people faced such strong temptation to give their hearts and time to vanities, thanks to the online world of screens in which we live and move and have our beings.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he showed, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?</p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God’s "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]... but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria; and Ahab his son reigned in his place-</p><p>This phrase "slept with his fathers" clearly means he died, and often a clause to the effect "he was buried" follows it. The unconsciousness of death, as a sleep, is a teaching laboured in the Bible so very many times.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and he reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years- </p><p>If Omri reigned a total of 12 years starting from the 31st year of Asa (:23), it follows that there was an interregnum of about five years. Perhaps Omri was incapacitated, and during those last five years of his 'reign', his son Ahab reigned.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab the son of Omri did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh above all that were before him- </p><p>This statement is found often in the historical record, creating the impression of an overall downward slide to the point of lost relationship with God. We note that God does perceive degrees of sin; Ahab sinned "above" the previous kings. Whether we are to perceive these different degrees of sin in others' behaviour is a different question.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took as wife Jezebel- </p><p>Ahab's marriage to a Gentile was far worse than all the sins of Jeroboam; the idolatry, the perversion, the making of Israel sin; these were "a light thing" compared to the evil of marriage out of the faith (<a href='B:110 16:31'>1Ki 16:31</a>). That perspective on marriage out of the faith needs to be appreciated. And further, those who married the daughters of Ahab were led astray by them (<a href='B:120 8:18'>2Ki 8:18</a>; <a href='B:120 8:27'>2Ki 8:27</a>).</p><p>The daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him- </p><p>Tyre was originally a colony of Sidon; the terms are at times interchangeable. Ethbaal is called "king of Tyre" by Josephus (Antiquities 8:3:2), but "king of the Sidonians" in <a href='B:110 16:31'>1Ki 16:31</a>. Some of Tyre's coins celebrate it as "the metropolis of the Sidonians". The Yahweh worship of Hiram turned into Baal worship, resulting in the blasphemous cherubim idols explained on <a href='B:330 28:14'>Eze 28:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria- </p><p>The ten tribes' equivalent of Judah's temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem were the high places and two golden calves. But Ahab appears to have now matched Yahweh's temple with a kind of temple to Baal, built in Samaria.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab made the Asherah; and Ahab did yet more to provoke Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him-</p><p>This is stressed twice (see on :30). That Ahab should finally repent is therefore so significant. He is the parade example of why we should never give up on anyone as 'too far gone'.</p>


text:
<p>In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho: he laid its foundation with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun-</p><p>To even attempt to rebuilt Jericho meant a studied disregard of God’s word, considering Biblical records of Joshua's words to be merely the words of men. Hiel was from Bethel, where the golden calf was. Jericho had been inhabited after Joshua's time (<a href='B:70 3:13'>Jdg 3:13</a>; <a href='B:100 10:5'>2Sa 10:5</a>). So this was a conscious rebuilding of the walls with gates in defiance of Yahweh's word. And his sons died during the building work, perhaps 'at some time between the beginning, in laying the foundations, and the ending of the project, in hanging the gates'. After Abiram died laying the foundations, we would rather imagine that Hiel might have learned the lesson. But he didn’t, such was his desire to defy God’s word. And so his youngest son died when the project was almost completed and the gates were being hung. The desire to rebuild the settlement as a walled, gated city could have been because of its strategic position near the crossing of the Jordan river. Jericho was on the border of Ephraim but belonged to Benjamin (<a href='B:60 16:7'>Jos 16:7</a>; <a href='B:60 18:21'>Jos 18:21</a>), so it seems Ahab had taken it, and wanted to have the city and fortify it as a boundary against the two tribe kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah the Tishbite, who was among the foreigners of Gilead, said to Ahab- </p><p>This could imply Elijah was a Gentile (s:w. <a href='B:30 25:47'>Lev 25:47</a>), who named himself after Yahweh, 'My God is Yah'.</p><p>As Yahweh, the God of Israel, lives, before whom I stand- </p><p>‘Standing before the Lord’ refers to prayer- <a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a>; <a href='B:150 9:15'>Ezr 9:15</a>; <a href='B:300 15:1'>Jer 15:1</a>; <a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>. To live a life standing before the Lord is to live a life of prayer. Hence David and Paul say that prayer can be continual- in that life becomes a lived out prayer, with the practice of living in the presence of God. And straight away we ask ourselves, in lives just as busy as those of David and Paul, whether our self-talk, our minute by minute inner consciousness, is “before the Lord”…or merely the sheer and utter vapidity of the modern mind.</p><p>"Before whom I stand" was perhaps uttered too quickly. At Horeb, Elijah was asked to stand before Yahweh. But he hid terrified in a cleft of the rocks. We too are taught to put meaning into our words. James 5 says that Elijah prayed that there may be no rain. So "before whom I stand" may suggest that he had prayed about what he was going to do, and his whole life was a standing before God in prayer over this matter. He was convinced he was praying according to God's will, and so he confidently states that the answer will come- rain will be withheld, in accordance with the many statements that rain would stop falling if Israel were idolatrous. This alone is where confidence in prayer can come from. Elijah had faith and is presented as a "righteous man" in James 5, but of our passions- he was righteous but with many weaknesses.</p><p>There shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word- </p><p>Dt. 11:16,17; 28:24 had clearly stated that God would close the skies if Israel were idolatrous. James 5:17 says Elijah prayed earnestly it might not rain. So here we have a case of a man discerning God's will and his prayers therefore being answered. Elijah's word of prayer was effectively God's word. Baal was the storm / rain god, so lack of rain meant Baal had been closed down by the word of Yahweh's prophet. But Jezebel and Ahab desperately didn't want to perceive that. The closure of the skies, and thereby of Baal, was therefore an appeal to Israel to quit the useless Baal and return to Yahweh. </p><p>Here is an example of being sure of God’s will in what we pray for. If the Lord’s words abide in us, then we will ask what we will and it will be done; yet John also records that if we ask according to God’s will, it will be done for us. In Elijah's case, he knew God's will from His word. Our will and that of the Father come to coincide as His word takes an ever deeper lodgment in our consciousness. And this is how close Elijah must have been to knowing the will of God. Elijah alludes to Deuteronomy 28 in saying there would be no rain (and <a href='B:110 19:14'>1Ki 19:14</a> forsaken thy covenant= Deuteronomy 32)- therefore he could be so sure of being heard. His request that there be “no dew” was inspired by the prayers of Gideon and David, who had prayed just the same things (<a href='B:70 6:37'>Jdg 6:37</a>; <a href='B:100 1:21'>2Sa 1:21</a>; and <a href='B:110 18:33'>1Ki 18:33</a> = <a href='B:70 6:20'>Jdg 6:20</a>). Likewise the two witnesses of the last days will be inspired in their turn by Elijah’s example to pray that Heaven will be stopped. When it comes to prayer, there clearly is a positive pattern of influence and example both amongst us and from our absorbing the spirit of countless Biblical examples. The righteous man ‘decrees a thing in his heart and it is done’ through his prayers (<a href='B:220 22:28'>Job 22:28</a>). The same Hebrew words for ‘according’ and ‘word’ occur in both <a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>; <a href='B:110 17:24'>1Ki 17:24</a>: “There shall not be dew nor rain but according to my word…The word of the Lord in [according to] thy mouth”. Elijah’s word and will had become parallel with those of the Father. This was taken to the ultimate extent by the Lord, in whom the Father’s word was made flesh. But that same word slowly becomes flesh in us too. No longer do we request things that are not the Father’s will as through His word we become more attune to Him. Our experience of answered prayer becomes increasingly positive, reinforcing our faith in Him and our attention to prayerfulness. And this dovetails with our increasingly sensitive reading of His word daily. The Lord intended that we should all pray the prayer of command as Elijah did; for He taught that with faith, we should be able to tell a sycamore tree to be rooted up and planted in the sea (<a href='B:490 17:6'>Luk 17:6</a>). He doesn’t advise that we pray to the Father that the tree, according to His will, be rooted up and transplanted. He wants us to come to so know the will of the Father that we can pray the prayer of direct command. And this is quite some challenge.</p><p>Elijah could be so sure his prayer would be hear because he knew that he was genuinely motivated. His reason for withholding the rain and dew was so that Israel would come to repentance (<a href='B:660 5:16-18'>Jas 5:16-18</a>)- perhaps through them perceiving that lack of rain was a sign that they had broken the covenant. And that Baal, the rain god, was effectively dead. The people needed Yahwen, not Baal. But human motivation is complex, and rarely pure. Elijah did seek Israel's repentance, and yet so often all it was all about him. In this case, Elijah was somewhat harsher than God Himself, who had not yet withdrawn rain from His people. Elijah “shut the heavens”, even though Israel rejected him at that time (<a href='B:490 4:25-26'>Luk 4:25-26</a>). Their rejection of him is unrecorded in the Kings record, but we are left to reflect upon the wonder of the fact that Elijah’s response to reaction was not to merely hurt back, but to earnestly seek their restoration to God. He “prayed in his prayer” (<a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a> Gk:)- there was a deep prayer going on within his prayer, words and feelings within words- the prayer of the very inner soul. This was how much he sought their repentance. The James passage sets Elijah up as a pattern for our prayer for our wayward brethren. He really is our pattern here. He clearly saw prayer as requiring much effort; and the way he prays at the time of the evening sacrifice on Horeb suggests that he saw prayer as a sacrifice (<a href='B:110 18:36'>1Ki 18:36</a>).</p><p>A lack of rain was one of the Law’s curses for idol worship (<a href='B:50 11:10-12'>Deu 11:10-12</a>; <a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a>). Elijah’s response to Israel’s idolatry was to tell them there would be no rain (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a> cp. <a href='B:110 16:32-33'>1Ki 16:32-33</a>). Those reflective upon God’s Law would have realized the implied criticism which this carried; the more unspiritual would have just cursed Elijah for bringing about a devastating drought. Elijah had to pray daily for the lack of bread and water in Israel (so <a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a> implies). He suffered himself because of this. He was prepared to forego quite legitimate blessings in order to lead an apostate ecclesia back to God.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to him saying- </p><p>There seems to be a contrast between this, and how Elijah dogmatically declares his own word in :1, confident Yahweh would confirm it as his word, rather than giving a "Thus says Yahweh".</p>


text:
<p>Go away from here, turn eastward, and hide yourself by the brook Cherith, that is before the Jordan- </p><p>The whole incident on Horeb was to make Elijah see the supremacy of the still small voice; that it is in humble, quiet service rather than fiery judgment of others that the essence of God and spirituality is to be found. But God had prepared Elijah for this earlier. Elijah had to hide by the brook Cherith (<a href='B:110 17:3'>1Ki 17:3</a>) for three and a half years (<a href='B:490 4:25-26'>Luk 4:25-26</a>). Elijah was characterized by wearing a hairy garment like sackcloth (<a href='B:120 1:8'>2Ki 1:8</a> RV). In <a href='B:730 11:3'>Rev 11:3</a>; <a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a> we meet another Elijah figure- also clothed in sackcloth, with the power to bring fire down from Heaven, who for three and a half years…prophesies / preaches. We would expect Elijah to have been preaching during his time hidden by Cherith- but there is not a word of this in the record, indeed he is told to hide himself away from people. Could it not be that the Father wishes to show us what He was then trying to teach Elijah- that the essential prophetic witness is through us being as we are, the still small voice of witness through example…?</p><p>This fleeing eastward from persecution by Ahab , finding refuge with a family, recalls what Moses did after Pharaoh persecuted him. And so begins the many allusions to Moses. Elijah was set up to be the prophet like unto Moses, but failed to perceive Moses' spirit of love for Israel, and so he was dismissed.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, that you shall drink of the brook. I have commanded the ravens to feed you there- </p><p>Elijah was being paralleled with an apostate Israel, who were also sustained by food ‘commanded’ by God (s:w. <a href='B:160 9:21'>Neh 9:21</a>); the brook is described as “dried up”, using the same word about the Red Sea drying up. Elijah is being nudged towards identity with Israel. But instead he sees himself as alone with God, he alone is faithful and Israel deserve judgment, and Rom. 9 says that at Horeb he interceded with God against Israel. Later the Gentile widow is "commanded" to feed Elijah just as the unclean ravens were. He is being nudged towards accepting that he needs the unclean, and God is quite happy to work through the unclean. Yet Elijah felt himself to be so superior to Israel generally. But God was trying to teach him that in essence, he wasn’t. We have shown earlier that God sought to again show Elijah the same lesson when he went into the Sinai wilderness and was fed by an Angel. Perhaps he did learn the lesson when he says that he felt that he was not better than the Jewish fathers? For they walked 40 years as he walked 40 days in the very same place, also fed by Angels. God told Elijah that He had commanded unclean ravens to feed him; and thus He reminded Elijah of a basic fact, that God speaks to even unclean animals (<a href='B:10 1:22'>Gen 1:22</a>; Job)- and they obey him. The ravens not only obeyed Yahweh in going to Elijah, but in not eating the food they were carrying. Elijah likely considered that the fact God spoke to him meant that he must therefore have some automatic superiority over others. But not so. It’s the same with us. We can consider that because we have heard God’s true voice, we thereby are justified before Him. But He speaks to and uses all, clean and unclean.</p>


text:
<p>So he went and did according to the word of Yahweh; for he went and lived by the brook Cherith, that is before the Jordan- </p><p>Elijah is commended for his obedience to Yahweh's word, even though as explained on :3,4, it was humiliating for him. "Brook" is literally a torrent bed; "Cherith" means a "cut" or ravine. There would only be water in the deep ravine immediately after times of torrential rain. Seeing there was no such rain, it could be that the water in the torrent bed was therefore provided by God miraculously.</p><p>We note the repeated language in :15 about the widow woman: "So she went and did according to the saying of Elijah" matches "So he went and did according to the word of Yahweh". And as a result, they both ate and drunk "many days". Elijah was being led to identity with the woman. As will be discussed on :6, God was ever nudging Elijah to identity with the people of God, and those to whom he ministered. He was set up to be the prophet like Moses, but Moses supremely identified with people- whereas Elijah refused to be led toward empathy with people, and merely saw himself as the upholder of God's Truth upon earth. This same lack of empathy is found with so many legalistic believers who are maxed out on the apostacy of others and their own retention of orthodoxy. </p>


text:
<p>The ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook-</p><p>As a hyper observant Jew, evening and morning were the times when Elijah ought to have been sacrificing to God. But God’s intention was to teach him of His grace. Instead of Elijah offering food to God, God was giving food to him- and food made unclean by contact with unclean ravens. LXX has "loaves" for "bread", which would mean a possible connection with the loaves of the tabernacle rituals.</p><p>There is a clear parallel with Israel's experience in the wilderness: "At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread" (Ex. 16:12,13). He was being led to identity with Israel; a reminder that he was not separate from them. Moses showed a very clear identity with Israel and refused to separate from them, even when offered the chance of Israel being destroyed and he being made a great nation. Elijah by contrast wanted Israel destroyed, making intercession to God against Israel (Rom. 11:2). But God sought to teach Elijah to truly be as Moses, by giving him their experience in the wilderness. Elijah's life is the story of Divine hints, seeking to educate and spiritually develop him- and of so many of them being ignored. The parallels between Elijah and Moses are so many, that Elijah appears to be the intended prophet to be raised up "like unto" Moses of Dt. 18:18. But he is an example of where Divine potential is not realised; for he is fired from the job because he lacked the spirit and humility of Moses. See on :5.  </p>


text:
<p>It happened after a while, that the brook dried up, because there was no rain in the land-</p><p>As noted on :1, Elijah himself suffered the effects of the drought he had called upon Israel in order to lead them to repentance. Our efforts to help our brethren are often at deep personal cost to ourselves. I suggested on :5 that the water he drunk there was miraculously provided, because "brook" means 'torrent bed' and was a ravine which would only have water after torrential rains. So the translation here may be to the effect that 'The torrent bed had dried up because there had been no rain in the land, and after a while the word of Yahweh came to him…' (:8).</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to him saying- </p><p>This is as in :2, we get the sense that God meant Elijah to learn in stages. His time at Cherith was to develop him to accept God’s grace and realize that ritual purity was not going to save anyone of itself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and stay there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you- </p><p>God had sought to gently teach Elijah his need for others when He told Elijah to go to the widow woman in Zarephath who would “sustain you"; it worked out that Elijah sustained her. And he must have reflected upon this. But perhaps, therefore, God’s intention was that spiritually, Elijah's experience with that woman would sustain him. "Zarephath" means 'place of refinement' and clearly Elijah's time there was intended for his refinement. It is emphasized that Zarephath belonged to Sidon because this was where Jezebel's father reigned (<a href='B:110 16:32'>1Ki 16:32</a>). Even in the heart of apostacy, Elijah was to encounter obedience and commitment to Yahweh's word. But his later insistence that he alone remained faithful was effectively his trashing the woman's faith and commitment as not enough to count as faithfulness to Yahweh.</p><p>There is no evidence that the woman was commanded to feed Elijah by some specific revelation to her. Rather, the commandment may refer to the word of potential command which God had given the woman. But it came to her through circumstances.</p>


text:
<p>So he arose and went to Zarephath; and when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks: and he called to her and said, Please get me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink- </p><p>The woman “gathering sticks” (<a href='B:110 17:10'>1Ki 17:10</a>) would likely have stimulated his Bible-steeped mind to think of the illegal gathering of sticks in <a href='B:40 15:32-33'>Num 15:32-33</a>. For this is the only other Biblical reference to gathering sticks.</p>


text:
<p>As she was going to get it, he called to her and said, Please bring me a morsel of bread in your hand- </p><p>See on :12. On :13 I discuss whether these demands were simply part of God’s demand upon the woman, or whether they also simply reflect Elijah's arrogance and inappropriate sense of entitlement.</p>


text:
<p>She said, As Yahweh your God lives- </p><p>Perhaps she had experienced a specific revelation from Yahweh about Elijah (:9). Or maybe Elijah was well known in the area. Or again, perhaps we are only reading a tiny part of their conversation, and the woman may have realized that the drought was because of Elijah's prayer to Yahweh.</p><p>I don’t have a cake, but a handful of flour in a pitcher, and a little oil in a pitcher. Behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and bake it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die-</p><p><a href='B:110 17:11'>1Ki 17:11</a> in Hebrew has Elijah asking the woman: ‘Bring me a handful of bread’- and she replies that she has only a handful of flour (<a href='B:110 17:12'>1Ki 17:12</a>). Yet even this is demanded of her. Her handful of flour in a&nbsp;pitcher gives the impression of a handful of meal in a very large container; it’s an eloquent picture of her poverty, and how she was down to the last little bit of flour in a large container that was once full. And the Lord through Elijah demanded this of her, that He might save her.</p><p>Later, the Angel gave Elijah cake and water (<a href='B:110 19:6'>1Ki 19:6</a>) just as the unclean ravens and Gentile widow woman had done- to teach Elijah that God works through those people.</p><p>There were two occasions in which God fed Elijah with a cake when he was hungry. Once when the widow woman baked him one (<a href='B:110 17:13'>1Ki 17:13</a>), and once when the Angel did (<a href='B:110 19:6'>1Ki 19:6</a>). Surely God was trying to show Elijah that He was manifested through that desperately poor, weak, sick, starving widow woman who was at the point of death from starvation. It was the same message- that God wasn’t in the earthquake and fire, but in the still small voice.</p><p>The widow woman&nbsp;was prepared to die. The tragedy of that gaunt woman touches me deeply. I imagine her tidying the house, and then walking out into the blazing heat to gather sticks. But she gave her last bit to God’s man Elijah; not, it seems, with any hope of getting out of her plight. She gave of her very last, her best, her all, not expecting anything back. Another widow, centuries later, threw her two mites into the collection bag of a fabulously rich, doctrinally corrupt, hypocritical ecclesia. The implication is that she died even more pathetically, perhaps tossed onto Gehenna with the starving cats. There seems to have been no happy ending- in this life. And she absolutely understood that.</p><p>LXX "sons", which would explain why she and her family ate many days (:15).</p><p>The meal she was preparing was not for sustenance, but a funeral meal- a very humble one. [To eat at a funeral is part and parcel of a funeral in many cultures, although not so much in Anglo-Saxon culture. This is the basis of the "breaking of bread" to commemorate the Lord's death]. The closing of the skies and lack of rain had shown the powerlessness of Baal, the rain god. But in Canaanite mythology, Baal was slain by Mot, the god of death. But now, even Mot, supposedly more powerful than Baal, has been shown impotent by Elijah. The woman and her son were absolutely on the point of death- and Elijah had saved them from death, rescued them from the supposed power of Mot. </p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to her, Don’t be afraid. Go and do as you have said; but make me of it a little cake first, and bring it out to me, and afterward make some for you and for your son- </p><p>Elijah asked the widow woman to first feed him, and after feed herself and her son. when she had given him all the food she had. The Hebrew word translated “after” is that translated “last”- ‘put me first and yourself last’, Elijah is saying. Wasn’t this arrogant? He was so sure he was manifesting God that he could demand that she put him first and herself last. But God is demanding, and yes He worked through Elijah. But one does get the sense that Elijah felt he &nbsp;should be put first. God can be demanding, but we don’t have the same right to be upon others.</p><p>The Gentile widow was clearly a believer in Yahweh, as the Lord implies in Lk. 4. Elijah was sent to her because of her faith even though it was incomplete and faltering- for she speaks of "your God" and only after her son is raised does she make a full confession of faith. She presumably recognized Elijah as Yahweh's prophet, and put Yahweh first above her own most desperate and immediate needs. Elijah was being nudged to understand that those whom he considered definitely not God's people- a Gentile female living in the heart of Jezebel territory- in fact were. But he fails to follow where he is led, for he insists he alone remains faithful to Yahweh. And for this he is fired from his potential commission as the prophet like unto Moses.</p>


text:
<p>For thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘The jar of meal shall not empty, neither shall the jar of oil fail, until the day that Yahweh sends rain on the earth’- </p><p>See on :16. The food and water of condemned Israel did "fail" (s:w. <a href='B:330 4:17'>Eze 4:17</a>), but that of the revived remnant didn’t (s:w. <a href='B:290 51:14'>Isa 51:14</a>). Israel faithful to the covenant suffered no lack (<a href='B:20 16:18'>Exo 16:18</a>; <a href='B:50 2:7'>Deu 2:7</a> s:w. "fail"). This woman was being treated like the faithful in Israel, although she was a Gentile.</p>


text:
<p>She went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, ate many days- </p><p>She was responsible for more than just one son; hence :12 LXX says she had "sons", plural. The end result of all this was that she was converted to Yahweh (see on :24). And <a href='B:490 4:26'>Luk 4:26</a> notes that there was no starving widow in Israel who was so open to conversion as this Gentile woman. The Lord again alludes to her in saying that who ever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, receives a prophet’s reward; even if they give a little one a cup of cold water, just as the woman gave water to Elijah (<a href='B:470 10:41-42'>Mat 10:41-42</a>). This would equate Elijah with a "little one". His spirituality was as immature as that of the disciples, whom the Lord also called "little ones". Faith is not the same as hope and love, and Elijah's faith was not the same as spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The jar of meal didn’t empty, neither did the jar of oil fail, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Elijah-</p><p>We note that it was not the meal or oil which is described as not finishing, but rather the containers of those products. We see the similarity with how the extent of Elijah's miracle of multiplying the widow's oil depended upon the number of pots borrowed.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so severe, that there was no breath left in him- </p><p>The idea is, that he died (:18). Perhaps death is described in this way because Elijah was to breath the breath of life back into him.</p>


text:
<p>She said to Elijah, What have I to do with you- </p><p>The idiom means 'Go away!' (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>; <a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a>). She had hosted Elijah and cared for him, and now she feels his presence has brought about the death of her son. And so she wants him to leave.</p><p>You man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to memory, and to kill my son!- </p><p>In her desperation, the woman felt that Elijah's presence had attracted God’s attention to her, and brought some personal sin to His memory. Perhaps her son had been conceived out of wedlock. Many times we read of God being provoked to remember someone, for good or for evil (<a href='B:30 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a> LXX "that God may mercifully remember"; <a href='B:230 69:1'>Psa 69:1</a> LXX; 37:1 LXX; <a href='B:450 6:14'>Zec 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 17:18'>1Ki 17:18</a>). We could accept this as mere anthropomorphism. Or we could reflect deeper, and wonder whether this language of limitation suggests that the God who could be omniscient over time, not needing to have anything brought back to His memory, allows Himself to 'forget' so that sin or righteousness again brings things to His remembrance. And it can work positively too. Thus generosity and prayer is a memorial before God in the sense that it brings a person to His memory or attention (<a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a>), and He appropriately responds in their lives. When sin gets to a certain point, it causes other sins to be remembered by God, and thus judgment comes (<a href='B:730 18:5'>Rev 18:5</a>). It has been suggested by Joachim Jeremias that the Lord's command to break bread in remembrance of Him can mean 'that God may remember me'.</p><p>We see here the psychological credibility of the Biblical record. Extreme circumstances do elicit awareness of past sin. The art of course is to be humble and allow God's word to elicit that awareness and repentance, rather than having to be brought to fess up through major hammer blows.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Give me your son. He took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into the room where he stayed, and laid him on his own bed- </p><p>The focus of the Divine cameraman is zoomed in upon the woman holding the dead child to her breast, and Elijah prizing the child away from her. He performs the healing miracle on the bed she had provided for him, in order to demonstrate that in fact the child was not slain because of Elijah's presence in the house; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>He cried to Yahweh and said, Yahweh my God, have You also brought evil on the widow with whom I stay, by killing her son?- </p><p>The force of "also" is that Elijah perhaps considered that the drought that affected Phoenicia was not what he had intended, as he wished the drought to bring Israel to repentance. But he was being taught that God wanted idolatrous Gentiles such as the Sidonians, of whom Jezebel was one, to also repent. And not just be witnessed against for their sins. He struggles to understand how the child of the widow who had cared for him should be slain. He was being given the problem of evil to struggle with, just as we are, in order to humble him. For he needed that. He was being forced to recognize he did not know all about God. There were things he didn’t understand. Our inability to immediately attach meaning to event is intended likewise.</p><p>Despite his union with the Father, this didn’t preclude Elijah questioning God. So in the midst of this tremendously powerful prayer, Elijah remonstrates with God: ‘Have You brought evil…?’. The Hebrew for ‘evil’ usually means evil&nbsp; in the sense of sin- ‘have You brought the result of sin... on her as well as upon this people?’. &nbsp;This is all part of a passionate, living relationship with a living God.</p><p>Elijah clearly considers both he and the widow woman had suffered unjustified "evil" from Yahweh. Moses likewise considered Yahweh's judgment at Kibroth Hattaavah to be "evil" in his eyes (Num. 11:10). "Why have You dealt ill [evil] with Your servant" recalls Moses' words in Ex. 5:22 "Why have You done evil to this people?". Elijah perceived he was the intended prophet like unto Moses, but he abuses this by considering that therefore Moses' weak moments could be replicated by him. He fails to perceive and rise up to the better side of Moses- his self sacrificial love for his people, his intercession for them rather than against them, as Elijah is understood as doing by Paul in Romans. </p><p>Another approach is that Elijah's apparently caustic words to God are in fact his way of interceding for the widow. Because he is saying to God the essence of what she has said to him in :18, accusing God of being too hard on her for her sins and slaying her son for the sake of her sins. And Romans 8 explains that this is how the Lord Jesus, as "the spirit", intercedes for us- placing the essence of our spirit, our unspoken, unverbalized positions, before God in His own words. The Lord is not merely a translator from one language to another, but places our inner spirit before God. Elijah places his body on the boy's body, doing press ups over the boy (:21)- to ask God to see the boy's dead body as identified with his living body. And this again is how we are saved by the Lord's intercession, we identify with His body and are saved thereby, as His spirit enters us and becomes our spirit, just as happened here physically. <p>


text:
<p>He stretched himself on the child three times, and cried to Yahweh and said, Yahweh my God, please let this child’s soul come into him again-</p><p>"Soul" would be better rendered 'life'. The soul typically refers to the person. The spirit of life which animates people is that which animates all of creation, and it returns to God, not in the sense of an immortal soul or conscious existence after death. Perhaps the way that the first six prayers of Elijah for rain went unanswered, his need to pray three times for the child to resurrect, were all part of God teaching Elijah that no matter how close we are to Him, we have no right to expect automatic answers to prayer, even if they are according to God’s will.</p><p>Baal was thought to be the god of fertility, who gave oil, brought fire, lightning, rain and water, and who was thought to be able to heal the sick and revive the dead. The various incidents in the Elijah account all therefore show the preeminence of Yahweh over Baal. Elijah presents as absolutely confident that this was the case, and therefore he does miracles knowing that Yahweh will come through for him. But as Paul explains in 1 Cor. 13, faith alone is not spirituality; for without love, the greatest faith is nothing, even if mountains are actually moved by it. That means that God may respond to faith in Him, even if the believer has no love and is therefore spiritually nothing. Elijah is an essay in this. Elijah was only interested in demonstrating Yahweh's superiority over Baal, but it is questionable whether he made any lasting converts from Baal worship to Yahweh. Because he wasn't interested in people- at least initially. He was removed from his post after his shameful intercession against Israel in 1 Kings 19. But we must square this against Malachi's apparently strange comment that Elijah in future will turn the heart of the fathers to the children and vice versa (Mal. 4:6). This makes sense once we understand that Baal worship involved child sacrifice, as the preceding section in 1 Kings 16 makes clear. This created tension and no "heart" between fathers and children, and vice versa. After his demotion, Elijah carried on believing- and we can assume that he "got it". His future work will therefore involve caring for people, and turning fathers and children towards each other in that they have quit Baal. Elijah will finally learn from his immaturity, and become people focused. </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh listened to the voice of Elijah- </p><p>Just as He had done in :1 when it was Elijah's voice which brought forth the drought that slew so many. But his voice likewise had the power of revival. And that is what God wanted to teach Elijah out of all this; not to simply judge for sin, but to ever seek revival.</p><p>And the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived- </p><p>“When Jesus saw the faith of the friends, He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, your sins are forgiven you” (<a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>). That man was healed for the sake of the faith of others. The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer; and thus <a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a> alludes to this incident by saying that through faith- in this case, the faith of Elijah, a third party- women received their dead raised to life. The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of his faith; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of his faith (<a href='B:480 5:36'>Mar 5:36</a>). This inspires us to endless effort for the sake of others. Clearly God worked through Elijah giving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It was Elijah's breath which entered the child, but it was the source of the child's new life. There is no teaching here about immortal souls returning into bodies. The soul [effectively, the life] came from Elijah's breath / spirit. Which represented God’s Spirit reviving the dead.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the room into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Elijah said, Behold, your son lives- </p><p>The Lord Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (<a href='B:110 17:23'>1Ki 17:23</a> = <a href='B:500 4:50-53'>Joh 4:50-53</a>). He also, however, shows that Elijah's "spirit" wasn't always correct, although it was used by God. For in the context of Elijah, He rebukes the disciples for having the wrong spirit, in seeking to have the spirit of Elijah. The idea of fire from Heaven, which Elijah called down, is found in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:490 12:49-54'>Luk 12:49-54</a>, where He associates it with division in the brotherhood. And the Lord went on to say that the Pharisees could interpret a cloud arising in the West as a sign that rain was coming, but they could not forgive their brethren, which was what was essential (<a href='B:490 12:54'>Luk 12:54</a>). This just has to be a reference to Elijah, who saw a cloud arising from the West as a sign of rain. The Lord is, it seems, sadly associating Elijah with the Pharisees. And yet... despite all this,&nbsp; Jesus likens Himself to Elijah. Jesus sent fire on earth as Elijah did (<a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a>). And the context of the <a href='B:490 9:54'>Luk 9:54</a> reference to Elijah is that the Lord’s time had come that he should be “received up”, and “he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (<a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a>). This is all very much the language of Elijah (<a href='B:120 2:1'>2Ki 2:1</a>). The Lord Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (<a href='B:110 17:23'>1Ki 17:23</a> = <a href='B:500 4:50-53'>Joh 4:50-53</a>). What this shows is that the Lord saw what was good in Elijah, and He didn’t separate Himself from someone who didn’t have His Spirit. He simply wanted His followers to learn better from him.</p><p>Jewish tradition claims that the boy became Elijah's servant of whom we will later read, and that he was the prophet Jonah.</p>


text:
<p>The woman said to Elijah, Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of Yahweh in your mouth is truth- </p><p>This means more than 'God’s word is true'; it is an expression of faith that Yahweh is the one true God. The way the woman talks about “Yahweh your God”, to which Elijah responds by speaking of “Yahweh, the God of Israel”, implies that she did not even believe in Israel’s God (<a href='B:110 17:12'>1Ki 17:12</a>; <a href='B:110 17:14'>1Ki 17:14</a>). She didn’t even initially believe at that time that Elijah was a man of God (so :24 implies); and so, we can conclude, the daily miracle of the meal and oil not drying up did not deeply touch her, just as the daily provision of manna did not seem to register with most of Israel in the wilderness. She even seems to have been cynical in earlier calling him a “man of God”, because only later did she say that she really believe he was this (<a href='B:110 17:18'>1Ki 17:18</a>; <a href='B:110 17:24'>1Ki 17:24</a>). But now she was his first recorded convert. This was all to teach Elijah that God works not only with the clean, and not only with those in covenant with Him:&nbsp;And as noted in :22, Elijah was being taught that he was to make converts and revive people, not merely judge them as sinners.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after many days, that the word of Yahweh came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, show yourself to Ahab; and I will send rain on the earth- </p><p>Elijah said that there would be no rain "but according to my word" (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). His faith was undoubtedly based upon being attune to the will of God and His ways of working with His people, to the extent that he knew that because the word abided in him, he could ask what he wanted and it would be heard, because he asked according to God’s will. But when the time comes for rain, we read that "the word of Yahweh [not Elijah's word] came to Elijah... saying... I will send rain upon the earth" (<a href='B:110 18:1'>1Ki 18:1</a>):&nbsp;It seems Elijah was more interested in judging the people for their sins, than seeing their repentance.  God wanted to send the rain because of His pity, in the spirit of Dt. 32:36 "For Yahweh will judge His people and have compassion / pity on His servants when He sees that their power is gone, that there is none remaining, shut up or left at large". Both Obadiah and the widow of Zarephath feel that Elijah had brought their sins to rememberance, or tried to. And he failed to recognize the repentance when it came. He will later insist that he alone is faithful to Yahweh. He discounted the 7000 who had not bowed to Baal, and the 100 prophets hidden by Obadiah; as well as Obadiah and the widow woman of 1 Kings 17. As well as Micaiah and the various faithful prophets who appear later in the record at this time. But perhaps all these faithful ones were those who had responded to the three years of drought. Even if Elijah discounted them.</p><p>Elijah had reasoned that because God's word said there would be drought if Israel were disobedient, therefore he could pray to God for a drought and be assured of an answer. And so it happened. But he doesn't get God's grace- that in wrath God remembers mercy, whether or not Israel have repented. God tells him that the drought is now over. In his legalistic way, Elijah assumes this must mean that Israel have repented. And so he sets up the contest on Carmel. When he prays for rain to come, this is because he thinks that Israel have repented- whereas 18:1 clearly states that it was God who decided to send rain by grace, without repentance. The fact Ahab is present with Elijah and appears to accept the outcome of the contest encouraged him in this. And therefore, on the basis that he thought Israel had repented, Elijah prays to God for rain. But when Ahab's repentance is shortlived as soon as he returns to Jezebel... Elijah therefore falls into depression. Because he just didn't get it, that God's basic pity and dislike of judgment meant that He had decided to cut short the drought by His sovereign grace.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah went to show himself to Ahab. The famine was severe in Samaria- </p><p>This was a risky thing to do, as Ahab and Jezebel had been searching everywhere for Elijah with a view to killing him. But Elijah is to be commended for obeying God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab called Obadiah, who was over the household. (Now Obadiah feared Yahweh greatly- </p><p>We naturally wonder how he could have retained his responsible post at the palace of Baal worshippers. He presumably like Naaman must have gone through some motions of Baal worship. But his heart was "greatly" with Yahweh. Elijah will later state that he alone is faithful in Israel. Obadiah's surface level failure was enough for Elijah to write him off completely. And there is strong warning to us here.</p><p>Obadiah saved the lives of 100 prophets. Elijah took the lives of 450 prophets and 100 soldiers. When the disciples wanted to imitate Elijah by bringing down fire from Heaven, the Lord rebuked them by saying they didn't know what Spirit they had. We wonder if one function of Obadiah in the narrative is to point out what is a far more effective way of serving Yahweh- humbly living out His principles and secretly doing His work, as opposed to the antics of Elijah on the public stage. Obadiah, as his name means, was a servant of Yahweh. He surely is presented as a kind of foil for Elijah, who speaks of himself as a "man of God". </p>


text:
<p>for it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Yahweh, that Obadiah took one hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water)- </p><p>God tried to correct Elijah’s despising of the other prophets of the Lord. Elijah was in a cave, and was also fed bread and water- just as the other prophets were. And yet Elijah didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, that connection- after having been reminded of this experience of the other prophets, he claims that “I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 18:22'>1Ki 18:22</a>)- he wrongly believed that all other valid prophets had been slain (<a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a>). In fact the record shows how that during Elijah’s lifetime there were other prophets of Yahweh active in His service (<a href='B:110 20:13'>1Ki 20:13</a>; <a href='B:110 20:35'>1Ki 20:35</a>). And yet the lesson is that God still works through the conceited, the spiritually superior, those who despise their brethren. God didn’t give up on Elijah because he was like this, and neither should we give up in our relationship with such brethren.</p><p>The fact Elijah was hidden by God meant that he was forced into fellowship with the prophets of Yahweh whom Obadiah hid in a cave. Elijah was thus intended to see a link between Obadiah and God, and himself and the other prophets of Yahweh. But Elijah’s pride didn’t let himself make the connection, just as ours often doesn’t. For he continued doubtful of Obadiah’s sincerity, and still insisted that he alone remained a faithful prophet of Yahweh- even though Obadiah had hidden one hundred other prophets from Jezebel’s persecution. Those one hundred prophets were presumably part of the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab said to Obadiah, Go through the land, to all the springs of water, and to all the brooks. Perhaps we may find grass and save the horses and mules alive, so that we don’t lose all the animals- </p><p>This reflects the pitiful selfishness of Ahab. He like Solomon was obsessed with his horses, which a true king of Israel ought not to have had (<a href='B:50 17:16-17'>Deu 17:16-17</a>). For Ahab, the worst thing about the famine was that there was no fodder for his prized herd of horses, and he personally is so concerned about it that he and the master of his household go around Israel searching for grass to feed them with, lest he have to slay them.</p><p>Elijah was fed by unclean ravens with unclean food. His conception of the unclean was thereby challenged by a Divine re-education. But Obadiah likewise was an instrument of Divine feeding for God's prophets. Elijah should have learned the lesson, and accepted that Obadiah was likewise clean, and not made unclean by his association with Ahab. </p>


text:
<p>So they divided the land between them to pass throughout it: Ahab went one way by himself, and Obadiah went another way by himself-</p><p>As noted on :5, Ahab personally went out in search of fodder for his beloved but unlawful herd of horses, because they meant so very much to him. He was far less concerned about the fate of his people. If Obadiah had been a literalist, he would have challenged Ahab about the matter, citing the words of <a href='B:50 17:16-17'>Deu 17:16-17</a> as to how Israel's king shouldn't have horses; and arguing that he should accept the loss of them as a quite legitimate punishment for breaking the covenant. Obadiah didn’t do this; instead he assisted in the search for fodder for the illegal horses. Yet he "feared Yahweh greatly"- that is the Divine comment upon him. We do indeed have the example of Daniel in Babylon, not defiling himself with the king's meat, and insisting on publically praying toward Jerusalem when this was forbidden. But the Bible also brings before us the example of Obadiah, who was not like that. And of Elijah, who condemned him as not really genuine, and was himself condemned for judging in that way.</p>


text:
<p>As Obadiah was in the way, behold, Elijah met him: and he recognized him and fell on his face and said, Is it you, my lord Elijah?- </p><p>Elijah must have been known as a prophet for Obadiah to recognize him. Presumably he had advertised the fact that the drought was because of his word (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>), and was an invitation for Israel to accept that they were receiving the consequences of breaking the covenant and needed to repent.</p>


text:
<p>He answered him, It is I. Go, tell your lord, ‘Behold, Elijah is here!’- </p><p>Elijah is mocking Obadiah's addressing of him as "my lord" (:7). He is saying that Ahab is Obadiah's lord, and he did not accept Obadiah as one of his servants, nor a servant of Yahweh. Because Elijah considered himself the sole remaining Yahweh worshipper.  "Obadiah" means 'servant of Yahweh', but Elijah is opining that Obadiah is servant of his lord Ahab, not Yahweh. We continually see Elijah presented as arrogant and elitist. If not narcissistic.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Wherein have I sinned, that you would deliver your servant into the hand of Ahab, to kill me?- </p><p>Again, Obadiah insists that he is Elijah's servant, and not that of Ahab. See on :8. We note that the widow woman likewise considered that Elijah was treating her as a sinner (<a href='B:110 17:18'>1Ki 17:18</a>). Elijah came over as so spiritually superior that he made people feel bad about themselves. No wonder his ministry was taken away from him.</p>


text:
<p>As Yahweh your God lives- </p><p>This is exactly the language of the widow woman in <a href='B:110 17:12'>1Ki 17:12</a>. Elijah is being made to see the similarity between these two faithful people, who lived in totally different situations. But it seems he considered neither of them to be sincere worshippers of Yahweh; he later says that he alone was left faithful.</p><p>There is no nation or kingdom where my lord has not sent to seek you. When they said, ‘He is not here’, he took an oath of the kingdom and nation, that they didn’t find you- </p><p>As noted on :7, Elijah was known to be the one who had caused the famine. And Ahab wrongly assumed he had fled Israel so as not to have to endure the famine himself.</p><p>This shows the total obscurity of the widow woman. The great search for Elijah didn't think of going to her. But Elijah must have remained secluded in her home for probably three years. This was surely to seek to educate and teach him. But still he refused to accept Obadiah and the other prophets as of Yahweh, insisting that he alone was faithful to Yahweh. Even after those three years of Divine re-education. </p>


text:
<p>Now you say, ‘Go, tell your lord, Behold, Elijah is here’- </p><p>Elijah evidently didn’t have too positive a view of anyone apart from himself- and that included faithful Obadiah. Obadiah repeatedly calls Elijah “my Lord” and describes himself as “your servant”; but Elijah responds to this by calling Obadiah the servant of Ahab- he tells him to go and tell “your Lord”, i:e. Ahab (<a href='B:110 18:7-14'>1Ki 18:7-14</a>). Elijah is insisting that he and Obadiah have nothing in common- Obadiah serves Ahab, and he is nothing to do with Elijah. ‘Obadiah’ means ‘servant of Yahweh’- the name surely reflects very faithful parents to have called him that at the time of the Baal cult. But Elijah insists that Obadiah is really a servant of Ahab, not of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen, as soon as I am gone from you, that the spirit of Yahweh will carry you I don’t know where; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he can’t find you, he will kill me. But I, your servant, have feared Yahweh from my youth- </p><p>It seems it was a common occurrence for Elijah to be snatched away by the Spirit. His snatching away into the sky when Elisha replaces him needs to be read in this context. Which is why after that, the sons of the prophets go out looking for him, assuming he has been dropped down in some remote location. We should not therefore read that incident as meaning that Elisha was snatched up into Heaven. For no man has ascended to Heaven (<a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a>).</p><p>Obadiah here assumes that if Elijah's life was in danger, there was only one way for God to save him- by His spirit whisking Elijah away to safety. Obadiah assumes this will happen when Elijah meets Ahab. But it is in these assumptions about God's "options" that we are time and again proven so wrong.</p>


text:
<p>Wasn’t it told my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of Yahweh, how I hid one hundred men of Yahweh’s prophets with fifty to a cave, and fed them with bread and water?- </p><p>Obadiah faithfully hid Yahweh's prophets, at the risk of his life; but when tested again in this matter, he was fearful to appear to Ahab to have been hiding Elijah's location (<a href='B:110 18:10-12'>1Ki 18:10-12</a>). We can pass the test at one stage in our lives, and yet when the same test repeats later, we may still fail.</p><p>Elijah felt he was the only faithful man left in Israel. Yet <a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a> records how he was reminded that Obadiah had fed Yahweh’s prophets in a cave with bread and water. Elijah also had been hidden in a cave and fed with bread and water. <a href='B:110 17:4'>1Ki 17:4</a>; <a href='B:110 17:9'>1Ki 17:9</a>; <a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a>; <a href='B:110 18:13'>1Ki 18:13</a> all use the same Hebrew word for feed / fed / sustain. The connection was to try to teach him his linkage with the prophets, whom he felt were still apostate. God tries to teach us things but we often fail to grasp the potential understanding made possible; be aware that He is trying! Elijah was fed by both ravens and a widow, as the prophets were fed by Obadiah. The raven and the Gentile widow woman were both ‘commanded’ [s:w:] to feed Elijah by God. Both would have been seen by him as unclean. God repeatedly tried to teach Elijah that true spirituality is about doing what is counter-instinctive in terms of personal self-control- rather than about blasting others for their apostacy, hard words when provoked, etc. Hence God begins by making Elijah's very life depend upon being fed by unclean birds bringing him food. Those ravens had to avoid bringing him dead meat- which is their usual food. They had to surrender their food to him, when there was little food around; and they had to come up to a man and give him their food, all of which was counter-instinctive for ravens. And thus Elijah was shown that life itself, especially spiritual life, depends upon counter-instinctive behaviour. And within Elijah's personality type, to criticize and condemn others was instinctive behaviour.</p>


text:
<p>Now you say, ‘Go, tell your lord, Behold, Elijah is here!’- and he will kill me- </p><p>If Ahab would have killed Obadiah for reporting a false sighting of Elijah, then how much more likely would he have been to have killed Obadiah for hiding the prophets in :13. So Obadiah is volunteering very personal information to Elijah, so desperate was he for Elijah to accept him as sincere. But for all that sacrifice and risk in sharing the information, Elijah would not accept him as genuine. For he considered only himself as genuine.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said, As Yahweh of Armies lives, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself to him today- </p><p>To stand before Yahweh implied Elijah was a prophet, and he seems to love to emphasize this to Obadiah, considering Obadiah not at all the 'servant of Yahweh' which he claimed to be and which his name meant. Elijah implies that Obadiah was disbelieving the prophetic word by raising the concern he had.</p>


text:
<p>So Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him; and Ahab went to meet Elijah-</p><p>We are invited to imagine what were Ahab's feelings. He had searched high and low for Elijah, seeking to kill him being responsible for the drought. And now he was invited to go and meet him.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, Is that you, you troubler of Israel?- </p><p>LXX "the perverter". Ahab justified his persecution of Elijah by reasoning that Elijah was perverting the true Israelite religion. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>He answered, I have not troubled Israel; but you, and your father’s house, in that you have forsaken the commandments of Yahweh, and you have followed the Baals- </p><p>One of Elijah’s problems was that because he spoke the truth, God confirmed his words; but this didn’t mean that Elijah himself was always morally acceptable to God. Thus Ahab accuses Elijah of being the one who troubles Israel, like Achan (<a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a>), for whose sake many of the people suffered. Elijah replies that it is Ahab who is the troubler of Israel, the Achan character. And he lived up to this, for in his days they sought to rebuild Jericho, and the curse associated with Achan came true at that time (<a href='B:110 16:34'>1Ki 16:34</a>). Elijah’s words were justified, just as the truth we speak to those around us may be- because it is the truth of God. But this doesn’t of itself mean that we are right before God personally, nor does it mean that we can in any way presume to ‘play God’.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel to Mount Carmel, and four hundred and fifty of the prophets of Baal, and four hundred of the prophets of the Asherah who eat at Jezebel’s table-</p><p>Although these prophets were to be slain later in this chapter, we read again of Ahab having 400 false prophets later in his reign (<a href='B:110 22:6'>1Ki 22:6</a>). So it seems that he didn’t learn his lesson, and raised up another such group. This fits with the common theme of purges and repentances at the time of the kings needing to be repeated. For the purges were only surface level, despite all the evidence for them at the time.</p><p>The gathering of all Israel to a mountain recalls Moses gathering all Israel to mount Sinai, likewise placing before them the stark choice between Yahweh and idolatry, and Moses' repetition of the theme in Dt. 30:15-20.</p><p>Carmel was chosen because it was renowned for its fertility, and was thought to be the abode of Baal- the god of fertility, who gave rain, lightning and fire in order to produce fertility. It was an extremely brave move by Elijah- for trapped at the top of Carmel, he would have no escape route. The prophets of Baal were armed with spears and swords / knives with which they cut themselves.</p>


text:
<p>So Ahab sent to all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together to Mount Carmel- </p><p>Ahab is not recorded as saying anything further. He apparently doesn't accuse Elijah of anything else, and obeys what Elijah asks him to do. We wonder why Ahab and Jezebel allowed this great showdown. Perhaps the plan was to not only kill Elijah, but to destroy his religious credibility before all Israel. Perhaps they were to set up various bogus schemes for creating fire to consume the sacrifices, but they failed at the last minute. The incident shows Ahab on one hand really did believe in Baal and thought Baal would come through for him. But he also saw the need to destroy the credibility of Elijah's God. The deep perceived need to do this was a tacit reflection of how subconsciously he knew there was a Yahweh... but he wanted to discredit Him. He is the one who hops between two opinions, as Elijah later says of Israel. </p>


text:
<p>Elijah came near to all the people and said, How long will you waver between the two sides? If Yahweh is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. The people answered him not a word- </p><p>When Elijah asks the people who they will follow they give no "answer" (v. 21), Elijah proposes that the god who "answers" is god (v. 24), the people "answer" (v. 24), the prophets of Baal cry out for an "answer" (v.26), they receive no "answer" (v. 29), and Elijah prays to God asking twice for an "answer" (v. 37). The people didn't answer because their god gave no answer. Yahweh is presented as the God who answers, and whose people are in dialogue with Him. "Dumb idols" says it all. No idol gives living relationship. Only the one true God does.</p><p>As with Moses appealing to Pharaoh, the classic example of limping between two opinions was Ahab. He repents several times in the record, but slips back. He has three children who have 'Yah' in their names (Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoram), tolerates Obadiah working for him, but he persecuted and slew the prophets of Yah.</p><p>When Elijah demands that the people chose which lord they will serve- Baal [=’lord’] or Yahweh, he is really getting to the very crux of spirituality- for truly, there can be no halting between the two opinions of serving Baal and serving Yahweh. The Lord Jesus surely based His words of <a href='B:490 16:13'>Luk 16:13</a> on those of Elijah in <a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a>: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”. So although on one hand the Lord Jesus Himself quotes Elijah’s ‘truth’ approvingly, there is evidence galore that at the very same time, Elijah’s attitudes were far from Christ-like, as we will show below. At the very same time, Elijah mocks the Baal worshippers, teasing them to shout louder, because maybe their god has gone ‘in a journey’- a Hebraism for ‘gone to the toilet’ (<a href='B:110 18:27'>1Ki 18:27</a>). This kind of mockery and crudeness is surely not how the Father and Son would have us act. Yet Elijah did this whilst at the same time deeply believing the fire would come down, and bringing it down by his faith. And saying other words which were alluded to with deep approval by the Lord.</p><p>Your own example of making clear choices, doing what is right before God rather than what is wise and smart in human eyes, will reveal a sense of clarity about you which will become inspirational to your brethren. Yours will not be one of those many lives that is paralyzed by constantly postponing the choices, by indecision, like Israel on Carmel, hopping backwards and forwards between two opinions (<a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a>), between your persona and your true person, which is Christ in you. Ultimately, the choice is not one of principles or doctrines or interpretations; it is between Christ and all the other things which would lead us away from Him. The essential choice is always between “Christ in you” and… her mother, your instincts, their self-perception imposed upon you, your self-interest. And in those choices there is no third road; we are at a T-junction, hour after hour. We chose either life or death (<a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a>); we cannot serve two masters (<a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a>). Insofar as you at least live a life that reflects this recognition, you will be a challenge to those around you.</p><p>How long will we halt between the two paths, never facing up to the choice? It's an agony to God, as was Laodicea's " neither hot nor cold" attitude. I sometimes wonder if say 90% of our prayer, our Bible reading, our spiritual activities, are all wasted because we are only half hearted about it. We don't (often) pray the prayer of dominant desire, or (often) read or (often) break bread with that spirit of total, total dedication and concentration. You must have, as I do, those all too fleeting moments of grasping the logic, the wonder, the imperative urgency of the fact there's no third way; that total devotion is the only choice. Cling on to those moments. Organize your life decisions around this spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Then Elijah said to the people, I, even I only, am left a prophet of Yahweh; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men- </p><p>Again we sense how arrogant and condemnatory is Elijah. Obadiah had recently reminded him of the 100 faithful prophets, and there were 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. There were also schools of the prophets operating (<a href='B:120 2:3'>2Ki 2:3</a>; <a href='B:120 2:5'>2Ki 2:5</a>; <a href='B:120 2:7'>2Ki 2:7</a>) and various known prophets of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 22:8'>1Ki 22:8</a>). But Elijah seems to be revelling here in standing with his back to the world. There are times when that is necessary, but it seems to have appealed to Elijah's personality type to set up a situation like this. And there are those within the body of believers who take an inappropriate encouragement from Elijah's attitude. Because he did indeed have faith and boldness, this didn’t mean he had the hope and love without which even the faith to move mountains is of "no profit". Despite his arrogance, God worked through him. But that did not thereby justify him. You can give your body to be burned at the stake, and still not be saved if you have no love. </p><p>135000 Midianites had faced Gideon's 300 men (Jud. 8:10). That works out at precisely 450 of the enemy for every one of Gideon's men. And it cannot be coincidence that Elijah describes himself as facing off as one man of God against 450 prophets of Baal on Carmel (1 Kings 18:22). Despite his arrogance and spiritual weakness, Elijah learned the lesson from Gideon's courageous example. This is how the Bible becomes a living word, the history is not dead but alive, because it has been carefully selected by God to show us that man is not alone, God is with us, no circumstance we face is in essence unique; others have trodden this path before. </p>


text:
<p>Let them therefore give us two bulls; and let them choose one bull for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, and put no fire under it; and I will dress the other bull, and lay it on the wood, and put no fire under it- </p><p>The bull was offered as a sin offering, as bulls were at several points in the Mosaic legislation.  Elijah is still assuming that the promised gift of rain was because they had repented and so a sin offering was required. He still fails to see God just wants to show pity. Elijah's idea was that his sin offering would be accepted by God, and their offering rejected, making them as Cain to his Abel. But because of the acceptance of his sin offering, Israel's sin would be purged and therefore the rain would come. God went along with this plan, indeed all this may have been of His commanding. In which case we see that He was willing to accept sin offering offered by a third party, without the repentance of the people. For they only apparently repented (and even then, not for very long) after He had accepted the sin offering Elijah offered. We see here His prevenient grace, not simply responding to human repentance and spirituality, but taking huge initiatives.</p>


text:
<p>You call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Yahweh. The God who answers by fire, let him be God. All the people answered, It is well said- </p><p>Elijah almost seems to have revelled in assuming all Israel were apostate when he met them on Carmel. He assumes they will all call on the name of their god Baal, whilst he alone would call on Yahweh. It definitely sounds as if he was setting himself up against them. And thus he asks God to make all Israel know Him (<a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a>), as if none of them did at that time- except himself. Elijah takes the language of God 'answering by fire' from the account of David’s intercession for the plagued, sinful people in <a href='B:130 21:26'>1Ch 21:26</a> (same Hebrew words). Elijah saw himself as David, interceding to gain the forgiveness of impenitent third parties as a result of his sacrifice. And indeed there was an element of that. And in the final synthesis and unknowable equation of salvation, there is still a great role played by third parties in our salvation.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, Choose one bull for yourselves, and dress it first; for you are many; and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it- </p><p>Elijah purposefully set up the contest with the Baal worshippers so that he was alone against so many Baal worshippers; he rejoices almost that “you are many”. He didn’t invite any other worshippers of Yahweh; he was convinced that it was him against the world / the rest of the ecclesia. When we read Elijah inviting all the prophets of Baal to be gathered to Carmel, we expect him to match this by inviting the prophets of Yahweh- for we have just read that Obadiah hid 100 of them in a cave. But Elijah doesn’t. He asks Ahab to call “all Israel” there- he wanted to set himself up as alone against all Israel.</p><p>"Call on the name of your god" carefully avoids using the name of Baal, as in :27. He was making the point that Yahweh has a Name, reflecting a personality. Whereas Baal was effectively nameless and without personality and character.</p><p>By letting the Baal worshippers go first, Elijah was setting the scene to build to a climax with the maximum psychological impact. He not only believed Yahweh would answer him, but also that there would be no response from Baal. He set up the situation to highlight the deadness of Baal. But by doing so, he showed amazing faith and certainty that he would be answered- despite his arrogance and other weaknesses at this time. Genuine faith does co-exist with human weakness. Belief and unbelief exist together. This comforts us in our weaknesses, although it is no excuse for hypocrisy; and helps us be patient with our immature brethren. </p>


text:
<p>They took the bull which was given to them and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, Baal, hear us! But there was no voice, nor any who answered. They leaped about the altar which was made-</p><p>We wonder why Ahab goes along with the contest (he comes over as obedient to Elijah's proposals in :19,20), when he has been earnestly seeking Elijah to kill him for causing the drought, and when he and his wife had slain Yahweh's prophets with impunity. We see here his niggling conscience, just as with Pharaoh. For Moses and Elijah are so similar. Ahab really wanted to show that Baal was god because he feared the attraction of Yahweh worship. When he fails and Yahweh is vindicated, he then repents- for a moment. All this is psychologically credible, and shows the inability of even the most sinful man to ever conclusively remove the niggle of conscience toward God. We need to recognize that, surrender, and wholeheartedly go God's way.</p><p>"Leaped" is the word used for the limping of the people between Baal and Yahweh (:21). Even in the apparent passion and absolute devotion of leaping on the altar, they were in fact limping between Baal and Yahweh. And this is so for many religious people, even at the point of the height of their apparent devotions.</p><p>The idea of prophets was well known in the world around ancient Israel. The idea of a prophet was that a person was caught up in some kind of ecstasy, transported into some ‘other’ world, and leaving behind their humanity. The true prophets were different. Their inspiration was about being attuned to the mind of God, they remained very much in the flesh and in the world, and the subjects of their prophecy related to very real, human things- injustice, a guy building an extension on his house without paying the labourers. Not flashing lights and ethereal coasting through space. The pagan prophets (e.g. the prophets of Baal in <a href='B:110 18:26-29'>1Ki 18:26-29</a>) worked themselves into a frenzy in order to reach a state of depersonalization and loss of consciousness, in the hope that then they would be filled with Divine consciousness. True prophets like Amos were absolutely different; the inspiration process required them to be fully in touch with their own consciousness and personality, and it was exactly through their humanity that the personality of God came through in the inspired words they spake and wrote. Amos perceived the Lord’s word, and then ‘butted in’ as it were, in full consciousness: “O Lord God, forgive, I beseech Thee! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (<a href='B:370 7:2'>Amo 7:2</a>). This is the very opposite of the pagan prophets losing touch with their human senses and reasoning.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, Cry louder; for he is a god! Either he is musing, or he has gone aside to the toilet, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he sleeps and must be awakened-</p><p>Despite Elijah’s crude sarcasm about Baal being in the rest room, God didn’t give up working with Elijah, and Elijah still had a relationship with God. And this is how we have to see those brethren whom we perceive as arrogant and so terribly deficient in the spirit of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>They cried aloud, and cut themselves in their way with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them- </p><p>In <a href='B:110 18:28'>1Ki 18:28</a> the prophets of Baal worshipped "in their way", AV “after their manner”- a Hebrew word normally translated 296 times “judgment”; they judged / condemned themselves, rather than needing Elijah to do so. And the word translated “cut” essentially means ‘to gather’. They gathered themselves together to condemnation and poured out their own blood. “Knives and lancets” is a phrase normally translated “swords and spears”. They lived out judgment upon themselves rather than Elijah needing to condemn them.</p><p>The Lord understood this when He speaks about the spirit of Elijah not being appropriate. His comment that He had “not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (<a href='B:490 9:56'>Luk 9:56</a>) must surely be connected with what He said just before that: “Whosoever will save his life shall lose [s:w. “destroy”] it” and vice versa (<a href='B:490 9:24-25'>Luk 9:24-25</a>). The three words save, life, lose / destroy are all the same. There is surely a connection of thought here. But what is the Lord saying through it? The disciples like Elijah would have had their prayers heard- the fire of destruction could have come. But the Lord says that they don’t know the type of spirit they are of. His Spirit is one of saving and not destruction. Men destroy themselves by seeking to save themselves without Him. This is why the Lord could say that He Himself judged / condemned no man- each rejected man will have condemned himself. And so the same point is actually made within the Elijah story too.</p><p>The Baal worshippers cut themselves and made their own blood flow out, in anticipation of how they would soon be slain and left to bleed to death. The connection of thought is to show that they did this to themselves, their idolatry was their own self condemnation and destruction.</p><p>We note they had swords and spears. They could so easily have slain Elijah, as the prophets of Baal and Ahab had slain many Yahweh prophets earlier. Elijah;s bravery is intense- for he had no way to escape, being on top of a mountain.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, when midday was past, that they prophesied until the time of the offering of the offering; but there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any who responded- </p><p>There was no voice of response from Baal; and the implication may be that there was a voice from Yahweh in His response. But Elijah didn’t hear it, for the thrill and noise of the fire coming down and consuming the sacrifice drowned it out. Perhaps this is referred to when Yahweh later tells Elijah that He is not [so much] in the wind and fire, but in the still small voice- which Elijah had not heard.</p><p>There was no voice from Baal because there was nobody to give answer- there was no answerer. The record seeks to avoid mentioning the name of Baal, because as noted above, there was no 'name' in the sense of character or personality. It was a god of their own creation in their own minds, just as all idols are. Dream homes and holidays likewise exist in the mind of modern man, and have no reality nor personality.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to all the people, Come near to me; and all the people came near to him-</p><p>Elijah may be alluding to how the people came near to Moses (<a href='B:20 34:32'>Exo 34:32</a>). But he was shown that he was not as Moses; see on <a href='B:110 19:9'>1Ki 19:9</a>. It may be that they sensed that seeing Baal hadn't answered, and the tricks to make fire appear had failed, then Yahweh was likely to respond. And they were cowering away, fearful of the Divine fire which they sensed was going to appear. See on :34. The similarities between Elijah and Moses are so many that it's tempting to think that he was the intended fulfilment of the "prophet like" Moses who was to be raised up (Dt. 18:18). The similarities and points of contact are such that we can safely conclude that potentially, this promise was intended to have fulfilment in Elijah. But he failed, although he realized the intended similarities between him and Moses. And so the prophecy was rescheduled to its ultimate fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. All the people coming near to Elijah on Carmel recalls all Israel before Moses at Sinai. "And the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of all Israel (Ex. 24:17)", just as devouring fire came down on Sinai. Elijah as Moses is the intermediary between Yahweh and idolatrous Israel.</p><p>He repaired the altar of Yahweh that was thrown down- </p><p>The triumph on Carmel involved making an offering on an altar of Yahweh which was in one of the “high places”- whereas Israel were repeatedly criticized for offering on these “high places” and not in Jerusalem. Elijah even criticizes Israel for throwing down these “high places” altars of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a>; <a href='B:110 19:14'>1Ki 19:14</a>). Surely Elijah knew that the use of the high places was not what Yahweh ideally wanted; and yet he was driven to use a high place in this way. And with us, God will work through circumstances to remove from us the crutches of mere religion, to challenge the essence of our faith and relationship with Him. The way Ezekiel had to eat unclean food and defile himself is another such example.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of Yahweh came, saying, Israel shall be your name- </p><p>- see on <a href='B:10 35:2'>Gen 35:2</a>. This seems a conscious imitation of Joshua's building of the altar from 12 stones when entering the land (<a href='B:60 4:5'>Jos 4:5</a>). Perhaps Elijah's hope was for a complete restoration of the kingdom. The allusion to the renaming of Jacob to Israel may also suggest a new beginning by grace. The usage of 12 stones suggests that he hoped for the ending of the division within Israel, as well as recognizing that the two tribe kingdom also needed forgiveness. For I suggested earlier that the bull was a sin offering.</p>


text:
<p>With the stones he built an altar in the name of Yahweh. He made a trench around the altar, large enough to contain two measures of seed- </p><p>Elijah's hyper sensitivity to he alone being acceptable before God is perhaps shown in the way he repairs the Lord's altar and then himself builds another one (<a href='B:110 18:30-32'>1Ki 18:30-32</a>). It was as if he felt some kind of guilt by association- he could only serve Yahweh on the altar of his own making. Perhaps he justified it by suspecting that&nbsp; the first altar has been built contrary to Mosaic law, perhaps an iron tool had been used on it... and so, Elijah had to go his own way. And how often have our brethren done this. Nothing is any good unless we ourselves are doing it; we can't be made guilty by association with the work of others whom we doubt.</p><p>This was as Moses built an altar and set up 12 pillars at the time of the theophany on mount Sinai, where again Yahweh was revealed as consuming fire (Ex. 24:4). See on :40. But Elijah's imitations of Moses were form without content.</p>


text:
<p>He put the wood in order, and cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood. He said, Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood- </p><p>Elijah’s mocking attitude of :27 is also shown by the way in which he demands they find him four barrels of water- on the top of a mountain, after a major three and a half year drought. Presumably they took the water from the sea at the bottom of the mountain (although tradition claims there was a fountain at the top of Carmel)- and thus Elijah’s sacrifice would be offered with salt. He was strictly obedient to the requirements for sacrifice- yet amidst an abusive, self-justifying mindset. The very possession of truth can take our attention away from our need for self-examination and right attitudes towards others. In this lies one of our most subtle temptations.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Do it a second time; and they did it the second time. He said, Do it a third time; and they did it the third time-</p><p>I suggested above that Ahab agreed to this showdown because he planned to discredit Elijah by some bogus appearance of fire. The tricks hadn't worked. Everybody knew they hadn't. And Elijah is at great pains to demonstrate that he is not using any tricks. The burnt offering and wood were thrice doused in water, and the trench of water around the altar was of significant size. There was no way Elijah was using fake fire, and he had invited the people to "come near" (:30) so that all was transparent and under close public observation.</p>


text:
<p>The water ran around the altar; and he also filled the trench with water- </p><p>As explained on :34, this was to stop any possibility of tricks being used. Various pagan religions construct altars with fire hidden beneath them (Adam Clarke describes several in his commentary). This fire is then exposed by the priests, supposedly by magic or their prayers, and then burns the sacrifice. But Elijah covered the entire sacrifice and altar with water to demonstrate there was no way this was the case wit him. And the fire came down from Heaven, rather than up from the altar as in these pagan altars.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the time of the offering of the offering- </p><p>This could imply that this was intended as the daily evening offering.</p><p>That Elijah the prophet came near and said, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant- </p><p>He clearly saw prayer as requiring much effort; and the way he prays at the time of the evening sacrifice on Horeb suggests that he saw prayer as a sacrifice. His language here seems to have been inspired by David (<a href='B:90 17:46'>1Sa 17:46</a>). May our language likewise be an inspiration to others rather than pulling them downwards spiritually. But despite his immense faith, he seems unable to cease his desire for self justification. He didn’t just want Israel to accept Yahweh, but to accept that he was Yahweh's servant. This was the meaning of 'Obadiah', 'servant of Yah', and we noted earlier how Elijah mocked that.</p><p>Elijah's 'drawing near' matches that of Moses at Sinai (Ex. 24:2).</p><p>And that I have done all these things at Your word- </p><p>This is another example of Elijah playing God. There’s no record of any such word from the Lord to him. He appears to have set it all up at his initiative- and then assumed that actually God had told him to do so and that God would respond as he expected. We can so very easily do the same.</p><p>We become suspicious of Elijah’s motives when we read of him asking God to show all Israel “That I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things”. “That I…that I…” sounds like there was a large element of self-justification in his spirituality, just as there can be in our, e.g., desiring to prove someone else wrong and ourselves right, to win a debate, to abuse the advantage of our superior Bible knowledge…</p><p>God is never recorded as commanding Elijah to do any of these things. He may be saying that he did these things according to God's word [s.w. "word" in :1] that rain was going to come. He therefore assumes God has turned their hearts back in repentance, because Elijah understands that according to His word in Deuteronomy, the drought can only end if Israel repent. So Elijah asks  that Israel understand that God has made them repent, and the whole context on Carmel to elicit their repentance was according to God's word that rain was coming. Elijah failed to appreciate that God's grace and basic pity means that at times He acts outside His own word. Hence in the next mountain scene in 1 Kings 19, Elijah was to be shown that actually God was not "in" the fire and wind which feature in 1 Kings 18. He was "in" the silence of the still small voice.</p><p>Elijah was perhaps unhappy about offering on a private altar which was not at the sanctuary, let alone one first built [by tradition] by apostate King Saul. So he tells God that he is only doing what God has told him, even though it appears to contradict other principles. Indeed God's legal demands at times do appear to contradict each other, but that is intentional, so that we may discern the spirit of what He wants and realize that the letter of obedience is not what He seeks.</p>


text:
<p>Answer me, Yahweh, answer me, that this people may know that You, Yahweh, are God- </p><p>"Answer" is s.w. "hear" in :26. As they had begged Baal to hear them, Elijah asks Yahweh to hear him. He has all the way through stacked the odds against himself- by giving them longer than himself to get an answer [he allowed them to go on until evening], allowing them to go first, allowing them to choose the animals for sacriifice. In this we see his absolute faith.</p> <p>See on <a href='B:110 19:18'>1Ki 19:18</a>. This kind of faith in prayer enables a believer to truly follow the Lord’s exhortation to ask for things and believe and feel that we have already received them. Elijah chose the terms of the contest on Carmel to be an answer by fire- for Baal was originally the fire god. Yet Elijah appears utterly certain that God will answer by a bolt of fire, without having asked Him first. He asks God to “answer me” without specifically requesting for fire to be sent down; he brings the situation before God and asks Him to ‘answer’ that situation. And this is why so many of David’s prayers are more a bringing of the situation before God, than a specific request for answers.</p><p>And that You have turned their heart back again- </p><p>It is our knowledge of God’s mercy to us which empowers us to confidently seek to share with others our knowledge, our relationship, our experience with God. Forgiveness inspires the preacher; and yet the offer of forgiveness is what inspires the listener to respond. God appeals for Israel to respond by pointing out that in prospect, He has already forgiven them: “I have [already] blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions... [therefore] return unto me; for I have redeemed thee” (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>). Likewise Elijah wanted Israel to know that God had already in prospect turned their hearts back to Him. We preach the cross of Christ, and that through that forgiveness has been enabled for all men; but they need to respond by repentance in order to access it. Hence the tragedy of human lack of response; so much has been enabled, the world has been reconciled, but all this is in vain if they will not respond.</p><p>Elijah was evidently in touch with God and knew His will. At the end, he is described as&nbsp; the charioteer of the cherubim; for his prayers had controlled their direction. This really is how much God is willing to be influenced by our prayers. Elijah had a very developed sense of how God works with us. Thus he asks God to make Israel know how that He “didst turn back their heart” (<a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a> RVmg:), he wanted them to know how that potentially, God had made their return to Him possible; Elijah perceived that God may prepare something in prospect that never gets realized in practice because of human weakness [and this should be an endless inspiration to us too].</p>


text:
<p>Then the fire of Yahweh fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood, the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench- </p><p>For all Elijah's clearly wrong attitudes, Yahweh still accepted him; and very dramatically. The total consumption of everything indicated that God had totally accepted the sin offering. Israel had been forgiven. Even though they had not repented. This was the power of Elijah's intercessory mediation and sacrifice. And how much more powerful is that of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Elijah states in 2 Kings 1:10 that fire would come from Heaven if he was a man of God. He had faith- and he wanted fire to come down as it had come down when he called fire down at Carmel. But faith is nuanced and is not absolute. Elijah had faith in God, great faith, but he also had faith in himself; he assumed the fire would come, because he was Yahweh's faithful man. Although Yahweh as it were agreed with him in 2 Kings 1, and made fire come down as commanded, the Lord in Lk. 9 says that Elijah had the wrong spirit in doing this. We can believe and God can respond to that faith, but that doesn't of itself justify us. As Paul says, we can have faith that moves mountains, but without love we are nothing.</p>


text:
<p>When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces. They said, Yahweh, he is God! Yahweh, He is God!- </p><p>This is another way of crying out the name 'Elijah'. Elijah had repeatedly asked for his own justification, and perhaps the people responded in this way purposefully.</p><p>The events on Mount Carmel have clear similarities with Yahweh's manifestations to Israel and Moses on Mount Sinai, especially after the apostacy with the golden calf. We note that afterwards, Elijah travels to Mount Sinai- the only time anyone is recorded going there apart from Moses. Both Elijah and Moses are called "man of God" (1 Kings 17:24). The people fall to the ground and accept Yahweh, just as they told Moses that they would obey all Yahweh said (Ex. 24:3-7). The apostate Baal worshipping Israelites limping around the altar they had made (1 Kings 18:26 Heb.) recalls Israel dancing around the golden calf altar (Ex. 32:19). The prayer of Elijah recalls that of Moses, and he too asks God to remember Abraham etc. (18:36 = Ex. 32:13). Yahweh's fire burnt up the altar of Baal (:38), just as Moses destroyed the golden calf with fire and scatterd the dust on water (Ex. 32:20). The burning hot anger of Yahweh (Ex. 32:10) matches the fire from Yahweh that falls upon the Baal altar. The death of the Baal priests (:40) by the sword (1 Kings 19:1) connects with the destruction of the apostate Israelites at the golden calf, again by sword (Ex. 32:27-29). All this sets up Yahweh's manifestation to Elijah at Sinai with that to Moses. They each have a 40 day fast beforehand (1 Kings 19:8; Ex. 34:28). Fire, earthquake, thundering and smoke all feature both times. Both hide in a cleft of the rock before Yahweh's glory, hence 1 Kings 19:9 speaks of "the cave", i.e. the one Moses cowered in. But Moses pleads with his own eternal life for the salvation of Israel, whereas Elijah pleads for their destruction. Elijah's desire for his own death is selfish, whereas Moses' is self sacrificial. The parallels are so clear that it is as if the record seeks to set up Elijah in a very negative light when compared to Moses. This is especially significant when we consider that Elijah appreciated the similarities, hence he of his own voilition goes into "the cave" of Moses (1 Kings 19:9), and wrapping his face in his mantle may be a conscious copy of Moses subsequently putting a veil [Heb. scarf] over his face. The great contrast however is that Yahweh proclaimed His Name to Moses in a mighty thundering voice. Whereas Elijah heard only the sound of silence and then the still small voice. Yahweh was not "in" the earthquake, wind and fire, whereas His presence was very definitely with Moses, who even saw His back parts. But the whole point was that Moses was being taught that getting a glimpse of God Himself, seeing mighty visible manifestations of Yahweh, was not of the essence. Rather His grace and acceptance of Israel was of the essence. But Elijah was not at all interested in that, rather did he want Israel's judgment. The connections with Moses present him as really not getting it about God's grace and His salvation of Israel despite their apostacy with the golden calf; and so he is effectively fired from his prophetic work. Because to preach is all about saving people and sharing God's grace, not about proving ourselves right.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to them, Seize the prophets of Baal! Don’t let one of them escape! They seized them. Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and killed them there-</p><p>It's unclear whether the 400 prophets of Astarte were slain or escaped. But by the time of 1 Kings 22, Ahab has another 400 prophets whom he listens to. This was a heat of the moment persuasion and response, but of no abiding value in their spiritual growth as a nation. It again demonstrates the limited value of miracle in fundamentally changing people.</p><p>The parallels with Moses continue. This time with Moses seeing Yahweh's theophany on the mountain, and then ordering the Levites to murder idolatrous Israel (Ex. 35:25-29).</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to Ahab, Get up, eat and drink; for there is the sound of abundance of rain-</p><p>"Get up" may possibly be an allusion to how after the theophany of the consuming fire on Sinai, the elders of Israel were asked to "go up" the mountain and "eat and drink" (Ex. 24:9). Ahab does so (:42), but as with Israel, it was mere devotion on the cusp of the moment. And yet the fact the rain came could reflect Divine acceptance of his repentance of a moment- even though it was to be undone by his subservience to his evil wife. Hence :45 LXX has "Ahab wept and went to Jezreel", presumably in repentance. Likewise his repentance for his part in killing Naboth [sackloth and rent garments implies repentance] in 1 Kings 21:16 is another example of his tendency to mere momentary repentance, although sincere at the time. But again, Elijah is presented as the prophet like unto Moses.</p><p>Elijah told Ahab to arise and eat, a meal of fellowship with God. But Elijah then commits suicide (see on 1 Kings 19:5) after Ahab slips back and listens to Jezebel; and then Elijah is told to arise and eat (1 Kings 19:5). He is being asked to consider that he is no better than Ahab, whom he saw as the incarnation of evil. He too had to be invited to share the meal of fellowship with God by grace, just as he had invited Ahab to. He is being shown that his judgmentalism made him no better than Ahab the idolater, but like Ahab, he too could be saved by grace.  </p><p>Elijah really is the great example of believing that what we have prayed for, we have already received. He tells Ahab that he hears “the sound of a abundance of rain”, well before the prayer for rain had even begun to be answered. Elijah tells Ahab that there is a “sound” of rain coming. The same word has just been used earlier, translated as “voice” (<a href='B:110 18:29'>1Ki 18:29</a>) in the context of there being a voice / answer to prayer. So Elijah is saying that there is an answer speaking of much rain to come. There was no sign of rain coming at the time when he started praying, until the little cloud arose. But he calmly tells Ahab that there is a sound / answer of rain coming. Elijah believed in the answer coming before he prayed; he had a very firm faith. And thus ahead of time he told Ahab to eat and drink because of it [had Ahab been fasting? If so, to Yahweh or Baal?]. But all this required quite some passion in prayer.</p><p>He heard in the ears of faith the sound of rain, before he even formally prayed for it (<a href='B:110 18:40-42'>1Ki 18:40-42</a> cp. <a href='B:660 5:17-18'>Jas 5:17-18</a>). He saw that the sin offering had been accepted, and was sure that therefore the drought would end because it had produced the required repentance. And yet, reading through the record, there is ample evidence that at the very same time as he showed such faith, he had a hardness and arrogance which was contrary to the spirit of the Lord Jesus. And Paul had the same feature.</p>


text:
<p>So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he bowed himself down on the earth, and put his face between his knees- </p><p>Elijah cast himself down in prayer. The word occurs only in <a href='B:120 4:34-35'>2Ki 4:34-35</a>, as if it was Elijah’s example which inspired Elisha likewise to cast himself down [AV “stretch”] upon the child. The implication is that Elisha did so in prayer; and in passing, we wonder whether this implies that Elijah’s stretching himself upon another child, although a different Hebrew word, was also in prayer. Again we see that Elijah’s prayerful example inspired another. Our attitude to prayer is so easily influential upon others, and we ourselves are likewise easily influenced. It should be no shame nor embarrassment to us to instantly break into prayer, nor to kneel down to further our intensity in prayer, regardless of the social embarrassment&nbsp; this may involve in some cultures.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his servant, Go up now, look toward the sea. He went up and looked, and said, There is nothing. He said seven times, Go again- </p><p>The lack of immediate answer was to humble Elijah after the amazing answer to prayer just received on Carmel. He would have started wondering whether he really understood correctly that rain was to come now that the people had repented and his sin offering had been accepted. He would have started doubting his own faith; as one does after praying six times for something and not getting any answer. All this was to humble him. For his pride seems to have been at a very high point as he stood in triumph before Israel on Carmel, the man with his back to the world had apparently won.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the seventh time that he said, Behold, a small cloud, like a man’s hand, is rising out of the sea. He said, Go up, tell Ahab, ‘Get ready and go down, so that the rain doesn’t stop you’- </p><p>It could be that after the triumph on Carmel, there had been another vision of God’s glory in order to humble Elijah. I say this on the basis that the description of the cloud “like a man’s hand” recalls “the likeness of a man’s hand” under the cherubim in Ezekiel’s visions. Clouds and rain are invariably part of theophanies. Elijah spoke of how, by faith, he heard “the feet of rain” (<a href='B:110 18:41'>1Ki 18:41</a> LXX), as if he believed that the Angels were coming with rain. Perhaps Elijah therefore told Ahab “prepare your chariot” and ride with the rain- i:e. ‘be part of the vision of glory / cherubim chariots on the ground as it passes overhead’. This was the point of Ezekiel’s vision; Israel were to reflect the Cherubim on earth, just As David moved in step with the Spirit / the sound of marching in the mulberry trees. Therefore in <a href='B:110 18:42'>1Ki 18:42</a> when in the face of all this, Elijah places his&nbsp; face between knees, he may be doing the same thing as when he hides his face in the mantle. He sensed the glory of God near him but didn’t want to face up to it personally. He didn’t want to become part of the Cherubic vision of glory, even though he advised Ahab to do so. We must identify ourselves with the vision of God’s glory, and face up to the life-changing implications of it. Elijah ultimately did this, although it took him a lifetime- he was caught up in another cherubic vision and threw away his mantle and became part of the vision of glory; and hence he was called “the chariot of Israel and the [great] horseman thereof” [reading “horsemen” as an intensive plural]. The chariots and horsemen of God appeared; and Elisha perceived that Elijah had finally become identified with them. For Elisha sees them and then describes Elijah as being them- the chariot and horseman of Israel (<a href='B:120 2:11-12'>2Ki 2:11-12</a>). Finally, Elijah became part of God’s glory; He merged into it rather than resisting it for the sake of his own &nbsp;glory. He was the charioteer of the cherubim; for his prayers had controlled their direction. This identification of ourselves with God’s glory, this losing of ourselves and our own insistence upon our rightness, and our focus on others’ wrongness... this is the end result of our lives if they are lived out after the pattern of Elijah’s.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in a little while, that the sky grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel-</p><p>LXX "Ahab wept". This fits the impression we have that he repented; his comments to Jezebel at the beginning of 1 Kings 19 could be understood as meaning that it was 'game over' with Baal worship. He had not protested the mass murder of the 450 priests of Baal.</p>


text:
<p>The hand of Yahweh was on Elijah; and he tucked his cloak into his belt and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel- </p><p>Running in front of someone meant to herald them. He was perhaps rejoicing in Ahab's apparent repentance, see on :45. This exhilarating run to Jezreel, in the power of the Spirit, set Elijah up for the devastating news that Jezebel had not repented and Ahab was apparently supporting her, or at least not asserting his kingship against her. And thence he crashed into the depression of 1 Kings 19.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword- </p><p>We wonder whether Elijah personally presided over the genocide of 450 priests. Ahab had made no protest, and I suggested on <a href='B:110 18:46'>1Ki 18:46</a> that he did in fact repent. The coming of rain in response to Elijah's prayer and the peoples' rejection of Baal surely urged him to accept that it was 'game over' for Baal worship. At least, at that time. There is no mention earlier of Elijah's sword. Perhaps he was seeking to imitate Phinehas and the Levites who slew the apostate idolaters of Israel at the mount, with swords. But as we see regarding Moses, Elijah is copying the externalities without grasping the spirit.</p><p>As discussed on 1 Kings 18:1, Elijah had been assuming that the rain had come because Israel had repented. Instead of accepting that the rain came because God said it was going to come, regardless of their repentance. He assumed Ahab had repented; and indeed he probably did, just as he did for a time when confronted about the death of Naboth. Ahab's three sons all had 'Yah' in their names- but his weak spirituality was trumped by Jezebel. Her name may be an allusion to Baal Zebul, the rain god ["zebel" = "zebul"]. Her personal god had been declared dead. And so she wanted to kill Elijah.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I don’t make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time!- </p><p>Elijah had returned with Ahab to Jezreel. So he was there in the city, apparently hoping that Ahab would stand up to Jezebel, and perhaps she too would realize that Baal worship was now a hopeless cause.</p><p>The Moses parallels continue. Ahab and Jezebel in many ways recall Pharaoah, especially with Ahab's momentary repentances. Jezebels' words here clearly recall Pharaoh's: "Take care... the day you see my face you shall die" (Ex. 10:28). But Elijah slides down into depression because he sees he's failed to convert Ahab and Jezebel. By contrast, Moses goes ahead and delivers God's people, accepting he had failed to convert Pharaoah, and you can't win every time. Again and again we see Elijah only externally following Moses, but not grasping his spirit. He makes no begging intercession to save Israel, but rather seeks their condemnation for their idolatry. He sees himself as God's man and having God's positions, rather than seeking to persuade God to act otherwise than He initially planned.</p>


text:
<p>When he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there- </p><p>The Elijah who fearlessly came before Ahab and the thousands of idolaters at Carmel... now flees before an angry woman. I suggested on <a href='B:110 18:46'>1Ki 18:46</a> that the exhilarating run to Jezreel, in the power of the Spirit, set Elijah up for the devastating news that Jezebel had not repented and Ahab was apparently supporting her, or at least not asserting his kingship against her. And thence he crashed into the depression we now read of. The history here has absolute psychological credibility, even though Elijah's faith should have been more resolute. He fled to the very south of Judah, territory not under Ahab's control.</p><p>Beersheba belonged to Judah, so we could see his flight there as effectively walking away from his ministry to Israel. And so he was fired from his ministry seeing that he himself had chosen this. It was therefore only pride that made him so resistant to accepting that. "When he saw..." is LXX "And he feared", suggesting Elijah's motive in going to Beersheba was fear. Hence the rebuke "What are you doing here, Elijah?". He "went / fled for his life"- and yet he wants to end his life. It could be that Jezebel's threats to take his life result in him fleeing to God and asking God to take his life, rather than Jezebel. He was convinced by his fears that he now had to die. This fear puts a deeper dimension on Elijah's apparently fearless challenges to Ahab, and his willingness to face off against Ahab and the Baal worshippers alone on Carmel. His apparent nonchalance was in fact the outcome of faith, as he clearly feared Jezebel who was behind Ahab.   </p><p>Elijah tells his servant to remain whilst he goes out into the desert alone, intent on committing suicide (1 Kings 19:3). When he is finally snatched away, he tried to get his servant Elisha to likewise remain whilst he went further alone. Again he intended suicide and Elisha likely perceived this. And so God did snatch him away, either to death or to make him end his ministry. </p>


text:
<p>But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die, and said, It is enough. Now, O Yahweh, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers- </p><p>By walking out alone into the desert he was effectively attempting suicide. If Elijah was a Gentile (see on <a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>), he would be feeling that he was no really better than a Gentile idolater (see on :5)- because he had failed to convert or see judgment upon Jezebel. Perhaps he had some particular complex of feelings and histories with her which led him to this manic state once she tried to kill him.</p><p>Elijah's depression was because Jezebel had not repented. His dream was that the effective ruler of Israel would be converted by him. He failed to perceive that his conversion of the widow woman was quite enough. He wanted high profile converts like Jezebel and felt a failure when he didn't win them. </p><p>And yet the constant similarities with Moses lead us to wonder whether Moses' depressive requests to die are being alluded to here by Elijah. Or it could be that Moses' offer to give his eternal life for Israel is being contrasted with Elijah selfishly wanting to die, just because he felt depressed that his mission had apparently not succeeded.</p><p>“Enough” is the same Hebrew word picked up and used by the Angel- “the way is too great [‘enough’] for you” (<a href='B:110 19:7'>1Ki 19:7</a>), and he does eventually eat and not die, living life now only thanks to the provision of food by Angels, going on a 40 day wilderness journey towards Sinai. Elijah was brought to where we have all been- that this is all just too much for me. But it was all too much because he had set himself dreams and conditions- the repentance of Jezebel and Ahab, and felt all was too much because that dream was now shattered- and because he would not cast himself upon God's grace. "It's all too much for me" is related to human pride. All this of course is replete with reference to Israel’s wilderness journey, during which they only survived by eating “Angel’s food”, the food provided by Angels (<a href='B:230 78:25'>Psa 78:25</a>). And as Elijah well knew, that generation were sinful and worshipped the idols they had smuggled out of Egypt with &nbsp;them. To stay alive, he had to eat that food and go in that miraculously provided strength. And so he was forced to see the similarity between himself and rebellious Israel in the wilderness. He was being asked to identify with sinful Israel, and seek to save them through identity with them rather than the dramatic wind and fire of Carmel. Moses by contrast does make the identification with Israel. He doesn't want to be saved if they will not be. Likewise earlier God had fed him through the medium of the unclean raven, and the unclean Gentile woman. But Elijah had had enough of these pointed digs, and he asks God to take his life away- alluding to how Jezebel wanted to do this, as if trying to pressurize God into taking away his life rather than Jezebel (<a href='B:110 19:4'>1Ki 19:4</a>; <a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He lay down and slept under a juniper tree; and behold, an angel touched him, and said to him, Arise and eat!-</p><p>The situation is allusive to the Gentile, spiritually weak Hagar being found at the point of death and preserved by an Angel in the same wilderness (<a href='B:10 16:9'>Gen 16:9</a>; <a href='B:10 21:17'>Gen 21:17</a>). Elijah in his rebellion against God’s intended ministry for him was no better than her. Perhaps that is what he refers to being no better than his (Gentile) fathers; see on :4. And we will see on :6 that he is taught that the Gentile widow whom he had earlier despised was also on God’s side more than he was.</p><p>A fair case can be made for 'laying down and sleeping' and then being touched and bidden 'arise' by an Angel refers to death and resurrection. The LXX uses the same term here as used for sleeping in death in 1 Cor. 15:6,18,20. Death as sleep is also an OT idea (Dan. 12:2; Ps. 13:4; Jer. 51:39; Job 3:13). The whole incident recalls Daniel's figurative death and resurrection, with the Angel touching him and bidding him arise and not fear. Eating and drinking (:6) likewise occurs after several resurrection scenes in the NT. The dead girl is bidden "arise and eat" just as Elijah is here. Elijah's comment that Baal is asleep (1 Kings 18:27) is another way of saying he is effectively dead. And the case is pretty much clinched by the context. 1 Kings 19:4 tells us that Elijah has just “prayed that he might die. ‘Enough!’ he cried, ‘Now, O Lord, take my life…”. Elijah then lays himself down in a position where surely he was going to die by dehydration, just as Jonah did, rather than see Nineveh saved by grace.  </p><p>In this case, Elijah lay down under a bush in the scorching desert as an act of suicide- but was awoken from it in resurrection. We think of how Hagar lay down her son beneath a bush to die in the same desert (Gen. 21:15,16), "in the wilderness of Beersheba" (Gen. 21:14). Jezebel has threatened to take Elijah's life (:2), so he flees for his life (:3), and then asks God to take his life (:4,10). It's as if he wants to die, but he wants to die at God's hand and not Jezebel's.  </p><p>All this is rather as Jonah's offer to be cast into the sea was an act of suicide- but he was resurrected from it. Jonah was very similar to Elijah in his attitude to Gentiles and God being more merciful than he was. Indeed the similarities are so close that it could be that Jonah justified his desire for suicide [despite having been resurrected from his previous suicide] by thinking that he was copying Elijah. But form had eclipsed content, he was externally following Elijh and not grasping the lesson of Elijah's failure. Just as many misguided zealots appeal to Elijah for justification and inspiration. "Let us disfellowship the weak... in the spirit of the great hero Elijah!". </p><p>These men just couldn't cope with God being more gracious than they were, and considering the possibility that He saved those whom they regarded as below the bar of salvation. Likewise today, the wrath of legalists is most acutely aroused over issues of accepting or baptizing those whom they consider Gentiles, not adequately repentant nor groomed in the knowledge of Israel's God. This is the challenge of Divine grace- to accept it not only for ourselves but towards others. But only by accepting our own sinfulness can we perceive God's grace towards us personally, and this alone will lead us to accept His grace towards others. But like Jonah, even after such a resurrection by grace, Elijah pigheadedly continues in his resistance to grace and self justification. The grace of the situation is heightened when we consider that Jezebel sent a messenger (malak) to tell Elijah she was going to murder him (:2). Yahweh sent His Angel [malak] to save Elijah. Elijah had told Ahab to arise and eat (1 Kings 18:41), a meal of fellowship with God. But Elijah then commits suicide after Ahab slips back and listens to Jezebel; and now Elijah is told to arise and eat. He is being asked to consider that he is no better than Ahab, whom he saw as the incarnation of evil. He too had to be invited to share the meal of fellowship with God by grace, just as he had invited Ahab to. He is being shown that his judgmentalism made him no better than Ahab the idolater, but like Ahab, he too could be saved by grace.  </p>


text:
<p>He looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on the coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank, and lay down again- </p><p>The woman “gathering sticks” (<a href='B:110 17:10'>1Ki 17:10</a>) would likely have stimulated his Bible-steeped mind to think of the illegal gathering of sticks in <a href='B:40 15:32-33'>Num 15:32-33</a>. But she gave him meal cake and water. Later, the Angel gave Elijah cake and water (<a href='B:110 19:6'>1Ki 19:6</a> LXX "a cake of meal") just as the unclean ravens and Gentile widow woman had done- to teach Elijah that God works through those people. There were two occasions in which God fed Elijah with a cake when he was hungry. Once when the widow woman baked him one (<a href='B:110 17:13'>1Ki 17:13</a>), and once when the Angel did (<a href='B:110 19:6'>1Ki 19:6</a>). Surely God was trying to show Elijah that He was manifested through that desperately poor, weak, sick, starving widow woman who was at the point of death from starvation. It was the same message- that God wasn’t in the earthquake and fire, but in the still small voice. Elijah wanted a high profile female convert like Jezebel, and that hadn't worked out. He was being reminded that the conversion of the desperate Gentile woman was quite enough.</p><p>Heb. 'the hot coals' suggests a connection with Is. 6:6 where the Angel seraph likewise had these in order to forgive and cleanse God's prophet.  Perhaps Elijah didn't want to perceive that nor accept it, whereas Isaiah did. The idea is that the cake was made in Heaven itself, like the manna is presented as "Angel's food", the bread of heaven.</p><p>The gift of bread at night [for he awoke and there was bread] recalls the manna given at night (Num. 11:9 "When the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna fell on it"). Num. 11:8 also calls the manna a "cake". And the manna was also given by an Angel. Water was likewise given to Israel in the same desert where Elijah was. He is being nudged to identify with Israel. His 40 day journey through the desert to Sinai was clearly intended to connect him with Israel's 40 year journey in the same desert. But he refuses to take the nudges, and goes on, as Paul says, to intercede with God against Israel. He sees himself as righteous and them as wicked, rather than identifying with them and seeking to save the unjust by the love and identity of the just. He failed to get the spirit of Moses.  </p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh came again the second time, and touched him and said, Arise and eat, because the journey is too great for you- </p><p>He had been empowered by the Spirit to run all the way from Carmel to Jezreel, running at the speed of horses (<a href='B:110 18:46'>1Ki 18:46</a>). But now the Spirit had been withdrawn from him. The journey was too great for him in his own strength. God would indeed give him food for the journey, but in a manner reminiscent of the Gentile widow who had earlier sustained him (see on :6). He had not learned the lessons from that, and they had to be repeated here; see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>He arose and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the Mount of God-</p><p>We enquire whether Elijah consciously intended to go to Horeb / Sinai. After the theophany and slaughter of the golden calf worshippers (Ex. 32), Moses goes to Horeb / Sinai for another theophany. And so it seems again we have Elijah externally doing what Moses had done, but without his spirit- for he intercedes against Israel rather than for their salvation by grace. Time and again we see this in the individual and collective lives of believers- form eclipses content.</p><p>Elijah goes in the strength of a little food just as the widow’s flour didn’t run out. He is being paralleled with the Gentile widow woman- either to reinforce the lesson taught, or because he had failed to learn the lesson that he truly was no better in essence than a Gentile woman; see on :7. One wonders whether he not only despised Gentiles but women too... hence the way God sought to teach him the parallel between Himself and that woman. His depression was because he hadn't converted Jezebel, but he is being reminded to perceive the value of the conversion of the relatively low profile, obscure Gentile woman [so obscure that in the three year search for Elijah, nobody thought of going to her]. </p><p>God 'set up' Elijah's experience at Horeb / Sinai to compare and contrast with that of Moses. There are so many intended similarities between Elijah's meeting God at Horeb and Moses' meetings with God at Sinai- the same place, it seems. In both records it is called "the mount of God" (<a href='B:20 3:1'>Exo 3:1</a>; <a href='B:20 18:5'>Exo 18:5</a>; <a href='B:20 24:13'>Exo 24:13</a>); there was a journey through the desert both before and after the meeting; the use of the number forty (<a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a>; <a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a> cp. <a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a>); miraculous provision of food by God; an accompanying Angel; a cave, standing on a rock, Yahweh passing by, covering the face (<a href='B:20 33:21-23'>Exo 33:21-23</a>; <a href='B:20 34:5-6'>Exo 34:5-6</a>), earthquake, wind and fire (Exodus 19). We think too of how they both dried up water and passed through it (2 Kings 2), both have successors appointed involving their spirit being placed upon Joshua / Elisha etc. Moses met with God at Horeb, and received the words of God. Elijah was all set up for the same. But it doesn't happen. Yahweh Himself doesn't appear; and instead of words of command, there is a deafening silence- for I understand the "still small voice" to actually be silence, and that silence was in itself a voice / word to Elijah. And then when God finally does say something, it is simply: "What are you doing here, Elijah?". Surely Elijah saw himself as Moses, and was looking forward to being given a covenant, and seeing a special manifestation of Yahweh. But instead, silence. No appearance of God, and finally, the great anticlimax of being asked what exactly he's doing there. The similarities with the Moses history were arranged by God, but surely they played along with Elijah's assumption that he was the next Moses. And indeed he was set up to be "the prophet like unto Moses", but he is being shown that he lacks Moses' humility and spirit of passion for the salvation of Israel. Perhaps he idolized Moses, as men today idolize heroes, e.g. from earlier days of their denomination. Elijah was being taught that actually, he was not Moses; God had no such message or covenant or special revelation to give him. And there is a type of believer who needs this same lesson; that God speaks through silence and insignificance to us. We are to be ourselves, and not to ever seek to replicate the experiences or spiritual path of faithful men who have gone before us. Such desires are really a running away from our personal responsibilities.</p><p>The similarities between Elijah and Moses are so many that it's tempting to think that he was the intended fulfilment of the "prophet like" Moses who was to be raised up (Dt. 18:18). The similarities and points of contact are such that we can safely conclude that potentially, this promise was intended to have fulfilment in Elijah. But he failed, although he realized the intended similarities between him and Moses. And so the prophecy was rescheduled to its ultimate fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p>He came there to a cave, and lodged there- </p><p>Heb. "the cave", referring to the cave Moses entered in <a href='B:20 33:12'>Exo 33:12</a>, from where he viewed the great theophany. Moses too was an upright man. But he had to be humbled, until he cowered in the rock as sinners will do before the excellence of God’s glory (<a href='B:290 2:21'>Isa 2:21</a>), before he could appreciate Yahweh’s glory. And Elijah too had to go through the same experience (<a href='B:110 19:9-12'>1Ki 19:9-12</a>). Eliphaz likewise recounted how an Angel had passed before him, as the Angel passed before Moses and Elijah, and through this he came to realize the essential truth of man’s sinfulness and desperate need for repentance and God’s gracious acceptance (<a href='B:220 4:16'>Job 4:16</a>). The theophany must have been frightening. "Though Elijah is commanded to go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, the most he does is to go out and stand at the entrance of the cave". By standing there he was failing to be humbled because of his sins. He had no awareness of his sins, like many of the harsh religious reformer types, focused solely on the errors of others. Elijah hid in a cave, hid for his life. He was thus being nudged to identify with the prophets of Yahweh whom Obadiah hid in a cave. But his repeated assertion that he alone is faithful to Yahweh is a studied refusal to make that identity- he continued to consider them apostate, despite having been nudged (through the cave experience) to identify with them.</p><p>And behold, the word of Yahweh came to him, and he said to him- </p><p>This personification of “the word of the Lord” surely refers to an Angel who spoke to Elijah. When we read that the Lord was not in the fire etc:, but was in the “still small voice”, perhaps the idea is that the Angel was not visible in the fire, earthquake, wind etc:- but He simply stood there at the end in front of Elijah and quietly spoke to him. The Angel, in a magnificent manifestation of the ‘humility’ of God, was quietly spoken and calm (“still”). The Angel was inviting Elijah to be like Him, to be God manifest by following the pattern of his guardian Angel.</p><p>What are you doing here, Elijah?- </p><p>Literally the text reads: “Elijah, Elijah, Elijah”. The three repeats of his name in the Hebrew text connect with the earthquake, wind and fire, and Elijah’s triple repeating of the same prepared statement. In his bitterness, Elijah sought to cut himself off from all consideration of his possibility of being wrong, or sensibly dialoguing with the Father. He just repeats the same words three times, as meaninglessly as the earthquake, wind and fire. Elijah hid his face in his mantle rather than face up to the true glory of God, the true fire from Heaven. The only other time Elijah sees the glory of God he threw away his mantle- as if he finally recognized he had been shielding himself from the real reality of it so that he could seek his own glory? The glory of God is His Name and character. To face up to this, believing it rather than merely knowing it, will bring us to repentance and a real facing up to the reality that we are truly not better than anyone else, in the light of the surpassing excellence of His glory. And Elijah just didn’t want to face up to it, just as we can not want to face up to the realities of what we know.</p><p>Elijah was in "the cave" (Heb:) where Moses had been, and he had rather fancied himself as Moses when he bad the people draw near to him (<a href='B:110 18:30'>1Ki 18:30</a>). Now he was being told that he was not as Moses. For Moses was the meekest man, and Elijah had not allowed himself to be humbled as Moses did.</p><p>"What are you doing here?" invites Elijah to question whether he is really like Moses, at Sinai to intercede for idolatrous Israel. Instead, Elijah refused to respond to the nudges and interceded against Israel. Such questions always imply the person questioned was doing wrong. Adam ("Where are you?" Gen. 3:9), Cain'("Why are you angry? Gen. 3:6, and "Where is your
brother Abel?" Gen. 3:9), Balaam ("Who are these men with you?" Num. 22:9) and Jonah ("Is it right for you to be angry about the gourd?" Jon. 4:9).</p><p>The idea may also be that Elijah had been commanded to go stand on the mountain, but instead he was too scared to even leave the cave. He simply didn't have the intimacy with God which Moses had had. Or maybe the idea is that he shouldn't  have fled from Jezebel; or, he should be back at the ministry of converting Israel, rather than just trying to be a Moses copycat.</p>


text:
<p>He said, I have been very zealous for Yahweh, the God of Armies; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, thrown down Your altars and slain Your prophets with the sword. I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away- </p><p>Elijah insists he has been zealous / jealous for Yahweh, alluding to His own stated characteristic of jealousy. Always, Elijah seeks to portray and understand himself as on God's side- but only on the side of some of His characteristics, those concerned with judgment. He fails to perceive that at Sinai, Yahweh revealed Himself as first of all gracious and forgiving. Moses, by contrast, sought to change God's mind. Moses was open to change in perspective, whereas Elijah just stubbornly repeats his narrative three times. This stubborn refusal to change a narrative, about God, about others, about ourselves, repeated time and again within our minds and then out loud... is what stymies spiritual growth, and makes us unfit for God's usage. Clinging on to phrases out of old statements of faiths, to traditions, to perspectives and world views... is very much what religion [as opposed to dynamic spirituality] is all about.</p><p>Elijah laments Israel have broken the covenant, but he himself alone is faithful to it. Moses by contrast recognizes that Israel have broken covenant, but urges God to restore it, and to cancel his own salvation if Israel can't be saved- even refusing God's idea of making a new nation out of him. He alludes to Dt. 31:16,17 which predicted that when Israel broke covenant, Yahweh would be angry and hide His face from Israel. This is true- but he fails to have the spirit of Moses, who despite knowing this, sought to turn away God's wrath on the basis that he [Moses] was himself faithful and willing to sacrifice himself for Israel. This is all so foreign to Elijah; like some today, he was just grabbing on to bits of scripture which talk of judgment but not seeing the wider context. Despite all the nudges to see himself as Moses. God's response to Israel breaking covenant at the time of the golden calf was to renew the covenant, because of Moses' intercession. Whereas Elijah struggles with this and just wants God to destroy Israel, in line with His own statements about consequence for breaking covenant. But God Himself doesn't always follow those principles, because of His love and grace, and His bleeding heart for His people. Thus Ez. 16:59,60: "Yes, thus says the Lord GOD: I will deal with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath, breaking the covenant; yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant". His response to their breaking covenant was to make a new one, just as He made another set of tables of the covenant- rather than just punishing them according to the agreed terms for breaking the covenant. Elijah wanted none of this, and wanted to focus only upon the consequences for sin.</p><p>Elijah simply identifies himself with God's more judgmental aspects and fails to have any love in him for Israel. It's all about himself. And this can be seen in so many legalistic believers. Visually and literally, God sought to correct Elijah by showing that He was not in the whirlwind, devouring fire and earthquake [all symbols of His judgment, and God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked], but in the still small voice, the "gentle whisper" (NIV), "the hush of a rush". The "sound of silence" is the idea- it is the absence of God's judgment which is in fact the message. We think of the silence as the Lord stands with the adulterous woman in John 8, no word of condemnation to the legally condemned. Or the sound of silence in Heaven in Rev. 8. Elijah interceded with God against Israel, Paul says. His unverbalized thoughts were counted as his prayer. But God's grace and gentleness triumph over His necessary judgment. There is no polemic against paganism as Elijah perhaps expected or hope for. No response to his prayer through some terrible statement of Divine judgment and vengeance against Israel. Just some sense that Yahweh was not "in" the symbols of judgment. His silence was the message. He was "in" that silence.</p><p>Sadly, it seems Elijah's failure here led Jonah to copy him, assuming that because Elijah had a legalistic attitude, focusing on God's judgment in isolation, therefore he could do so also. For he too requests to die when his mission ran out of highway, just as Elijah did.</p><p>Elijah's focus on Israel's sinfulness may have been tainted with the syndrome of pulling others down to make yourself look taller. He says repeatedly: "I have been very zealous for Yahweh... for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant... and I, even I only, am left". It's as if he felt that his zeal [s:w. "jealous" ] was in the fact they were apostate and he wasn't. He did what Paul outlaws- comparing ourselves amongst ourselves. Both Obadiah and the widow of Zarephath felt that Elijah had come to bring their sins to rememberance. He exuded a sense of criticism of others. This is why so many of the religious reformer types, the hard liners of so many denominations and small time churches, have no awareness of their own sinfulness. His zeal for the Lord was, he reasoned, in being the only one left when they had all quit. And this basic mistake has hamstrung us- you are righteous, zealous, a defender of the Faith, if you merely hold on to a certain academic proposition of truth which others are rumoured or assumed to have apostatized from. Zeal for the Lord surely involves infinitely more than this. Elijah prayed his prayer from the cave mouth, protesting his own righteousness as he cowered before the glory of the Lord. Yet the same word occurs in <a href='B:290 2:12-13'>Isa 2:12-13</a>, where apostate Israel will hurl away their idols and then cower in a cleft / cave of the rock before the presence of Yahweh’s glory. The connection perhaps shows that although Elijah was so proudly not an idolater, yet his pride and arrogance was essentially the same. On one hand Elijah may have gloried in the similarities between his position and that of Moses, when God’s glory passed by him in the cleft of the rock; and yet Moses too was effectively being rebuked and humbled for his pride.</p><p>God tried to correct Elijah’s despising of the other prophets of the Lord. Elijah was in a cave, and was also fed bread and water- just as the other prophets had been by Obadiah (<a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a>) whom he considered apostate. And yet Elijah didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, that connection- after having been reminded of this experience of the other prophets, he claims that “I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 18:22'>1Ki 18:22</a>)- he wrongly believed that all other valid prophets had been slain. In fact the record shows how that during Elijah’s lifetime there were other prophets of Yahweh active in His service (<a href='B:110 20:13'>1Ki 20:13</a>; <a href='B:110 20:35'>1Ki 20:35</a>), as well as the schools of the prophets mentioned at the time, and the 100 prophets whom Obadiah hid. And yet the lesson is that God still works through the conceited, the spiritually superior, those who despise their brethren. God didn’t give up on Elijah because he was like this, and neither should we give up in our relationship with such brethren.</p><p><a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a> interprets this as Elijah actually interceding with God against Israel, asking for Him to destroy them all, apart from himself. This is a feature of many prayers: not to crudely, directly ask for the obvious; but to simply inform the Almighty of the situation, in faith. Examples include: <a href='B:10 19:24'>Gen 19:24</a>; <a href='B:140 14:11'>2Ch 14:11</a>; <a href='B:230 3:1-4'>Psa 3:1-4</a>; <a href='B:230 142:1-2'>Psa 142:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:21-22'>Joh 11:21-22</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:230 106:44'>Psa 106:44</a> cp. <a href='B:290 64:3'>Isa 64:3</a>. Elijah's real motives were read, and understood as a prayer to God. And yet his ministry had been intended to reform Israel. But he just wants to see sinner judged. Therefore his ministry was removed from him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go out, and stand on the mountain before Yahweh. Behold, Yahweh passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before Yahweh; but Yahweh was not in the wind. After the wind an earthquake; but Yahweh was not in the earthquake- </p><p>The Angel tells Elijah to actually go and stand before the Lord and learn what it really meant to stand before the Lord, as he had said he did in <a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>; so he had to literally stand before the Angel as He passed by. Yet Elijah hid his face; he was no longer so happy to be before the Lord once he realized the humility and breaking in pieces of a proud man’s spirit that it really implies.</p><p>The whole scene, with Yahweh passing by, is so reminiscent of Moses on Sinai. But when Yahweh passed by, Moses saw His back parts- the back parts of God Himself, as I have suggested on Ex. 34. But despite the external dramatics of a theophany, the earthquake, wind and fire- Yahweh was not seen by Elijah. That may be the idea of Yahweh not being "in" those things. He failed to have the spirit of Moses, he prayed against Israel rather than for Israel. Likewise Moses' request to see God was revealed as inappropriaate- even greater than that, was realizing that the declaration of Yahweh's Name meant that His grace and forgiveness of the golden calf was more awesome than even seeing God physically. And so the parallels suggest that Elijah ascended Sinai of his own volition, wanting to see more of the wind and fire he had brought down on Carmel. But although the wind and fire do come, the point was that he didn't see God. But God's silence, "the hush of a rush", had a "sound" to it. The fact God isn't into showbiz, nor public exhibition of Himself, the very absence of all that... the silence, if you like... is in fact the message of Him. That He is about grace. He sent rain on Israel even though they were impenitent, and despite having said they would have no rain if they were idolatrous. Elijah had totally missed this point. He was asked in the silence to realize this.</p><p>When Elijah was told to go and stand upon mount Horeb [i:e. Sinai] before the Lord, this was evidently seeking to invite him to understand how Moses felt (<a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a>; <a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a>). Yet as noted on :9, he was being told that because he had not humbled himself as Moses, he could not be Moses. But he had potentially been set up as a new Moses, but he wasted the potential by his own pride. Consider the following parallels: </p><p>Confronted Ahab (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>) - Confronted Pharaoh (<a href='B:20 5:1'>Exo 5:1</a>)</p><p>Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (<a href='B:110 19:3'>1Ki 19:3</a>) - Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (<a href='B:20 2:15'>Exo 2:15</a>)</p><p>Miraculously fed “…bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening..." (<a href='B:110 17:6'>1Ki 17:6</a>)-Miraculously fed “…meat to eat in the evening, and bread to the full in the morning..." (<a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a>; <a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a>)</p><p>Spoke authoritatively for the Lord in his own name (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>) - Spoke authoritatively for the Lord in his own name (<a href='B:50 5:1'>Deu 5:1</a>)</p><p>Gathered all Israel to Mount Carmel (<a href='B:110 18:19'>1Ki 18:19</a>) - Gathered all Israel to Mount Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:17'>Exo 19:17</a>)</p><p>Combated the prophets of Ba’al (<a href='B:110 18:20-40'>1Ki 18:20-40</a>) - Combated the magicians of Pharaoh (<a href='B:20 7:8-13'>Exo 7:8-13</a>; <a href='B:20 7:20-22'>Exo 7:20-22</a>; <a href='B:20 8:1-7'>Exo 8:1-7</a>)</p><p>Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (<a href='B:110 18:36-39'>1Ki 18:36-39</a>) - Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (<a href='B:20 32:11-14'>Exo 32:11-14</a>)</p><p>Elijah took twelve stones at Carmel “…according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob..." (<a href='B:110 18:30-32'>1Ki 18:30-32</a>) - Moses had twelve pillars set up at Sinai “…corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel..." (<a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>)</p><p>The Lord accepted Elijah’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (<a href='B:110 18:36-39'>1Ki 18:36-39</a>)- The Lord accepted Moses and Aaron’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (<a href='B:30 9:22-24'>Lev 9:22-24</a>)</p><p>By Elijah’s authority 3 000 idolatrous prophets were slain (<a href='B:110 18:40'>1Ki 18:40</a>) - By Moses’ authority 3 000 idolaters were slain (<a href='B:20 32:25-29'>Exo 32:25-29</a>)</p><p>After killing the prophets of Ba’al Elijah climbed Carmel to pray. (<a href='B:110 18:42'>1Ki 18:42</a>) - After killing the idolaters Moses climbed Sinai to pray (<a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a>)</p><p>Went without food for forty days and forty nights (<a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a>) - Went without food for forty days and forty nights (<a href='B:50 9:9'>Deu 9:9</a>)</p><p>Elijah (re)commissioned at Horeb (=Sinai) (1 Kings 19) - Moses commissioned at Sinai (Exodus 3)</p><p>Elijah was in “the cave” on Horeb (=Sinai) when the Lord “passed by” (<a href='B:110 19:9-11'>1Ki 19:9-11</a>) - Moses was hidden “in the cleft of the rock” when the Lord passed by Sinai. (<a href='B:20 33:21-23'>Exo 33:21-23</a>)</p><p>Elijah saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Horeb (=Sinai). (<a href='B:110 19:11-12'>1Ki 19:11-12</a>) - Moses saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Sinai. (<a href='B:20 19:16-20'>Exo 19:16-20</a>; <a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a>; <a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a>; <a href='B:50 5:22-27'>Deu 5:22-27</a>). </p><p>Prayed that he might die. (<a href='B:110 19:1-4'>1Ki 19:1-4</a>) - Prayed that he might die. (<a href='B:40 11:10-15'>Num 11:10-15</a>).</p><p>The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon his enemies. (<a href='B:120 1:9-12'>2Ki 1:9-12</a>) - The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon those who rebelled against him. (Numbers 16; cf. <a href='B:30 10:1-3'>Lev 10:1-3</a>)</p><p>Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan by striking the waters with his cloak and passed over on dry ground. (<a href='B:120 2:8'>2Ki 2:8</a>) - Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea by stretching out his staff and passed over on dry ground. (<a href='B:20 14:16'>Exo 14:16</a>; <a href='B:20 14:21-22'>Exo 14:21-22</a>)</p><p>His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had. ( 2 Kings 2) - His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had the Red Sea. (Joshua 3)</p><p>Was taken away in the Transjordan. (<a href='B:120 2:9-11'>2Ki 2:9-11</a>) - Died in the Transjordan. (<a href='B:50 34:5'>Deu 34:5</a>)</p><p>Mysteriously translated &nbsp;(2 Kings 9-18) - Died mysteriously and buried in a valley, but his burial place was unknown. (<a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a>).</p><p>The point of these similarities was that the Angel wanted Elijah to be like Moses; to pray for the peoples’ salvation, to return to the people and lead them and teach them. Moses had begged for God’s mercy for His people; but Elijah was so full of self-justification that he prayed against Israel. And so with us, we are potentially led into situations where we are to discern the similarities between us and Bible characters; we are set up with opportunities to respond in a way that reflects how we have learnt the lessons from them. The way the Lord Jesus perceived this in His wilderness temptations is a great example.</p><p>When the Lord passed by, there was a whirlwind which broke “in pieces the rocks before the Lord” (<a href='B:110 19:11'>1Ki 19:11</a>). Yet it was Elijah who described himself as the one who stood before the Lord- and even prided himself on this (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). He was the rock being broken in pieces by the display of God’s glory. And insofar as we too meditate upon the glory of His character, the attributes outlined in, e.g., <a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a>, we likewise will be broken men and women. The “earthquake” is the same word found in <a href='B:330 3:12-13'>Eze 3:12-13</a> about a theophany / passing of the cherubim chariot. That whole display of God’s physical glory was intended to stop Elijah just repeating his prepared statement [he says the same thing 3 times]. Grasping the wonder of who God really and essentially is can and must shake us from the mediocrity of entrenched positions, of forms of expressing and understanding our faith which are mere set formulas... See on <a href='B:110 21:29'>1Ki 21:29</a>.</p>


text:
<p>After the earthquake a fire passed; but Yahweh was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice- </p><p>The way God "was not in" the fire, wind and earthquake make all this an empty theophany. God was very much in the fire and earthquake which accompanied the theophany Moses witnessed in the same place, to the extent Moses even saw His back parts. But just as Elijah was spiritually empty, having faith but no love which made him nothing, so he is being shown that he is not in fact the prophet like Moses. For he has not seen Yahweh's back parts, and Yahweh has not come down personally to him as He did to Moses. </p><p>God Almighty spoke to the man Elijah in a still [Heb. whispering] small [s:w. "thin" <a href='B:30 13:30'>Lev 13:30</a>; "beaten small" <a href='B:30 16:12'>Lev 16:12</a>; "dwarf" <a href='B:30 21:20'>Lev 21:20</a>] voice. The awesome God of Sinai spoke in the whispering voice of a dwarf, which compared to Elijah’s loud voice. This is not only an essay in the humility of God. It is an essay in how God so earnestly seeks to persuade His children that He works in the small, humble way. And this is contrasted with the loud, booming voice and personality of Elijah. And it isn’t what God wants. Here there is a lesson for any loud mouthed, self-confident, razzamatazz way of presenting the Gospel; it just isn’t to be done. For this is not how God works.</p><p>The word was and is God. <a href='B:50 4:12'>Deu 4:12</a> [Heb:] says that Israel heard God’s voice and saw no similitude save a voice. To hear the word is to in that sense see God; for the word was and is God. There are other connections between seeing God and hearing His word in <a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a> and <a href='B:110 19:12-14'>1Ki 19:12-14</a>. Observe the parallelism in <a href='B:140 20:20'>2Ch 20:20</a>: "Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper". Our attitude to God is our attitude to His word. Because the word is so pure, therefore we love it (<a href='B:230 119:140'>Psa 119:140</a>). John Carter rightly observed: "Upon our understanding of what the Bible is, our attitude to it will be determined".</p>


text:
<p>It was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave. Behold, a voice came to him, and said, Why are you still here, Elijah?- </p><p>"Still here" suggests Elijah should have repented of his pride, and realized that he was not like Moses, and should not be standing in "the cave" where Moses had stood. But Elijah insisted on still standing before Yahweh in his won strength. He wrapped his face [s:w. “before” the Lord] in his mantle and “stood” [s:w. ‘stand’ before the Lord] in the cave mouth before the Angel. In Hebrew, the words for ‘face’ and ‘before’ are the same. Too ashamed to really stand before the Lord, Elijah therefore wrapped his face. Earlier, he had been so keen to use this phrase of himself (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>; <a href='B:110 18:15'>1Ki 18:15</a>); he had prided himself on the fact that he stood before the Lord. But now he hid his face, a common idiom often used by God for withholding fellowship. The fact we too are God’s covenant people can initially be a source of pride to us as we do our theological gladiatorship with others. But the implications are so far deeper; and through Angelic work in our lives, we too are brought to see this.</p><p>The word for “mantle” is translated “glory” in <a href='B:450 11:3'>Zec 11:3</a>; Elijah wrapped his presence in his own glory, rather than face up to the implications of God’s glory. A desire for our own glory prevents us perceiving God’s glory. Perhaps Elijah was being pseudo-humble, misquoting to himself a Biblical precedent in all this, namely that the cherubim wrapped their faces (<a href='B:290 6:2'>Isa 6:2</a>). In this case. Elijah was doing a false impersonation of the cherubim, manifesting himself before God’s manifestation of Himself. Only at the very end does Elijah cast away his mantle (<a href='B:120 2:13'>2Ki 2:13</a>), his human strength, allowing himself to merge with God’s glory. He should have cast away his mantle earlier, when he stood before the still small voice on Horeb.</p><p>The question “Why are you still here, Elijah?” may imply that Elijah should have allowed himself to be carried away by the cherubim, he should have surrendered himself to the progress of God’s glory, rather than so obsessively insist upon his own personal rightness and the wrongness of others. And this was why God’s ultimate response to Elijah’s attitude on Horeb was to dismiss him from his prophetic ministry and instate Elisha as his successor (<a href='B:110 19:16'>1Ki 19:16</a>). Elijah seems to have finally learnt his lesson, for he calls Elisha to the ministry by ‘passing by’ Elisha as in a theophany, taking off his mantle and throwing it upon Elisha (<a href='B:110 19:19'>1Ki 19:19</a>). He realized that he had hidden behind that mantle, using it to resist participating in the selfless association with God’s glory [rather than his own] to which he was called. But he got there in the end; hence the enormous significance of Elijah giving up his mantle when he finally ascends to Heaven in the cherubim chariot (<a href='B:120 2:13'>2Ki 2:13</a>).</p><p>The question implies that it was wrong for Elijah to have been still in the cave of Moses on Horeb / Sinai. He ought to have realized he was not Moses now, his pride had precluded it. It seems from <a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a> that he himself chose to go there; dwelling in a cleft / cave of the rock is reminiscent of Moses in Sinai in Exodus 34. But Moses was praying for Israel, whereas Elijah was interceding against them, Paul tells us (Ron. 11:2,3). Could it even be that Elijah went down there to Sinai with the idea of somehow asking that a new Israel be formed out of him, as God had offered Moses? Whether this be so or not, the clear implication is that&nbsp; God was not pleased with what Elijah was doing there. When asked what he was doing, he just repeats verbatim his prayer of intercession against Israel. So on one hand, he shouldn't have been praying that prayer. On the other, he was heard- for God’s response is to tell him to anoint Jehu, Hazael and Elisha to destroy apostate Israel, even though He would preserve the 7,000 remnant. So again we see the same theme with Elijah- his undoubted faith in prayer is recognized; he prays for judgment on Israel in a way that is not altogether wrong, and yet sadly differs from the higher spirit of grace which there is in Christ.</p><p>Elijah's wrapping of his face in a mantle may have been to consciously imitate Moses, who covered his face from the glory of Yahweh and also covered or hid his face at the burning bush (Ex. 3:6). But again, Elijah is imitiating Moses only a surface level. He has no sense of relationship with God nor growth in that relationship; he merely repeats his position statements three times before God, rather like reciting a statement of faith to God rather than dialoguing with him.</p><p>Elijah clearly assumed he would get a physical view of God as Moses did, but was disappointed. This desire to see God is relevant to the context of his life. For some years previously, Jeroboam had set up the golden calves with their implicit claim that Yahweh was invisible. W. F. Albright explains: “Jeroboam represented Yahweh as an invisible figure standing on a young bull of gold. It is true that the golden calves
have been assumed by most scholars to have been direct representations of Yahweh as bull-god, but this gross conception is not only otherwise unparalleled in biblical tradition, but is contrary to all we know of SyroPalestinian iconography in the second and early first millennium B.C. Among the Canaanites, Arameans, and Hittites we find the gods nearly always represented as standing on the back of an animal or as seated on a throne borne by animals—but never as themselves in animal form” (From the Stone Age to Christianity p. 299). </p>


text:
<p>He said, I have been very zealous for Yahweh, the God of Armies; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, thrown down your altars and slain Your prophets with the sword. I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away- </p><p>He laments that Israel had “thrown down” Yahweh’s altars, perhaps pointing the contrast with the way he threw himself down in prayer to Yahweh. The same word is used in <a href='B:20 23:24'>Exo 23:24</a> about throwing down pagan altars. Elijah was saying that they treated Yahweh’s altars as if they were pagan. But is there any evidence they ever rejected Yahweh like this? Is not Elijah imputing motives to them? Derelict altars of Yahweh- the “high places” which they were repeatedly criticized for- Elijah interpreted as thrown down. To throw them down was a good thing if done from the right motives. But Elijah was in a mindset of seeing and imagining the very worst of his brethren.</p><p>The triumph on Carmel involved making an offering on an altar of Yahweh which was in one of the “high places” (<a href='B:110 18:30'>1Ki 18:30</a>)- whereas Israel were repeatedly criticized for offering on these “high places” and not in Jerusalem. Elijah even criticizes Israel for throwing down these “high places” altars of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a>; <a href='B:110 19:14'>1Ki 19:14</a>). Surely Elijah knew that the use of the high places was not what Yahweh ideally wanted; and yet he was driven to use a high place in this way. And with us, God will work through circumstances to remove from us the crutches of mere religion, to challenge the essence of our faith and relationship with Him. The way Ezekiel had to eat unclean food and defile himself is another such example.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him, Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. When you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria-</p><p>God was indeed going to judge Israel, but not by such a judgmental, angry, bitter person like Elijah. And even now, Elijah doesn't actually do what he is told; he doesn't anoint Jehu nor Hazael to destroy Israel (<a href='B:120 9:3'>2Ki 9:3</a>). It's hard to decide whether this was disobedience or rather an awkward realization that he had been praying with too harsh a spirit for something that would have been best left to God. It's such a warning:&nbsp;It is interesting to compare Elijah's attitude with how Elisha weeps tears over Hazael, knowing how much damage he is going to do to Israel in response to Elijah's prayer (<a href='B:120 8:12'>2Ki 8:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi to be king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah to be prophet in your place- </p><p>Remember that Elijah considered that he alone was faithful in Israel. If he knew Elisha or Shaphat (and the immediate response of :19 suggests he did), he would likely have wanted to protest 'But he's not sincere, his dad's not a genuine believer, it's all just words with him!', or something similar. But he was being taught that those whom he had written off spiritually, such as Obadiah and the Gentile widow, were in fact just as much God’s children as he was. We note that Elijah is not recorded as anointing any of these men.</p><p>It appears Elijah never obeyed the command to anoint Elisha as his replacement. It was Elisha and not Elijah who does the job of appointing Hazael king of Syria; it is Elisha's servant who anoints Jehu, not Elijah. And the anointings of Jehu and Hazael were done covertly, not openly, at a time when the ruling monarchs related to those men were weak or sick. Elijah appears to grudgingly accept God's decision by casting his mantle on Elisha, but never anoints him. It's as if he doesn't put the oil of the Spirit on Elisha's head, but rather thinks that his distinctive personal mantle was enough to put on Elisha's head, thinking that was better than the Spirit. We see here the pride which always doggs conservative religion. A hairy mantle was a sign of being a prophet- hence 2 Kings 1:8 RV, where Elijah is described as "a man with a garment of skin"(Heb.). And we learn from Zech. 13:4 that a hairy mantle was a sign of a prophet. So Elijah didn't use the oil of the Spirit on Elisha but rather his own personal symbol of office. And Elijah only does this when he is forcibly snatched away from his ministry, as if in a begrudging and limited act of obedience to this message to anoint Elisha with oil. He leaves it to the last minute, rather than immediately going and doing as he was told and humbly anointing Elisha. </p>


text:
<p>It shall happen, that he who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and he who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill- </p><p>This was largely a prophesy of potentials. There is no record that Elijah anointed Hazael nor Jehu; nor that Elisha killed anyone. It was a potential scenario, perhaps precluded from the start by Elijah's refusal to be obedient to the command to anoint Hazael and Jehu. Perhaps he finally realized that he had been far too judgmental, and didn’t want more judgment to flow. And he recognized his unworthiness and failure in his ministry by anointing Elisha to replace him.</p><p>1 Kings 21 states that the death of Joram at Jehu's hand was "in accordance with the word of the LORD". Likewise the murder of Ahab's 70 sons is stated to be an explicit fulfilment of Yahweh's word here "through His servant Elijah" (2 Kings 10:10,17 cp. 1 Kings 21:21). But the "through" begs many questions. Elijah maybe repeated these words- but failed to anoint Jehu to do the job as requested. Or maybe the idea is that God's word still finally comes true despite human failure, as we have here on Elijah's part.</p><p>So God's word through Elijah was fulfilled, but not through the initially intended mechanism- that Elijah would anoint Jehu. Actually he didn't, Elisha took on the job but got his servant to do it- who nervously ran off after doing it. But still God's word came true- although the path to fulfilment of it varied in accordance with human weakness and, as it were, availability to God. This explains why and how prophecies have varying fulfilments but always somehow come true in the end. </p><p>We note too from Hos. 1:4 that God punished Jehu for what he did- presumably because he did it from the wrong motives, i.e. his own blood lust and desire for personal agrandisement: "I will avenge the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu".</p>


text:
<p>Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth which has not kissed him-</p><p>Elijah, as many an isolated preacher, felt that he alone was faithful. Yet he was reminded that Yahweh had left Himself 7,000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal. It is easy to assume that this means that those 7,000 were out there in Israel but unknown to Elijah. However it is possible to read the Hebrew text as meaning ‘I have marked off 7,000 potentially, now Elijah, stop moaning, go out there and find them and convert them’. This would be why Elijah prayed that the people would see that God had already turned their heart back (<a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a>)- He had potentially enabled their conversion. Something similar may be hinted at in <a href='B:500 1:7'>Joh 1:7</a>, where we read that all of Israel could have believed due to the work of John. It was potentially possible.</p><p>The Hebrew for “left” can imply that God had preserved potentially the 7,000- or, that there simply were 7,000 faithful right then in Israel. Faithfulness to Yahweh was itself a gift, just as faith is a gift which not all men have; "all men have not faith... it is the gift of God... not of yourselves". Elijah was being taught that his own faith was in a sense also a gift from God. Hence Rom. 11:4-6 says that the 7000 represent the remnant according to grace; they were faithful because of God's grace to them. Yet Elijah clearly discounted them. The more God sought to teach Elijah that he really was not alone, that his view of others was far too dismissive, the more Elijah became almost bitter with God. The conversion of Israel on Carmel turned out, I suggest, a surprise for Elijah. He wasn’t expecting them to start chanting “El is Yah”, “The Lord, He is the God”. They were chanting his name- Elijah. But he turns and runs to Jezreel, and then goes out into the desert and becomes suicidal. Effectively he preferred the life of the lonely spiritual hero, with the people in apostasy; and there are many such examples of brethren who prefer a life of self-imposed exile because of the supposed errors of God’s people- no matter what good there is amongst their brethren. And actually, deny it as we may, we all have an element of this deep within us.</p><p>There is such a thing as feeling lonely when we needn’t. Elijah is an example of this; he felt that he was “left alone” faithful in Israel- even though there were another 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (<a href='B:520 11:3'>Rom 11:3</a>). The Hebrew in 1 Kings is hard to translate. It could mean that God reserved 7,000 of Elijah’s brothers and sisters who potentially would not bow the knee to Baal. Yet Elijah didn’t want to see the potential of his brethren. He set himself in a league above them, like the Psalmist, saying in his haste that all men are liars (<a href='B:230 116:11'>Psa 116:11</a>).</p><p>The one hundred prophets of <a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a> were presumably part of the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. And maybe they weren’t that strong- they are set up as representative of those who will only be saved by grace, not their works (<a href='B:520 11:4-6'>Rom 11:4-6</a>). But, by implication, Elijah, for all his love of Israel, did not look upon them through the eyes of grace. Elijah insisted that he alone was “left”; yet God says that He has “left” Himself the 7,000 (<a href='B:110 19:18'>1Ki 19:18</a>). The preservation of the people of God, or ‘the truth’, can be done, and is done, by God Himself; yet the likes of Elijah consider that it is they who ‘preserve the truth’. Again, Elijah had to learn that we are all saved by grace. God will leave for and to Himself His people, without requiring the help of man. Elijah struggled with this issue of accepting others and not thinking he was the only one who could do the job right up to the end of his ministry; for he ascends to Heaven clutching his mantle, the sign of his prophetic ministry. It seems to me that he took it with him because he felt that not even Elisha was really fit to do the job and take his place; but perhaps in what were possibly the last seconds of his mortal life, he learnt his lesson and let go of it, allowing it to fall to the earth to let another man take it up.</p><p>Some manuscripts and LXX say that Elijah was leaving 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal, which would imply that his ministry was being ended because he had not ministered to them. He had considered them apostate and himself as the only true Yahweh worshipper left in the land. This is a powerful warning to the tendency toward spiritual elitism which seems such a common human temptation.</p>


text:
<p>So he departed to there, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was ploughing, with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed over to him, and threw his mantle on him- </p><p>God’s rejection of Elijah as prophet was because he didn’t recognize his brethren. See on :13. Perhaps the 12 yoke was to keep alive the prophetic hope that Judah and Israel would be united in repentance toward the prophetic message. Elijah had built an altar of 12 stones and offered an acceptable sin offering upon it, speaking of the same prophetic intention. Elijah apparently didn’t anoint Hazael and Jehu as commanded; but he did give his ministry over to Elisha to replace him. I take that as humility from him, in the very end, although too late for God to continue to use him in ministry as initially intended.</p><p>However, "twelve yoke of oxen" could refer to an area of land known as a twelve yoke, or to 12 parcels of land.</p>


text:
<p>He left the oxen, and ran after Elijah- </p><p>Possibly implying that Elijah walked on immediately, as a test as to whether Elisha would respond immediately. Immediate response, "yes straight away", is what God so looks for. We see it in the call of the disciples. However in practice we sense a half hearted desire on Elijah's part for Elisha to follow him. He doesn't want to be replaced as God had commanded. He calls him and just walks away rather than trying to persuade him.</p><p>And said, Let me please kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you. He said to him, Go back again; for what have I done to you?- </p><p>See on :16. The Lord Jesus makes an allusion here when He says that if anyone wants to follow Him but firstly must go home, then such a person is unworthy of Him (<a href='B:490 9:61-62'>Luk 9:61-62</a>). He shows by this that He expects more of us than Elijah did; He is a more demanding Lord than Elijah, precisely because He is the more gracious. Elijah allowed him to return home first; "for what have I done to you?" is hard to understand, but it seems to mean to the effect that 'I am not myself being unreasonable; this call is not of me, I have not done this to you, but God has by calling you'. There could be there a possible hint of bitterness at his replacement by Elisha; see on :16. There is no record that Elijah ever anointed Elisha as he was commanded to. We could even interpret these enigmatic words as Elijah telling Elisha to return home and not follow Elijah. LXX "Return, for I have done the work for you" encourages us in thinking that. All this is a studied refusal to do as God has told him, and let Elisha take his place.</p>


text:
<p>He returned from following him, and took the yoke of oxen, killed them and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave to the people and they ate. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and served him- </p><p>We have here an example of servant leadership. He had been given Elijah's mantle already (:19) and presumably Elijah had explained to him the Lord's word about transferring the ministry to Elisha. But Elisha begins by serving Elijah (<a href='B:120 3:11'>2Ki 3:11</a> implies in quite a menial way). His destruction of so many oxen and their yoke was really burning all his bridges to return home. His family may well have seen it as an unnecessary waste, as that may have represented a large part of their family wealth.</p><p>Elijah was told to replace himself with Elisha, but it seems he only called Elisha to be his servant and didn't anoint him as asked. Hence the section finishes with the comment that Elisha served him. That was not at all what God asked of Elijah. His taking up and snatching away was God forcing him to end his ministry; Elisha was told that Yahweh would take away his master from above his head, indicating Elijah was in the role of Elisha's master [and Elisha was his servant] right up to the moment he was carried away in the whirlwind. Taken away from above his head (2 Kings 2:3 "Yahweh will take away your master from your head today") is a strange phrase. Perhaps it indicates that Elijah was forcibly removed from having Elisha as his servant, and the way Elijah refused to relinquish his role was displeasing to God. But we note how in the gap between being fires from his ministry and being forcibly stopped from continuing it, God graciously still used him.  </p>


text:
<p>Ben Hadad the king of Syria gathered all his army together; and there were thirty-two kings with him, and horses and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and fought against it- </p><p>Josephus and the LXX have chapters 20 and 21 the opposite way around. This could be the same Benhadad who 14 years ago had made a treaty with Asa of Judah and had attacked the ten tribes during Baasha's rule. The 32 kings would have been the rulers of the provinces and areas which were then under the control of Benhadad.</p>


text:
<p>He sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the city, and said to him, Thus says Ben Hadad- </p><p>An example of the Hebrew word malak meaning simply "messengers". It is elsewhere translated "messenger", such as here. The word can therefore be used about human beings, who can sin. But the Angels as in the Divine beings cannot sin as they all have God’s nature, and there is no rebellion or division in Heaven.</p>


text:
<p>‘Your silver and your gold is mine. Your wives also and your children, even the best, are mine’- </p><p>This was an intentional humiliation of Ahab. To agree to give a man your wealth, wives and children was to admit total failure as a man to protect yourself. Many men would have preferred to die fighting rather than agree. The strange sequence of events here can too easily be read as a reflection of Ahab's weak character. But in fact they were designed to humble him For humility is of such value to God, and the whole story of the weak Ahab ends up with him doing the most amazing, bravest thing which most men who have ever lived would have flinched at and failed: Ahab the weak became strong in that he repented, and will, it seems, be saved eternally because of it. That is the end product in view, and must be remembered as we read this chapter with the strange turns of fortune and event.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel answered, It is according to your saying, my lord, O king. I am yours, and all that I have- </p><p>As noted on :3, this was an incredible reflection of weakness of character. Ahab had not met Benhadad in the field in battle, and now he was surrounded, he refuses to accept what is surely an invitation to come out and fight. For that is what that kind of insulting demand was intended to elicit. But Ahab just agrees.</p>


text:
<p>The messengers came again and said, Ben Hadad says, ‘I sent indeed to you, saying, You shall deliver me your silver, and your gold, and your wives, and your children- </p><p>Benhadad wanted to provoke Ahab to come out and fight. He did this by making an insulting demand, which in Semitic terms was not intended to be taken literally. But Ahab does take it literally, and he agrees.</p>


text:
<p>but I will send my servants to you tomorrow about this time, and they shall search your house, and the houses of your servants; and it shall be, that whatever is pleasant in your eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away'- </p><p>As noted on :3, the whole purpose of this situation was to humble Ahab and force him to grow up and take personal responsibility. The demand to come out and fight is now made again, seeing Ahab had taken literally the insulting demand of :4 and had agreed to it. So now an even more insulting demand is made. Ahab would take any humiliation rather than fighting and trusting in God to save him. So he had to be humbled yet more.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land and said, Please notice how this man seeks mischief; for he sent to me for my wives, my children, my silver, my gold; and I didn’t deny him- </p><p>Benhadad "sought mischief" by demanding his wealth and family. Ahab makes out that this was a demand he could agree to for the sake of avoiding war. But clearly the insulting demand to take absolutely everything from everybody was tantamount to declaring an invasion of the city.</p>


text:
<p>All the elders and all the people said to him, Don’t listen, neither consent- </p><p>"Listen and consent" is a phrase used of how Israel were to listen and consent to God, and they would be punished for not doing so (<a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a>; <a href='B:50 13:8'>Deu 13:8</a>; <a href='B:290 1:19'>Isa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:290 28:12'>Isa 28:12</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a> etc:). The phrase must have got Ahab thinking. And that was the intention of these events.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore he said to the messengers of Ben Hadad, Tell my lord the king, ‘All that you sent for to your servant at the first I will do; but this thing I cannot do’. The messengers departed, and delivered the message- </p><p>The second demand was tantamount to declaring an invasion and sacking of the city. There was no way Ahab could agree. As explained on :3, the whole series of events was to bring him to humility and taking personal responsibility, and it did finally work- for he repented at the end of his life.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hadad sent to him and said, The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people who follow me- </p><p>The second demand was indeed tantamount to saying that the city was going to be sacked, and even the dust of it taken away.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel answered, Tell him, ‘Don’t let him who puts on his armour brag like he who takes it off’- </p><p>LXX "let not the humpbacked boast as he that is upright". This was a statement of confidence, and we wonder where Ahab got that confidence from, seeing he had just recently agreed to the humiliating demand to surrender his wives, children and wealth. He had no military strength, so we wonder whether, as intended, he was beginning to have a personal faith in Yahweh. For He alone would help in this situation.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Ben Hadad heard this message, as he was drinking, he and the kings, in the pavilions, that he said to his servants, Prepare to attack! They prepared to attack the city-</p><p>Benhadad comes over as an overconfident drunkard, leading from the rear. Sometimes God apparently supports the lesser of two sinners because He wishes to judge pride and fleshly confidence more than anything else. But that doesn't thereby justify the lesser sinner, Ahab in this case.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, a prophet came near to Ahab king of Israel and said- </p><p>The prophet is not named. If indeed 1 Kings 21 is before this incident (see on :1), it surely would have been noted if it were Elijah. Perhaps the point is that Elijah was so wrong to arrogantly claim that he was the only prophet of Yahweh left. There were others, such as this anonymous prophet, and the schools of the prophets mentioned in 2 Kings. Not to mention the 100 prophets Obadiah had hidden in a cave.</p><p>Thus says Yahweh, ‘Have you seen all this great multitude? Behold, I will deliver it into your hand this day; and you shall know that I am Yahweh’- </p><p>As explained on :3, the intention of this series of events was to bring Ahab to Yahweh. And finally, it worked. It is a parade example of how we should never give up with those who apparently have no interest in the ways of God. The victory was given by God’s grace and not because of Ahab's faith or spirituality. And thereby he came to "know Yahweh", for the essence of Yahweh is His grace in giving undeserved favour. For Ahab was indeed ripe for judgment, and Benhadad appeared the logical person to use for that.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab said, By whom? He said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘By the young men of the princes of the provinces’. Then he said, Who shall begin the battle? He answered, You- </p><p>Part of the purpose of these events was to bring Ahab to greater personal responsibility, rather than living the life of an overgrown pampered adolescent, born into wealth and rulership, with a dominant wife who arranged everything for him. And so he was told that he was to lead off the battle; he who had no military experience and was clearly a coward by nature. The object of all this was that Ahab would "know Yahweh" (:13). So God was showing what He was like in that the victory was to be won by "young men" from the provinces, and by a cowardly king with no military experience.</p>


text:
<p>Then he mustered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two. After them, he mustered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand-</p><p>"Thousand" may not mean a literal 1000, but rather a division or regiment. But they were not used in the initial conflict. Just 232 young men were the vanguard of the Israelite attack. And they were followed by the army (:19), who only played a role in pursuing the much larger Syrian army once the 232 young men had won the battle and turned them to flight. As explained on :14, the purpose of this was that Ahab would "know Yahweh", the God who saves by the weak, the young, the inexperienced; because grace and humility are foremost in the things He values, and which comprise His Name.</p>


text:
<p>They went out at noon. But Ben Hadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty-two kings who helped him- </p><p>Battles were usually won by lightning strikes at night or dawn. To attack at noon continues the theme discussed on :15; God was granting this victory by grace, when everything was very weak on the Israelite side, in secular terms. As it happened, noon was no bad time to attack in this case because Benhadad and all the leaders of the Syrian army were drunk.</p>


text:
<p>The young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben Hadad sent out, and they told him, saying, Men are coming out from Samaria- </p><p>LXX "sons of the leaders". We get the impression that the leaders of the Syrian army were too drunk and distant to really be leaders, and the leaders of Israel feared to fight themselves, with Ahab their king a weak minded coward.</p>


text:
<p>He said, If they have come out for peace, take them alive; or if they have come out for war, take them alive- </p><p>The arrogance of Benhadad is clear. He assumed that his soldiers could easily capture alive 232 young men. As noted on :12, sometimes God apparently supports the lesser of two sinners because He wishes to judge pride and fleshly confidence more than anything else.</p>


text:
<p>So these went out of the city, the young men of the princes of the provinces, and the army which followed them- </p><p>As explained on :15, it was the 232 young men who won the battle. The army which followed them played no role in the victory apart from to chase the fleeing Syrians. The idea was that cowardly Ahab, a king with no military experience, should march at the front of those young men. For he was to 'lead forth' the battle (see on :14). There is no record that he did as he was asked; he only "went out" after the young men had won the battle (:21).</p>


text:
<p>They each killed his opponent. The Syrians fled, and Israel pursued them. Ben Hadad the king of Syria escaped on a horse with horsemen- </p><p>As with the duel between David and Goliath, the idea may have been that these young men fought the Syrian young men, as also seen in <a href='B:100 2:14'>2Sa 2:14</a>. Each of those young Israelites killed the man they were given to fight.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel went out, and struck the horses and chariots, and killed the Syrians with a great slaughter- </p><p>Ahab was to 'lead forth' the battle (see on :14), at the head of the 232 young men. But it seems he didn’t; he only "went out" once the battle had been won, to lead the chase. The point of it all was to make him realize that he, the coward, had been given a great victory and had gone down as a king who won a battle against great odds. This was all by the grace of the Yahweh whom he had so resisted. And so through this grace he came to "know Yahweh" (:13). They destroyed very many horses and chariots (:25). Ahab loved horses, for he personally had gone around Israel during the drought seeking for fodder for them. For him, the worst thing about the drought was the damage done to his horses. So we wonder why the horses were "struck" or destroyed (:25). Was it not because he knew that the king of Israel should not have horses and chariots, and he wished to follow Joshua's example in destroying them when he captured them (<a href='B:60 11:6'>Jos 11:6</a>)? We see the beginnings of faith and response, as intended.</p>


text:
<p>The prophet came near to the king of Israel and said to him, Go, strengthen yourself, and mark, and see what you do; for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against you- </p><p>For "the prophet", see on :13. The repeat of the situation was because as discussed on :3, these events were carefully designed to develop Ahab's faith, humility and sense of personal responsibility. "See what you do" is a phrase often used about seeing what God does or works (<a href='B:20 6:1'>Exo 6:1</a>; <a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a>; <a href='B:40 14:22'>Num 14:22</a>; <a href='B:50 4:3'>Deu 4:3</a>; <a href='B:50 11:7'>Deu 11:7</a> and often). Perhaps he was to take the hint that he would only win again if he recognized that God would work through him. Ahab was also being led to self awareness, personal responsibility and forward planning, rather than just leaving it all to Jezebel and living his life as he pleased.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of the king of Syria said to him, Their god is a god of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we. But let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they- </p><p>Their impression was perhaps because of Israel's tendency to worship Yahweh on the "high places", mixing idolatry with Yahweh worship. Again, as noted on :12, there are times when God may apparently give blessing or victory to one side in a conflict because the other side is so blasphemous. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the winning side, Ahab in this case, are right before Him. He even considered sparing Israel from destruction in the desert because of what the nations would say about Him and His people.</p>


text:
<p>Do this thing: take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains in their place- </p><p>This was a tacit recognition that no army can achieve victory if it is led by political rather than military leaders, who get drunk at the rear during a battle.</p>


text:
<p>Muster an army, like the army that you have lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot. We will fight against them in the plain, and surely we will be stronger than them. He listened to their voice, and did so-</p><p>We see here the great extent of the first Israelite victory, involving destroying many horses and chariots. See on :21 for the significance of this.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the return of the year, that Ben Hadad mustered the Syrians, and went up to Aphek, to fight against Israel- </p><p>"Aphek" means 'strength', and the Syrians were determined to "be stronger than them" (:25), and Ahab had been told to make himself strong for this battle (:22). It was all about strength, and the purpose of the battle was to make Ahab trust in God’s strength; for he was clearly weaker than Benhadad.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel were mustered and were provisioned, and went against them. The children of Israel encamped before them like two little flocks of young goats; but the Syrians filled the country- </p><p>The Israelites seemed doomed to destruction. They were outnumbered, and are described as goats and not sheep; for they were condemned before God. So again, the lesson was to be of salvation by grace, when they didn’t deserve it; so as to teach Ahab to "know Yahweh" (:28), to see what He was really like, and His grace is His lead characteristic.</p>


text:
<p>A man of God came near and spoke to the king of Israel and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because the Syrians have said, Yahweh is a god of the hills, but He is not a god of the valleys; therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am Yahweh’- </p><p>This "man of God" would appear to be a different one from the prophet who previously came to Ahab. Again the point is being made that Elijah was so wrong in assuming he was the only true prophet of Yahweh. There were others, and he was wrong to consider each of them to be astray on some point or other, and he alone right before Yahweh. The phrase "I will deliver this multitude into your hand" is a quotation from <a href='B:70 4:7'>Jdg 4:7</a>, where again a spiritually weak Israel, led by a woman [perceived as weak] were given victory over Sisera. And if Ahab had thought about it, he would have noticed that this victory was at the river Kishon, the place where Elijah had slain his prophets of Baal (<a href='B:110 18:40'>1Ki 18:40</a>).</p><p>Although unrecorded, it is an inference of :42 that at this time the prophet of Yahweh had told Ahab to destroy Benhadad.</p>


text:
<p>They encamped opposite one another seven days. So it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel killed one hundred thousand footmen of the Syrians in one day- </p><p>"Thousand" often doesn't mean 1000, but refers instead to regiments or military divisions. The seven day period would have been a time for Ahab to consider how weak Israel were, as nothing before the hugely superior forces of Syria (:27). The camping opposite each other was to recall the situation with David and Goliath. Ahab was being humbled, and made to trust in God’s strength (see on :3).</p>


text:
<p>But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and the wall fell on twenty-seven thousand men who were left. Ben Hadad fled, and came into the city, into an inner room- </p><p>Again, "thousand" may refer to some kind of military division. The battles of Israel often feature some supernatural element behind their total victory, and that was intended to teach them that the victory was of God’s grace and not solely their own bravery, tactics or strength. And surely in this case, this again was intended as part of Ahab's spiritual education.</p><p>There is a connection between Benhadad going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was given victory against him (<a href='B:110 20:30'>1Ki 20:30</a>), and the false prophet Zedekiah going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was defeated (<a href='B:110 22:25'>1Ki 22:25</a>). The same Hebrew words are used, and the connection becomes more apparent if we accept that 1 Kings 20, 21 should be placed the other way around, as in LXX. This would mean that the hiding of Benhadad is recorded just a short time before that of Zedekiah. The connection would be to show that the false prophets were in fact bracketed together by God with Israel's enemies; whereas they had claimed that they were nationalists on Israel's side, proclaiming Israel's certain victory against their enemies. God sees not as man sees, and the real spiritual realities are often the very opposite of what appears. See on :31.</p>


text:
<p>His servants said to him- </p><p>The very men who had advised and urged Benhadad to go into this battle (:23). The situation repeats in the context of Israel when the false prophet Zedekiah predicts Israel's victory and is proven wrong (<a href='B:110 22:25'>1Ki 22:25</a>).</p><p>See now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. Please let us put sackcloth on our bodies, and ropes on our heads, and go out to the king of Israel. Maybe he will save your life- </p><p>None of the kings of Israel are recorded as being particularly spiritual. But they apparently had a reputation for being merciful. Something of God’s grace had rubbed off upon them.</p>


text:
<p>So they put sackcloth on their bodies and ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Your servant Ben Hadad says, ‘Please let me live’. He said, Is he still alive? He is my brother- </p><p>Ahab had still not been humbled as intended; see on :3. For suddenly (and probably unexpectedly) being placed in such a position of power and glory, he acts in pride. The fawning of a powerful king before him led him to play God, assuming he could give life to those whom God had commanded to be slain. Although unrecorded, it is an inference of :42 that the prophet of Yahweh had told Ahab to destroy Benhadad. And now Ahab repeats the sin of Saul concerning Amalek, and allows him to live.</p>


text:
<p>Now the men observed diligently, and hurried to take this phrase; and they said, Your brother Ben Hadad. Then he said, Go, bring him. Then Ben Hadad came out to him; and he caused him to come up into the chariot- </p><p>This was indeed merciful and gracious in a secular sense, but it was not the grace of God. We must note that difference, between grace in a secular sense and in a Divine sense. Ahab was condemned for not destroying Benhadad.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hadad said to him, The cities which my father took from your father I will restore- </p><p>If these are the cities of <a href='B:110 15:20'>1Ki 15:20</a>, then they were taken from Baasha, who was not any relative of Ahab. Perhaps Benhadad uses the term "father" as meaning a previous king.</p><p>You shall make streets for yourself in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. I, said Ahab, will let you go with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him, and let him go-</p><p>These streets would likely have been dedicated to the gods of Syria, whom the Israelites worshipped. Ahab agrees to the offer. But what names, then, was he to give the streets of Damascus? They were to be named after the gods of Israel. If Ahab named them after the gods Israel worshipped, then the names wouldn't have been changed at all. For Israel worshipped the Syrian gods. So Ahab was forced to assume that he would have to name the streets of Samaria after Yahweh. Israel only had one true God- Yahweh. So as "streets" in the plural were to be named after Israel's gods- what were they to be called, seeing Israel had only one national Deity? These practical questions were designed to bring Ahab to acceptance of Yahweh as Israel's only God.</p>


text:
<p>A certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow by the word of Yahweh, Please strike me! The man refused to strike him- </p><p>Again the point is made that Elijah was so wrong in thinking that he was the only prophet of Yahweh. The record shows how that during Elijah’s lifetime there were other prophets of Yahweh active in His service (<a href='B:110 20:13'>1Ki 20:13</a>; <a href='B:110 20:35'>1Ki 20:35</a>). And yet the lesson is that God still works through the conceited, the spiritually superior, those who despise their brethren. God didn’t give up on Elijah because he was like this, and neither should we give up in our relationship with such brethren.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to him, Because you have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh, behold, as soon as you are departed from me, a lion shall kill you. As soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and killed him- </p><p>The message was that God’s word must be obeyed, even if it seems utterly counter instinctive to us. We are not to assume that we know better. It is all leading up to how Ahab is to be condemned for refusing to slay Benhadad. The use of a lion to kill him connects with how the prophet of Judah in 1 Kings 13 was slain by a lion for not being strictly obedient to God’s word not to eat or return by the way he had come.</p>


text:
<p>Then he found another man, and said, Please strike me. The man struck him, smiting and wounding him- </p><p>Maybe we are intended to infer that the slaying of the first prophet by a lion encouraged this prophet to zealously obey what he was commanded. But Ahab surely knew the story of 1 Kings 13. A man had been slain by a lion for lack of careful obedience to God’s word. He should have known from this that he must be carefully obedient.</p>


text:
<p>So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way- </p><p>He was the equivalent of the lion meeting the first prophet by the way. The prophetic word of future death was as powerful as death.</p><p>And disguised himself with his headband over his eyes- </p><p>The idea is of a bandage over his eyes (LXX), which also served to hide his face from Ahab, who apparently would have otherwise recognized him; see on :41.</p>


text:
<p>As the king passed by, he cried to the king; and he said, Your servant went out into the midst of the battle; and behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man to me and said, ‘Guard this man! If by any means he be missing, then your life shall be for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver’- </p><p>The implication is that Ahab had been told beforehand that he must destroy Ahab, or else lose his life. Although see on :42 for another possibility. We note in this story that the man had to either give his life, or pay a talent of silver. Possibly there is here the hint that Ahab need not die for what he had done, but could somehow be redeemed from it- by repentance. But we simply learn that he went home depressed because of his judgment (:43), with no thought as to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>As your servant was busy here and there, he was gone. The king of Israel said to him, So your judgment shall be; you yourself have decided it- </p><p>Ahab's sin was in fact also his own judgment. For he was to meet his death fighting the Syrians in 1 Kings 22. If he had slain Benhadad, this situation would not have occurred. It is a common theme that the wicked snare themselves, falling into their own pit, judged by their own words, rather than God specifically snaring them (e.g. <a href='B:230 7:15'>Psa 7:15</a>; <a href='B:230 9:15'>Psa 9:15</a>; <a href='B:230 57:6'>Psa 57:6</a>; <a href='B:240 26:27'>Pro 26:27</a>; <a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a>; <a href='B:250 10:8'>Ecc 10:8</a>):&nbsp;From their own mouth and words men will be judged (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>; <a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a> cp. <a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a>; <a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a>). It could even be that the Lord cites the condemnatory words of the rejected uttered during their lifetimes and leaves these as their condemnation. Woe, therefore, to he or she who has said unrepentantly that they don’t want to be in the Kingdom if brother x or sister y are going to be there. “He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life; but he that openeth wide his lips [in this life] shall have destruction” at judgment day (<a href='B:240 13:3'>Pro 13:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He hurried, and took the headband away from his eyes; and the king of Israel recognized that he was of the prophets- </p><p>This implies that the prophets were known to Ahab because they risked death at the hands of Jezebel by witnessing to him; as Elijah did. But Elijah obviously considered them all to be somehow insincere and fake, because he proudly considered himself the only prophet of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people’- </p><p>Ahab's sin was in fact his own judgment. For he was to meet his death fighting the Syrians in 1 Kings 22. If he had slain Benhadad, this situation would not have occurred.</p><p>Ahab was rebuked for not killing Benhadad, in obedience to God’s command (<a href='B:110 20:35'>1Ki 20:35</a>; <a href='B:110 20:42'>1Ki 20:42</a>). But it could be argued that Ahab is not recorded as ever having been told to do this. What he had been told was that Yahweh would deliver the Syrians into his hand (:28). Presumably, God expected Ahab to infer from this that he should kill Benhadad; and rebuked him for his lack of perception, just as Jesus rebuked the disciples after the resurrection. The New Testament also has examples of our being expected to deduce things which at first glance we might find somewhat demanding. <a href='B:530 14:21'>1Co 14:21</a> rebukes the Corinthians for speaking to each other in languages which their brethren didn’t understand. Paul considered that they were immature in their understanding because they hadn’t perceived that <a href='B:290 28:11-12'>Isa 28:11-12</a> states that it will be the Gentile non-believers who will speak to God’s people in a language they don’t understand.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel went to his house sullen and angry, and came to Samaria- </p><p>See on :39. The character portrayal of Ahab is consistent, as we would expect from a Divinely inspired record. There is a clear connection with how he "came into his house sullen and angry" because Naboth would not sell him his vineyard (<a href='B:110 21:4'>1Ki 21:4</a>). We get the impression of an overgrown spoilt child. He sulked over Naboth's vineyard because he wasn't obedient to God’s word. And in <a href='B:110 20:43'>1Ki 20:43</a> again Ahab "went to his house sullen and angry" because he was condemned for not having obeyed God’s word. The LXX puts 1 Kings 20, 21 the other way around. The experience with Naboth was intended to teach him obedience to God’s word. He failed, so he "went to his house sullen and angry". He didn’t learn from that lesson. And so he does the same again, when he fails to be obedient on an even more significant level.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, right next to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria- </p><p>Josephus and the LXX have chapters 20 and 21 the opposite way around. It was Ahab's incredibly selfish behaviour over the vineyard which led to the judgment at the hand of the Syrians described in 1 Kings 20. "The Jezreelite... in Jezreel" emphasizes how Naboth was part of the land he lived upon. It was his because he was from Jezreel.</p><p>We note throughout the similarities with David's sin against Uriah over Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 11. David likewise was in the king's house when he covets that which belongs to his neighbour (2 Sam. 11:2). He tries to get Bathsheba by offering Uriah a "present"- "there followed him a present from the king" (2 Sam. 11:8). Uriah's "I will not do this thing" (2 Sam. 11:11) matches Naboth's refusal. David summons Uriah and makes him eat and drink, just as it seems there was some kind of feast when Naboth was set on high amongst the people. David's plan to set up Uriah's death so he could take what was personally Uriah's [his wife] matches the plan of Ahab to get Naboth executed. Both David and Ahab [through Jezebel] write letters to bring about the death of the man who is getting in the way of their coveting. Naboth is put at the head of the people, Uriah is put at the battle front. The report sent to Jezebel that Naboth had died (:14) is recorded in the same manner as the report to David that Uriah had died (2 Sam. 11:18,24). Ahab takes possession of that which is Naboth's, just as David takes Bathsheba- and then they are both rebuked by a prophet, and both genuinely repent, although the resulting Divine judgment involved the suffering of their sons and family going forward. The similarities are intentional. We see here that the process of sin is as it were standard- whether in the slip of a righteous man [David], or yet another sin in the long catalogue of sins in a sinner like Ahab. God works to some kind of template with man, but it is also so that all men pass through the same broad process of temptation and failure.  </p>


text:
<p>Ahab spoke to Naboth saying, Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near to my house; and I will give you for it a better vineyard than it. Or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its worth in money- </p><p>"House" is LXX "threshingfloor". Ahab is acting exactly as Samuel predicted the kings of Israel would act, in taking away vineyards and inheritances from God’s people (<a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). &nbsp;"Naboth" means 'fruitful' so he was identified with the fruitfulness of his vineyard. To take it from him was to take him away from who he was as a person. But Ahab didn’t care for that. Ahab comes over as the spoilt child who never grew up. We recall how Ahab loved horses, for he personally had gone around Israel during the drought seeking for fodder for them. For him, the worst thing about the drought was the damage done to his horses. And this demand for a vineyard next to his own house seems to reflect the same characteristics. The Divinely inspired record presents his character in an absolutely consistent and realistic way, unheard of in contemporary national histories.</p><p>Naboth wanted to turn the vineyard into a "garden of herbs", a vegetable patch, presumably to provide food for his servants in his house. We get the impression that he paid no attention to the fact he was downgrading the work of generations in building up a vineyard. His intention was to uproot the vines and turn it into a vegetable patch. Typical of the flesh, he focused upon an idea and became obsessed with fulfilling it. Again we see the psychological credibility of the Biblical record.</p>


text:
<p>Naboth said to Ahab, May Yahweh forbid me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you!- </p><p>Naboth was a worshipper of Yahweh, obedient to the relevant parts of the Mosaic law about inheritances. "The inheritance of my fathers" is clearly alluding to the law (<a href='B:30 25:27-28'>Lev 25:27-28</a>; <a href='B:40 36:7-8'>Num 36:7-8</a>). This yet again shows how wrong Elijah had been to insist that he was the only true worshipper of Yahweh left. He maybe knew Naboth, for he was told to go to Naboth as if he knew the place and man (:18). But Elijah judged him to be unfaithful to Yahweh, for this or that petty reason. The record brings before us several individuals who were faithful to Yahweh at this time, yet Elijah considered none of them genuine. And yet despite his arrogance and wrong sense of spiritual superiority, God still works through Elijah and seeks to bring him to the humility which is the acme of spiritual maturity.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab came into his house-</p><p>Ahab returned to Samaria from his other home in Jezreel. It's clear the vineyard was in Jezreel not Samaria (<a href='B:120 9:16'>2Ki 9:16</a>; <a href='B:120 9:26'>2Ki 9:26</a>).</p><p>Sullen and angry because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he had said, I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers. He laid himself down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread- </p><p>The character portrayal of Ahab is consistent, as we would expect from a Divinely inspired record. There is a clear connection with how he "came into his house sullen and angry" because Naboth would not sell him his vineyard (<a href='B:110 21:4'>1Ki 21:4</a>). We get the impression of an overgrown spoilt child. He sulked over Naboth's vineyard because he wasn't obedient to God’s word. And in <a href='B:110 20:43'>1Ki 20:43</a> again Ahab "went to his house sullen and angry" because he was condemned for not having obeyed God’s word. The LXX puts 1 Kings 20, 21 the other way around. The experience with Naboth was intended to teach him obedience to God’s word. He failed, so he "went to his house sullen and angry". He didn’t learn from that lesson. And so he does the same again, when he fails to be obedient on an even more significant level.</p>


text:
<p>But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, Why is your spirit so sad, that you eat no bread?- </p><p>Ahab comes over as pathetically weak and dominated by his wicked but far stronger wife. Away from her, he appears to have more potential for spirituality. The Divinely inspired record achieves perfect and credible characterization of the individuals. The sad spirit of Ahab is matched by Jezrbel telling him to be of a merry heart in :7. The spirit is the heart, and this interprets what is the work of the Holy spirit.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it pleases you, I will give you another vineyard for it’. He answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard’- </p><p>LXX adds "the inheritance of my fathers. Such argument from the law of Moses (see on :3) was of no value to Jezebel, who was a Gentile idolater.</p>


text:
<p>Jezebel his wife said to him, Do you really now govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise, and eat bread, and let your heart be merry. I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite- </p><p>She could have phrased this another way. But the way she puts it, she seeks to put herself above God and to play God. For the whole argument in :3 and :6 LXX was that God had given specific inheritances to His people, and they were not to be sold or traded. But she claims to be able to give Naboth the vineyard. Perhaps too her emphasis is upon the way she had a plan to "give" Naboth the vineyard for free, without him even needing to pay for it. We are left with the question as to what Ahab ought to have done or said at this stage. He surely knew his wife was going to hatch a plan which was wrong. But he says nothing, and is happy to go along with inheriting the vineyard. Jezebel totally doesn't understand that being the king of Israel meant ruling only as representative of God, Israel's true king. She wrongly assumed that the leadership position meant power to have what you wanted.</p><p>Jezebel was a Gentile. She was used to the system of Tyre, where [as in Egypt] all land belonged to the king, in that case, her father. She failed to accept that under Yahweh, the land belonged not to the monarch but to Yahweh, and to those to whom He had given it. For it seems that Joshua split up the land between the heads of families, looking forward to how we shall each have our own unique inheritance in God's Kingdom. This likewise is hard for Gentiles to understand- that all land is God's, and He has given it to His people only as temporary possession in this life, and in that sense the concept of freehold ownership is null and void when God is in the equation.</p>


text:
<p>So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city, who lived with Naboth- </p><p>Presumably at Jezreel, not Samaria. Ahab was deeply upset that he couldn't have the vineyard next to his holiday home in Jezreel; it wasn't even next to his palace in Samaria. That the "elders and nobles" went along with her evil plan shows their fear of her and their deep moral weakness.</p>


text:
<p>She wrote in the letters saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people- </p><p>The wicked hypocrisy was that a fast was proclaimed because of the realization of sin (<a href='B:90 7:6'>1Sa 7:6</a>; <a href='B:360 2:12'>Joe 2:12</a>). Naboth was apparently held in high repute, and was to be given a prominent seat at the ceremony for repentance. Some evidence was to be given that things weren't going well in the town, and there needed to be repentance. Naboth was given a place of high honour and prominence because Jezebel knew that when a person in high public visibility is convicted of sin, especially sin which has made others suffer, there is an immediate upsurge of public anger against them. And this would allow Naboth to be killed without undue public protest. Obadiah likewise was in a senior position in Jezebel's corrupt system and yet was faithful to Yahweh. Naboth likewise. They are set in contrast to Elijah who was more public about his faith and yet lacked any care for people. Naboth was perhaps known as a worshipper of Yahweh, and so possibly he, like Elijah, was blamed for the drought. It's quite possible this chapter describes an event during the drought, especially seeing God had fired Elijah from his ministry in 1 Kings 19.  </p>


text:
<p>Set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them testify against him saying, ‘You cursed God and the king!’ Then carry him out, and stone him to death- </p><p>To curse God’s representative was seen as cursing God (<a href='B:110 21:10'>1Ki 21:10</a>; <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>). And so to curse "Yahweh's anointed" was seen as cursing Yahweh (<a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a>) and worthy of death. The two witnesses were supposed to be enough to convict someone. In this case, the fact Naboth was known as a Yahweh worshipper and could prove it... was willingly ignored. It was to be a kangaroo court knowingly set up to prove a man guilty of death from the start. We note that Jezebel used scripture and Yahweh worship in order to destroy Naboth, perhaps a tacit reflection of how Yahweh's law was still partially respected; for she alludes to the law that two witnesses were required for capital punishment (Dt. 17:6; 19:15). It recalls the petty obedience to the law during the Lord's condemnation and crucifixion.</p><p>We could equally render "You cursed the gods [idols] and Moloch", as if Jezebel was accusing Naboth of unfaithfulness to the Baal cult. </p>


text:
<p>The men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent to them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent to them- </p><p>Their careful obedience to this woman rather than to God is an allusion to <a href='B:50 16:18'>Deu 16:18</a>, where such elders were to "judge just judgment", and they did the very opposite.</p>


text:
<p>They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people- </p><p>To "proclaim a fast" is a phrase used specifically for calling a fast and special meeting for repentance. The idea was that someone had sinned and everyone in town was suffering because of it. It is the term used in <a href='B:290 58:5'>Isa 58:5</a> for how God was intensely angry with the proclamation of such fasts for sinful agendas.</p>


text:
<p>The two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him. The base fellows testified against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people saying, Naboth cursed God and the king! Then they carried him out of the city, and stoned him to death with stones- </p><p>There was a semblance of obedience to the Mosaic law, as there was in the condemnation and execution of the Lord Jesus. There were two witnesses (<a href='B:50 17:6'>Deu 17:6</a>; <a href='B:50 19:15'>Deu 19:15</a>); and stoning was indeed the punishment for blasphemy (<a href='B:30 24:16'>Lev 24:16</a>), and was conducted outside the city according to the spirit of <a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a>, just as the Lord Jesus died "outside the camp". Naboth's sons were also killed, so that there could be no possibility of any argument in future about the inheritance (<a href='B:120 9:26'>2Ki 9:26</a>). Elijah is never set up as a type of the Lord Jesus, whereas Naboth is- because as the Lord Himself observed, Elijah didn't have His spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Then they sent to Jezebel saying, Naboth has been stoned, and is dead- </p><p>Ahab immediately and eagerly took possession of the vineyard, riding to Jezreel along with Jehu and Bidkar (<a href='B:120 9:25'>2Ki 9:25</a>). We should not therefore think that he was merely manipulated by Jezebel, he was willing and eager himself.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead- </p><p>The taking possession was apparently in the sense of permanently having the vineyard registered in his name. For he could have leased it from Naboth until the next Jubilee year. And possibly renewed the lease after that. But Ahab was so obsessive about what he wanted. He wanted the vineyard as his permanent possession. This was why Naboth had to be killed, along with his sons (<a href='B:120 9:26'>2Ki 9:26</a>) so that they would not have any argument for inheriting it later. Ahab is reasoning in a very long term manner, forgetting his own mortality. He 'just loved the idea' not only of the vineyard, but of adding it to his inheritance. And so Naboth and his sons had to die, and the people and leaders of Jezreel led into major sin. And yet legally it is hard to see how he could have added it to his inheritance, unless he was some relative of Naboth. So all the drama was to obtain a piece of legal documentation that was always going to be questionable as to its validity. Therefore he did this evil "in vain" (:20 LXX).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it-</p><p>Ahab "tore his clothes and put on sackcloth, in sorrow for what he had done" (<a href='B:110 21:16'>1Ki 21:16</a> LXX- omitted in the AV). See on :27. He repented and yet continued in his sin at the same time. This is psychologically credible. Men do this all the time. But in :27 it seems he did come to true repentance. See on 1 Kings 18:41 for another example of his genuine but momentary repentances.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to Elijah the Tishbite saying- </p><p>"The Tishbite" is perhaps added in accordance with the theme developed here. Naboth is repeatedly called the Jezreelite, and Ahab, we are reminded, was from Samaria (:18). Israel were to abide in the inheritances they had been given, and not do what Ahab had done, and covet those of others.</p>


text:
<p>Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who dwells in Samaria. Behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone down to take possession of it- </p><p>The idea was that Ahab was from Samaria but had taken possession of property in Jezreel. "Go down" may mean Elijah was then in Carmel. Perhaps Elijah was being directed back to Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), David (<a href='B:90 23:4'>1Sa 23:4</a>) and Moses, who were addressed by God with the same words (<a href='B:50 9:12'>Deu 9:12</a>). He would have earlier seen Moses as Judaism does today, the unreachable acme of spirituality and closeness to God. But now he was being taught, as we are, that no Biblical character is a mere Sunday School figure; but rather our real practical inspiration. But as discussed on 1 Kings 19, Elijah was set up with the possibility of being like Moses, but ultimately failed to rise up to his humility.</p>


text:
<p>You shall speak to him saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, Have you killed and also taken possession?’- </p><p>The sin of taking possession (see on :15 for what it involved) is seen as separate to the murder. We note that Ahab is held as culpable for the murder. Even if Jezebel was likewise responsible. The guilt for sins like this never rests with just one person. Neither Ahab nor ourselves can wriggle out of responsibility by complaining we were manipulated into it. Otherwise human behaviour becomes of no real value before God, and man is reduced to a mere puppet of others and situations with no real individual personality and election in how we live life.</p><p>You shall speak to him saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs will lick your blood, even yours’- </p><p>According to <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a> the dogs [LXX "the swine and the dogs"] licked Ahab's blood in the pool of Samaria, just outside the gate of Samaria; not in Jezreel. It could be argued that "the place" refers not to a geographical locality, but rather to the place where the garbage was thrown outside a city gate. The Lord uses 'Gehenna' to describe such a place as a figure for condemnation. Another option is that Naboth was executed and had his blood licked up in Samaria, at the court of Ahab there. The way <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a> triumphs in the fulfilment of the prophecy suggests there was no perceived gap between the prediction and its fulfilment. But another possibility is that because of Ahab's repentance, the sentence was modified, just as that upon Adam was (for he didn’t die in the day he sinned, although he did die). This reflects God’s openness to human repentance in response to His stated judgments. In the gap between statement and fulfilment, there can be repentance and a change of outcomes. This is what gives intensity to our living in that gap. LXX adds to <a href='B:110 21:19'>1Ki 21:19</a> "and the harlots shall wash in thy blood". <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a> LXX says that this was fulfilled. Perhaps the idea is that they washed themselves in a spring in the rubbish dump where Ahab's blood as it were was eternally present.</p><p>2 Kings 9:25,26 appears to see this prophecy as fulfilled in the death of Joram, Ahab’s son: "Lift him out, and throw him on the plot of ground belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite; for remember, when you and I rode side by side behind his father Ahab how the Lord uttered this oracle against him: ‘For the blood of Naboth and for the blood of his children that I saw yesterday, says the Lord, I swear I will repay you on this very plot of ground.’ Now therefore lift him [i.e. Joram] out and throw him on the plot of ground, in accordance with the word of the Lord". So we see here how because of Ahab's repentance, the judgment was reinterpretted and reapplied, transferred as it were, to his son. This shows how open and flexible God is, and how extremely sensitive He is to human repentance. Even when, as in Ahab's case, that repentance is very nuanced and unstable. And we see many cases of where God clearly intended a ministry for someone but they let the ball drop, and it was transferred [with some ammendments] to another person. Elijah and Elisha are a classic case. </p>


text:
<p>Ahab said to Elijah, Have you found me, my enemy? He answered, I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>What appeared to be mere manipulation of a weak minded man by his wicked, dominant wife was in fact judged as a selling of himself to do evil. Weak mindedness was indeed Ahab's problem, but it did not thereby make him less culpable for what he actually did. Selling oneself is the language of prostitution. The implication is that Ahab was in covenant relationship with Yahweh, but had prostituted himself to do evil. The reasons he did this aren't allowed to ameliorate that judgment- his spoilt upbringing, the dominance of his wicked wife over his naturally weak mind, all these factors were weighted in God’s judgment of him, but didn’t finally ameliorate what he had done. LXX adds that he sold himself "in vain". I explained on :15 that the whole obsession of "taking possession" of the vineyard probably didn’t even work out for Ahab in legal terms as he so coveted.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will bring evil on you, and will utterly sweep you away and will cut off from Ahab every male, and him who is shut up and him who is left at large in Israel- </p><p>Elijah simply announces to Ahab: “Behold I will bring evil on you...". We expect this to be prefaced by a “Thus says the Lord”- but Elijah was so close to God he assumed he was speaking directly from Him. And yet Elijah doesn’t repeat what God had told him to say in :19. Was he too familiar with God? Assuming he knew God’s will and words? But it must be said that he improves- in <a href='B:120 1:6'>2Ki 1:6</a> he says that what he says is the word of Yahweh, and he repeats verbatim what he was told to say. We too know God’s word. We know the Bible text well. But this can lead to an assumption that we speak for God; that we must be right in all our attitudes and positions we adopt on issues. This is rather similar to how initially he says there will be no rain according to his word. He knew it was God's will that there be no rain if Israel sinned. But it raises the same issues- was he over familiar with God? Lacking humility? Or was his style reflective rather of a deep intimacy with God which came from familiarity with His word? Or, most likely, a bit of a mixture of these strands.</p><p>The destruction of Ahab's children, including those "shut up" as too young to go outdoors alone, and those "at large" and independent, matches how Ahab had murdered the sons of Naboth in order to ensure the inheritance would be unquestionably his (<a href='B:120 9:26'>2Ki 9:26</a>). All his obsession with getting "possession" of the vineyard (see on :15) were to be "in vain" (:20 LXX) because his descendants would all be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah for the provocation with which you have provoked Me to anger, and have made Israel to sin- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p><p>The charge that Ahab made Israel to sin refers not just to his idolatry, but specifically in this context to what he did to Naboth. He had involved the elders and people of Jezreel in this sin, and set an example to others that they could despise God’s principles about inheritance (see on :3). Sin is sin largely because of the effect it has upon others. </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh also spoke of Jezebel saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the rampart of Jezreel- </p><p>The "rampart" of Jezreel where Jezebel was to be eaten (<a href='B:110 21:23'>1Ki 21:23</a>) is s:w. "trench" in <a href='B:100 20:15'>2Sa 20:15</a>. It would refer to the trench immediately below the city wall. Jezebel was in a house on the city wall when she was thrown out of it (<a href='B:120 9:36-37'>2Ki 9:36-37</a>), and her body would have landed in the drainage ditch which was probably dry. Dogs wandered there looking for scraps of food thrown out of the windows of the houses on the city wall.</p>


text:
<p>The dogs will eat him who dies of Ahab in the city; and the birds of the sky will eat him who dies in the field-</p><p>This repeats the judgment upon Jeroboam in <a href='B:110 14:11'>1Ki 14:11</a>. Ahab was another example of how Jeroboam made subsequent generations to sin, and thereby to share his judgment. Ahab was intended to have learnt from the history of Jeroboam, and we who have far more Biblical history available to us than he did... are intended to do the same from the biographies which the Bible is full of. Our responsibility is thereby the greater.</p>


text:
<p>But there was none like Ahab, who sold himself to do that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>See on :20.</p><p>Whom Jezebel his wife stirred up-</p><p>The idea may be that there was no man who did so much evil at the stirring up of his wife. So many turn down the call of Christ because their partner is against it. We see here for all time the call to brave individuality, to totally personal response to God’s principles. The word "stirred up" means to persuade or entice, suggesting Ahab was resistant, but allowed himself to be persuaded against his basic conscience. And his naturally weak minded personality was no excuse. Zedekiah likewise was persuaded against his basic conscience (<a href='B:300 38:22'>Jer 38:22</a> s:w:), and was still judged for allowing himself to be persuaded.</p><p>Chronicles says "Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead", just as Jezebel persuaded Ahab to do wickedness (<a href='B:110 21:25'>1Ki 21:25</a> Heb:). It is a story of sin leading to sin, and sinful attitudes and behaviour spreading through wrong and unwise associations.</p>


text:
<p>He did very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites did, whom Yahweh cast out before the children of Israel- </p><p>The idea is that they followed the idols just as the Amorites did. And that may be a general term referring to the local Canaanite population. The idea is that a worship of their gods was revived by Ahab. He did exactly what people did who were driven out of the Kingdom for doing those things. He utterly refused to learn from Biblical history:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Ahab heard those words, that he tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly- </p><p>"They that will be rich... have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through&nbsp; with many sorrows" (<a href='B:610 6:9-10'>1Ti 6:9-10</a>). The Greek translated "pierced themselves through" is related to the verb 'to crucify'. We are asked to crucify ourselves, to give up the brief materialism of this life. Yet if we refuse to do this, we still pierce ourselves through, we crucify ourselves, with the pain which comes from a mind dedicated to materialism and self-fulfilment, a life devoted to reaching the end of a rainbow. So what is the logical thing to do? It's crucifixion either way. The idea of piercing self through with sorrow is actually a direct quote from the LXX of <a href='B:110 21:27'>1Ki 21:27</a>, where Ahab was pierced with sorrow as a result of his coveting of Naboth’s vineyard. And yet when Naboth was dead, Ahab tore his clothes and put on sackcloth, in sorrow for what he had done (<a href='B:110 21:16'>1Ki 21:16</a> LXX- omitted in the AV); but these very words are used in describing how when Ahab heard the words of his condemnation, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth (21:27). His sin brought him to tare his clothes, just as he did when his condemnation was pronounced. In his seeking for happiness he pierced himself through with the sorrow of condemnation.</p><p>I suggested on :19 that his repentance at least ameliorated the nature of the judgment upon him, and :29 says the same. If as suggested on :1, 1 Kings 21 should come before 1 Kings 20, then Ahab's subsequent failure to be obedient in 1 Kings 20 is the more tragic. His repentance here was genuine, so much so that God did take note of it, although He knew that the weak minded Ahab would again fail to retain that intensity.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to Elijah the Tishbite saying- </p><p>Surely Elijah was meant to tell Ahab this but there is no evidence Elijah spoke the words of mercy to Ahab of :29. If he did, we can imagine they would have gone right against the grain of his judgmental nature. He would have been the first to point out reasons to think Ahab's repentance wasn't complete or even genuine. But Elijah was being taught God’s extreme sensitivity to human repentance, even if it is incomplete and the intensity of it may not be maintained:&nbsp; God is eager to respond to any slight movement towards Him, as we see in the prodigal son parable.</p>


text:
<p>See how Ahab humbles himself before Me? Because he humbles himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son’s days will I bring the evil on his family- </p><p>And God kept His word about this (<a href='B:120 9:25'>2Ki 9:25</a>), although if 1 Kings 20 follows 1 Kings 21 (see on :1), then Ahab's repentance was not totally maintained.  We see here how Divine prophecies can be modified; the essence of them comes true, but at different times and in ammended ways to what was originally spoken. Elijah could have been the prophet like unto Moses, but that prophecy was reinterpretted and reapplied to the Lord Jesus at a later point. And so it is with the many restoration prophecies, which could have come true at the return from Babylon but were reapplied to the last days. God knew all Elijah’s weakness as He knows ours, and He perceives them far better than we do. And He actively worked with Elijah to bring him to a greater perception of Him. Elijah was told by God that Ahab “humbles himself before Me”. And Elijah was asked to "see" this, to perceive it, to notice it and think about. Yet Elijah also lived a life “before the Lord” (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>); it’s as if God was trying to get Elijah to see himself in a similar position to Ahab. Living “before the Lord” is not only about faith in prayer and being aware of God. It’s also about being contrite before our Father, aware of our own very personal spiritual desperation. And it was this humility which Elijah lacked. And the Father sought to teach him it by drawing a similarity between Elijah and the man whom he spiritually despised- Ahab. In many Christian lives, we are much more spiritual than others around us. Yet we may be led to perceive that actually we are in essence no better than those to whom we consider ourselves so spiritually superior. See on <a href='B:110 19:11'>1Ki 19:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They continued three years without war between Syria and Israel- </p><p>I suggested on <a href='B:110 20:1'>1Ki 20:1</a>; <a href='B:110 21:1'>1Ki 21:1</a> that 1 Kings 20, 21 should be the other way around, as they are in the LXX. In this case, 1 Kings 22 continues straight on from 1 Kings 20. That concluded with Ahab making a treaty with Benhadad of Syria, allowing him to go free if he renamed streets in Damascus after Ahab's God, and restored the cities his father had captured from Israel. Had Ahab done what he was told to and slain Benhadad, the events in this chapter which led to his death may not have happened. And all the treaty achieved was three years without war. Ahab is represented as a weak minded fool in making that agreement, caught up in the pride and glory of the moment. And it ends up that the man and people Ahab lets go from Divine judgment is the one who slays him.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel- </p><p>One sin and weakness led to another. We learn from Chronicles that Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram had wrongly married Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah; probably under some false mantra of 'unity amongst God’s people'. The visit was likely in connection with this. Had Jehoshaphat not fraternized with wicked Ahab, the possibility of the doomed venture which follows wouldn't have arisen. And if Ahab had slain Benhadad as commanded, Ramoth Gilead would have been returned to Israel. And indeed if Benhadad kept his covenant, it should have been returned anyway (<a href='B:110 20:34'>1Ki 20:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to his servants, You know that Ramoth Gilead is ours, and we are sitting still, and don’t take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?- </p><p>"Ours" suggests he was playing on the false mantra of "unity amongst God’s people" noted on :2. Ahab clearly intended the city to remain under his control and not that of Judah. So much foolishness, unwisdom and sacrifice of basic Godly principle has gone on under this mantra of "unity". In the context, we have just read of Ahab's desiring and taking of Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21. Ahab presents as simply not ever learning from anything. His conscience ought to have prodded him over that matter; but now he again embarks upon grabbing a piece of territory that he fancies. "We are sitting still and don't take it..." is the essence of what Jezebel says to Ahab about Naboth's vineyard. He was willing to kill the righteous Naboth through lies to get the vineyard, and now he is willing to slay Micaiah, again through getting a crowd to lie. </p>


text:
<p>He said to Jehoshaphat, Will you go with me to battle to Ramoth Gilead? Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses- </p><p>Chronicles says "Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead", just as Jezebel persuaded Ahab to do wickedness (<a href='B:110 21:25'>1Ki 21:25</a> Heb:). It is a story of sin leading to sin, and sinful attitudes and behaviour spreading through wrong and unwise associations. We note they both have "horses", which were forbidden for the kings of Israel under the law of Moses. Jehoshaphat likely reasoned that a weak Syria on the east bank of Jordan was good for Judah, but he was also caught up in the false mantra of "unity" which had led his son to marry Ahab's daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, Please inquire first for the word of Yahweh- </p><p>Ahab responded to the request for a word from Yahweh by summoning the group of 400 false prophets (:5). He had so mixed Yahweh worship with paganism that he considered their word to be that of Yahweh. And he gathered such a huge group in order to argue that the majority must surely be right. And the Bible consistently teaches that in these situations, the majority is usually wrong.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, Shall I go against Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?-</p><p>Ahab had 400 false prophets earlier in his reign (<a href='B:110 18:19'>1Ki 18:19</a>), who were slain on Carmel. So it seems that he didn’t learn his lesson, and raised up another such group. This fits with the common theme of purges and repentances at the time of the kings needing to be repeated. For the purges were only surface level, despite all the evidence for them at the time. "Forbear" means 'to cease'. Ahab, like us at times, had already started the project without asking God’s guidance, and his request for guidance in the project was compromised in integrity by the fact he had already begun it.</p><p>They said, Go up; for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king- </p><p>This recalls the instant answer of Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh. Too easily we assume we know the will of God, and speak and act as if we have His blessing on our endeavours already.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehoshaphat said, Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh, that we may inquire of Him?- </p><p>Ahab had provided the 400 prophets of Baal in response to the request for a word from Yahweh. Jehoshaphat realized this; and ought to have immediately pulled out of working with someone who was presenting Baal worship as Yahweh worship. He means of course 'an old time, old school prophet of Yahweh who is not also a prophet of Baal and repudiates Baal'.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man- </p><p>The idea is, "one more man". He considered that the 400 prophets of Baal were also in touch with Yahweh (see on :5), and Micaiah was just one more who could do that, although he repudiated Baal worship. We wonder why Ahab would immediately think of Micaiah, rather than Elijah or Elisha, who were surely around at this time. We have read of Elijah rebuking Ahab in the preceding chapter. We again reflect that the Biblical narrative focuses upon just a few characters, and yet there were many others faithful to the Lord at their time. Of course it could be that Micaiah was the only known prophet of Yahweh in the immediate locality. But we again see how wrong and arrogant Elijah was to claim that he was the sole remaining faithful prophet of Yahweh (1 Kings 19:14). "There is yet one man" seems to allude to [and deconstruct] Elijah's claim that "I alone am left" faithful. </p><p>By whom we may inquire of Yahweh, Micaiah the son of Imlah- </p><p>Again we are introduced to a true prophet of Yahweh who existed at the time of Elijah. His claim to be the only prophet of Yahweh is continually demonstrated to be false. Presumably Elijah knew these other prophets, but considered that they had all gone wrong on this or that point of doctrine or practice. And perhaps they had, but God still counted them as His prophets, and used them as such. And it was Elijah who was removed from the prophetic ministry because of his arrogance in considering none of them genuine, and he alone being the true representative of Yahweh. Micaiah had previously spoken critical things to Ahab in Yahweh's Name, hence Ahab says that this prophet only says "evil" about him and he doesn't want to consult him. Elijah was quite wrong to discount all these brave prophets as somehow not genuine.</p><p>But I hate him; for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. Jehoshaphat said, Don’t let the king say so- </p><p>Again we sense the pouting, spoilt kid characteristics of Ahab. His characterization in the records is absolutely consistent and credible, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired history. We have here a parade example of how men come to God’s word having already decided what they want to hear. Indeed there is a tendency to have "itching ears", heaping up teachers to confirm us in our own desires, lusts and hunches (<a href='B:620 4:3'>2Ti 4:3</a>; maybe a reference to Ahab heaping up 400 such teachers to tell him what he wanted to hear). This is why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. Because readers / hearers like to hear only what confirms that which they already had a hunch about. To achieve a second naivety as we come to God’s word, to be a born again virgin, is hard indeed. Jehoshaphat realized what Ahab was doing, and asked him not to talk like that- but to accept Yahweh's word. The fact Jehoshaphat himself still went into battle shows how he himself perceived the truth of all this, but didn’t do accordingly. The "evil" prophesied was presumably of Ahab's condemnation, confirming Elijah's words.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Quickly get Micaiah the son of Imlah- </p><p>"Who is like Yah?" was a direct challenge to the idea that Yahweh could be worshipped through Baal worship (see on :5). According to :26, Micaiah was imprisoned at this time. The 'quick' summoning from prison by an officer to speak God’s word would have recalled to Micaiah the example of faithful Joseph.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them- </p><p>This was an impressive sight, and the area had clearly been especially prepared so that so many prophets could prophesy together. It was designed to sway Jehoshaphat according to the false maxim that the majority must be right, and how could so many be wrong. See on <a href='B:330 10:5'>Eze 10:5</a></p><p>This mention of the kings sitting on their thrones in the place of judgment [the city gate, "the threshing floor" as some versions offer, the symbol of judgment] is not for random interest. It connects directly with the upcoming declaration of the vision of Yahweh enthroned in judgment in Heaven, with His "spirits" before Him, just as the kings had the prophets before them. The situation on earth was reflected in Heaven, as we often see in the Bible. Ahab and Micaiah were in awe of the court sitting on earth, the court of public opinion. Even religious opinion. But they were to be shown that they in fact stood before the Heavenly court, right at one and the same time.</p>


text:
<p>Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘With these you shall push the Syrians, until they are consumed’- </p><p>Zedekiah, like a typical apostate, is mixing the truth of God out of context with wrong ideas. He alludes to Moses'&nbsp; blessing of Joseph in <a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a> to the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh: “Buffalo horns are his (Joseph's) horns, with them he thrusts down nations”. But of course he overlooked the fact that the blessings of Moses were predicated upon obedience to the covenant. He probably made the horns and held them on his forehead. Micaiah's response is to also quote from the law of Moses, but about the judgment for disobedience to the covenant (:17).</p>


text:
<p>All the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth Gilead, and prosper; for Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king-</p><p>These 400 prophets of Baal [for they were the equivalent of the 400 executed on Mount Carmel] still used the name of Yahweh. Their position was that they conducted Yahweh worship through Baal worship. Perhaps their usage of the Hebrew word for "prosper" alluded to how the word is four times used of the prospering of Abraham's servant on his journey and mission (<a href='B:10 24:21'>Gen 24:21</a>; <a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a>; <a href='B:10 24:42'>Gen 24:42</a>; <a href='B:10 24:56'>Gen 24:56</a>). And this is probably our most common temptation as believers; to mix the flesh and the spirit, to justify sin in the name of serving God. But Ahab had broken the covenant, and would not prosper (s:w. <a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a>). Jehoshaphat later learnt this lesson, for he uses the word in saying that only those who hear Yahweh's prophets will "prosper" (<a href='B:140 20:20'>2Ch 20:20</a>).</p><p>The background is that a victory for a king was seen as a victory for his gods. The most powerful god won the victory; the king and his god[s] were closely associated. But the Biblical record inverts all this. The God of Israel caused the enemy to win and to kill Israel's king. So often the Biblical, Godly worldview is at total variance with that of currounding society. </p>


text:
<p>The messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him saying, See now, the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth. Please let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak good- </p><p>We sense the build up of pressure upon Micaiah. He was imprisoned for having spoken God’s word against Ahab (see on :9,26), and would be under huge pressure from the presence of the 400 prophets and the audience watching (:28 "all you people"). And as the officer led him from prison towards the huge crowd of people gathered before the two kings, he too added his pressure. The request of the officer was perhaps because he actually liked Micaiah and could foresee the death sentence being given if he again "spoke evil" and not "good" to Ahab, and he didn’t want to have to carry that out. But he still totally fails to perceive that God’s word cannot be changed or controlled by man.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, As Yahweh lives, what Yahweh says to me, that I will speak- </p><p>If Micaiah was at that time imprisoned for prophesying evil against Ahab (see on :9,26), bearing in mind Naboth had been slain for allegedly cursing the king, he would have been sorely tempted to now buy his freedom by saying what Ahab wanted to hear. And despite his determination not to do so, I suggest on :15 that he did temporarily fail. The pressure on him was intense. Micaiah uses the words and ideas of Balaam when pressured to not say Yahweh's word. He was clearly a spiritually minded man who was deeply aware of Biblical precedent for his situation, as we ought to be.</p>


text:
<p>When he had come to the king, the king said to him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? He answered him, Go up and prosper; and Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king- </p><p>It could be argued that by repeating the very words of the false prophets, Micaiah was just repeating them sarcastically, with the tone of his voice indicating that. But I prefer to conclude that this faithful man, who had gone to prison for his witness of God’s word to Ahab, now faltered under the pressure of the presence of the 400 false prophets. He acted like Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh, who gave the answer that his enquirer wanted to hear. Such failure of a moment would be absolutely true to human experience and would be psychologically and spiritually credible. See on :14:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For we all have a strong human tendency to perceive what others want us to say, and to say it.  </p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, How many times do I have to adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of Yahweh?- </p><p>See on :15. We are left to speculate which singular "king" it was who said this, Ahab or Jehoshaphat. The Biblical record is intentionally open ended at some points, to encourage us to think ourselves into the situation. The king sensed that Micaiah was cowed by the situation, and really wanted to know what Yahweh thought. So we sense "the king" in view was Jehoshaphat.</p>


text:
<p>He said, I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Yahweh said, ‘These have no master. Let them each return to his house in peace’- </p><p>As explained on :11, Zedekiah had quoted Moses' blessings of the tribes as justification for a successful battle- which were conditional upon obedience to the covenant. Zedekiah like many today, glories in the promises of the Spirit whilst ignoring the conditions. Micaiah responds by quoting the curses for disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:40 27:16-17'>Num 27:16-17</a>). The removal of the master / shepherd implies that the shepherd or king of Israel is to be slain, and the sheep would return to their homes once the shepherd was slain. And that is just what happened when it was recognized that Ahab had been slain.</p><p>"These have no master" or "masters" plural could mean that the focus of the battle was to be upon the masters, the kings, rather than the ordinary soldiers. Jehoshaphat fails to grasp this. This is a prophecy of the death of the shepherds. It seems the Syrians were aware of this prophecy, and therefore aimed to kill only the king of Israel. Otherwise we wonder why their soldiers were told to only kill the king of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Didn’t I tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?-</p><p>Ahab intuitively sensed what Yahweh's true word was even before Micaiah pronounced it. His insistence on going ahead was therefore the more culpable. And God’s word is often intuitively recognized as "truth" even by those who reject it, which is why they tend towards anger and other psychological reactions appropriate to denial.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of Yahweh- </p><p>There does not follow a "Thus says the Lord", but rather a description of the vision Micaiah had seen, a peek into the heavenly throne room, the court of heaven. Discerning the vision was perhaps the essential "word of Yahweh" which the kings were to "hear".</p><p>I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the army of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left- </p><p>Note "Standing by Him" rather than "before" Him. The Angels in the Divine council are not merely servants, awaiting words of command, but the advisors / decision makers who work with the King towards policy and operations in practice. "The army [host] of heaven" is a term used for the planets etc. (Dt. 4:19; 17:3). Possibly the connection is because these are the Angels who control all the universe. The context here is of the need to remove Ahab from being king. Such councils are described in the contemporary literature, and it has been observed "A significant function of the divine council is the removal of kingship in the Mesopotamian and Ugaritic sources". The parallel is to show that in fact human kings and their councils are not at all omnipotent; there is a higher King and Council. </p><p>The visions of <a href='B:110 22:19-23'>1Ki 22:19-23</a>, Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 show God seated on a throne with Angels before Him, bringing information and requests to Him and departing with commands to obey; the idea of a council in Heaven is clearly hinted at in Job 1; <a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a>; <a href='B:230 89:7'>Psa 89:7</a>. God sitting on a throne implies that each request or piece of information presented is 'judged' and an appropriate decision made. The 'case' of the adversaries to God is presented by a 'satan' Angel in Job.</p><p><a href='B:110 22:19-23'>1Ki 22:19-23</a> gives perhaps the most detailed picture of the Heavenly council. God told them His desire- for Ahab to die at Ramoth-Gilead. He then asked which Angel wanted to effect this- "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one (Angel) said on this manner, and another said on that manner". We thus learn that like us, on hearing God’s desire the elohim all have different ways of trying to fulfil it. One "Spirit" (Angel) suggested that He would put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets, and this was the suggestion chosen and enabled by God. This shows that the Angels do not all automatically know the best way of bringing about God’s purpose, and therefore they need to seek His advice and perhaps discuss things amongst themselves first before acting. Note that "all the host of Heaven" were there around the throne of God participating in this decision. And so all the Angels are involved in the decisions God and the Angels make about us. <a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a> implies the same.</p><p>The division of the Angels into groups on His right and left is interesting. Why would it be mentioned, if it were insignificant? All the Angels are of God’s nature and obedient to Him, there are no sinful Angels. But there are Angels of evil, Angels specifically tasked with bringing evil (see on <a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>). We think of the Angel called "the destroyer" at Passover time, who was restrained by the Passover Angel from destroying the Israelite firstborn. And so one wonders whether "the destroyer" was one of those on the left hand side, and the Passover Angel one of those on the right hand.</p><p>We have here one of several insights into the Divine council, presided over by Yahweh (consider Is. 6:1-3; 40:1-8; Ps. 82; Ps. 89:5-8; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Jer. 23:16-22; Zech. 3:1-10). But there is discussion amonst the Angels- some have ideas which aren't "used". We have here a profound insight into what it is like to have Divine nature, into how we shall eternally be. </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, ‘Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ One said one thing; and another said another- </p><p>"Entice" is the word elsewhere translated 'deceive'. Clearly God does deceive; for He confirms men in the mental path in which they themselves wish to go. <a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a> uses the word very clearly in this connection (see commentary there); and the teaching is confirmed in <a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a>. The Hebrew for "entice" or "deceive / lure" is in fact from the root 'to be foolish' (s.w. 2 Sam. 3:25; Hos. 7:11 "a silly bird"). As discussed on :10, to go to this battle, to bow to the court of public opinion, was in fact the foolish thing to do.  </p><p>In Revelation we see the incense of human prayers arising into Heaven, resulting in Angels coming to earth, pouring out bowls, blowing trumpets, and major events happening on earth (<a href='B:730 5:8'>Rev 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 8:3'>Rev 8:3</a>). Prayer is noticed; it brings forth quite out of proportion responses. The Angels discuss their plans for us in the court of Heaven, coming up with various possibilities of how to act in our lives, discussing them with God (<a href='B:110 22:20-22'>1Ki 22:20-22</a>). They play some part in the whole process of our prayers. When we read that “Surely the Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (<a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>), we might tend to take that as a statement of absolute principle that is obvious to all the Angels. But we find an Angel discussing with others: “Shall I hide from Abraham [who was a prophet] what I am about to do?” (<a href='B:10 18:17'>Gen 18:17</a>). The Angels have more debate, expend more mental and physical energy than we surely realize, in order to operationalize things which we might consider to be standard and automatic in God’s work with men. In our context, what this means is that when men reject the machinations and schemings of God’s love, they reject an awful lot; and it grieves and disappoints Him, and appears tragic to those like the prophets who see things from His viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p>A spirit- </p><p>God makes His Angels "spirits" (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>), and Angels are in view here. But the word 'spirit' has a wide range of meaning. It can refer to power, but also to the thought which is then expressed through the power of action. The Angel is here called a "spirit" because the idea was to place a thought in the mind or spirit of the false prophets, and thereby Ahab.</p><p>Came out- </p><p>This is the same word as in :22 "I will go out". The Angel was as it were demonstrating how he intended acting.</p><p>And stood before Yahweh- </p><p>It was the true prophets who stood before Yahweh (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). The connection is to show that the true prophets were represented by the Angels in the court of heaven, and this Angel was as it were on their side. But the Spirit / Angel whose idea was chosen was in control of the false prophets and was going to judge them for persecuting Micaiah the true prophet. In Jer. 23:18,22 we have another connection between prophets and the Divine council: "For who has stood in the council of Yahweh, that he should perceive and hear His word? Who has noted My word, and heard it? ... I sent not these prophets, yet they ran: I didn’t speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, then had they caused My people to hear My words". </p><p>And said, ‘I will entice him’- </p><p>Ahab had been persuaded or enticed to do evil by Jezebel, and had enticed or persuaded Jehoshaphat to go to battle. But this was because he had himself been persuaded or enticed by God. He was being treated according to how he had treated others- enticing to do evil.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him, ‘How?’ He said, ‘I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets’. He said, ‘You will entice him, and will also prevail-</p><p>God deceived prophets to speak things in His Name which were actually false (<a href='B:110 22:20-22'>1Ki 22:20-22</a>; <a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a> "If the prophet is deceived when he speaks a word, I, Yahweh, have deceived that prophet"). He sends strong delusion, so that those who don't love the truth will believe a lie. He chose Israel's delusions by making their idols answer them (<a href='B:290 66:3-4'>Isa 66:3-4</a>). Jeremiah feared God had deceived him (<a href='B:300 20:7'>Jer 20:7</a>)- showing he knew such a thing was possible. <a href='B:50 13:1-3'>Deu 13:1-3</a> warns Israel not to believe prophets whose prophecies came true although they taught false doctrines, because they may have been raised up to test their obedience. God deceived Israel by telling them about the peace which would come on Jerusalem in the future Kingdom; they didn’t consider the other prophecies which were given at the same time concerning their imminent judgment, and therefore they thought that God was pleased with them and was about to establish the Messianic Kingdom; when actually the very opposite was about to happen (<a href='B:300 4:10'>Jer 4:10</a>). This is why the Bible is confusing to those who aren’t humble to God’s word.</p><p>Go out and do so’- </p><p>This describes the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do God’s word. So when we read of God sending lions (<a href='B:120 17:25-26'>2Ki 17:25-26</a>), sending wild beasts and famine (<a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:330 5:17'>Eze 5:17</a>; <a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a>), sending locusts (<a href='B:360 2:25'>Joe 2:25</a>), it would seem that Angels are sent forth from God’s throne in order to command animals to obey God’s word. And moreover, He sends an evil spirit between men (<a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>) and stubborn hearts are also sent from God (<a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a>). The same Angels who are sent to control the animals can also therefore work to give men certain attitudes of mind.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and Yahweh has spoken evil concerning you- </p><p>This was exactly what Micaiah had said before about Ahab, and Ahab intuitively knew that this was coming.  Ahab had lied in order to take Naboth's vineyard, and he is being punished appropriately- by his prophets lying to him, and leading him to his death. We naturally enquire what the point was of telling Ahab that he had been deceived because God had planned that he die in the upcoming battle. "Evil" or "disaster had been decreed, and the execution of it arranged by the Angels. But even at this late stage, outcomes could be changed. For the purpose of sharing the vision was surely was that even at this late stage, Ahab could have repented- and so the earlier prophecy that he would "die in peace" would have come true- and likewise 1 Kings 21:25-29: “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days". We see how open God is to change, and how desperate He is for human repentance. We also note that Micaiah initially spoke as the false prophets did. By sharing this vision, he is confessing his own weakness- that he had been open to the "lying spirit" and had accepted it and spoken according to it. That "spirit" was his own mind or spirit wanting to say what was acceptable and popular. His spirit was confirmed by a Divine spirit. Just as Saul's was. But then he had the humility to realize what had happened, and to speak the truth and thus refuse the lying spirit confirming his own wrong spirit. </p>


text:
<p>Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way did the Spirit of Yahweh go from me to speak to you?- </p><p>"Cheek" can be "ear". The idea was that Zedekiah implied Micaiah was saying that the spirit had left him and entered Micaiah through his ear. And so he smote that ear. To strike on the cheek was the punishment for a heretic, and was applied to the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, Behold, you will see on that day when you go into an inner room to hide yourself- </p><p>The idea of going into an inner room is to pray- the idea may be that when Zedekiah would in future be hiding from catastrophe, brought down small and desperately praying to God, he would find God silent. And that is the greatest condemnation. We think of king Saul. When Ahab was defeated and slain, everyone in Samaria would be looking for the false prophets to kill them. Not least Jezebel. For the defeat would have been blamed upon them. So Zedekiah would have hid from shame and fear of being killed. There is a connection between Benhadad going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was given victory against him (<a href='B:110 20:30'>1Ki 20:30</a>), and the false prophet Zedekiah going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was defeated (<a href='B:110 22:25'>1Ki 22:25</a>). The same Hebrew words are used, and the connection becomes more apparent if we accept that 1 Kings 20, 21 should be placed the other way around, as in LXX. This would mean that the hiding of Benhadad is recorded just a short time before that of Zedekiah. The connection would be to show that the false prophets were in fact bracketed together by God with Israel's enemies; whereas they had claimed that they were nationalists on Israel's side, proclaiming Israel's certain victory against their enemies. God sees not as man sees, and the real spiritual realities are often the very opposite of what appears.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son- </p><p>These men were those who ran the prison, for "carry him back" means Micaiah was already in prison. See on :9. Again we see how wrong Elijah had been to claim that no prophet of Yahweh existed apart from himself. Micaiah had gone to prison for speaking God’s word to Ahab. But Elijah presumably considered there was some curious point of theology or matter of legal practice which enabled Elijah to rubbish Micaiah as not sincere and not a true prophet. It reminds us of how truly committed Christians who have gone to jail or even death for their witness... are trashed by others as somehow not the real Christians. And only they the critics are in fellowship with God. They really need to learn the lesson of Elijah. For he was ejected from his ministry because of those attitudes.</p>


text:
<p>Say, ‘Thus says the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace’- </p><p>I suggest on :9,26 that he was already in prison for his faithful witness against Ahab. So the idea here seems to be that he was to be put in the inner prison and given a very tough regime.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, If you return at all in peace, Yahweh has not spoken by me. He said, Listen, all you people!-</p><p>If I were Micaiah, I think I would have just shrugged and remained silent, fearing the harsh regime of punishment in :27 could easily be changed into the death sentence. For Naboth had been slain for 'cursing the king'. But Micaiah bravely invites the large audience to listen and take note, because he seeks their conversion.</p>


text:
<p>So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead- </p><p>The record is intentionally silent about the utter folly of Jehoshaphat in going ahead with this. He was keenly interested to 'know the truth' from God’s word, and didn’t want to hear false teaching. But when the truth was presented, he didn’t follow it. We can take a huge lesson from this. He allowed the intense pressure of the crowd of prophets, and his family relationship with Ahab as the in-law of his son, to lead him to walk right against the 'truth' he had sought. And there are many who seem to rejoice more in 'searching for the truth' than in actually following it when they are find it or have it presented to them.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and go into the battle; but you put on your robes. The king of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle- </p><p>LXX even suggests that Ahab asked Jehoshaphat to wear Ahab's robes. The next verse describes why this was; Ahab was aware of the king of Syria's desire to resolve the issue by capturing or killing Ahab. The incident is a parade example of 'bad friends'. We marvel at Jehoshaphat's stupidity in agreeing. For surely he must have foreseen what could happen. This was the pressure he felt from Ahab and Jezebel, the in-laws of his son. And so often family pressure leads otherwise solid believers into uncharacteristic actions, seriously unwise behaviour and positions which are utterly the opposite of all they stand for. Because quite simply, they do not really commit to following God’s word, even if they stand with their backs to the world.</p><p>The fact Ahab disguised himself reflects how he secretly believed the words of prophecy in :17 that he would die in the battle. For all man's bravado, there is a conscience within every man that discerns that God's word is true.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king of Syria had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots saying, Fight neither with small nor great, except only with the king of Israel- </p><p>Only three years previously (see on :1), the king of Syria had been foolishly spared by Ahab. Perhaps he couldn't live down that humiliation, and wanted to kill the man who had shown him so much mercy. That again is absolutely true to observed human experience, and the record time and again is absolutely psychologically credible.</p><p>We note the similarities with 1 Kings 20:1, where Ahab was again attacked by 32 captains under Benhadad's control. Likewise we read of victory as being 'given into the hand' in both 1 Kings 20:6,13 and also in 1 Kings 22:6,15. Clearly Ahab had utterly failed to learn from his own history. And therefore God was angry with him and slew him. Our world is likewise full of folk who refuse to learn from their own history, who refuse to accept Divine jogs and nudges, who fail to see history repeating itself in their lives or between their lives and Biblical history. And this refusal to join the dots is not mere intellectual failure; in Ahab's case, it was seen as worthy of severe judgment. It is a form of resisting the Holy Spirit. Not only did Ahab fail to learn; Ahaziah later likewise repeated the same mistake of joining the king of Israel to fight the Syrians at Ramoth Gilead: "[Ahaziah] went with Joram the son of Ahab to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth Gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram" (2 Kings 8:28,29). Perhaps this is why Ahab is repeatedly referred to as "the king of Israel" in 1 Kings 22, because the history is being recorded as a general warning to any who would seek fellowship with any idolatrous "king of Israel". 2 Kings 3-13 describe many conflicts with Syria- and always the lesson taught by the history of 1 Kings 22 was ignored.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely that is the king of Israel! And they turned aside to fight against him. Jehoshaphat cried out- </p><p>The Hebrew implies that they surrounded him. He was clearly "lucky" to escape with his life. It was only by Divine grace that he did. His 'crying out' was surely to God to save him from his foolishness.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him- </p><p>This was in response to his crying out to God for salvation in :32. Chronicles adds: "and the Lord helped him and turned them off from him. And yet he was strongly rebuked by God in <a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>. His actions provoked "the wrath of Yahweh", but God saved a man by grace whilst at the same time having great wrath against him. This is so different to human wrath and attempts to show grace, which seem usually to be displayed without any other pole of feeling in mind. But God had both in perfect balance at the same time. This is the wonder of His Name, which includes all these poles of feeling toward men within His personality.</p>


text:
<p>A certain man drew his bow at random, and struck the king of Israel between the joints of the armour. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, Turn your hand, and carry me out of the battle; for I am severely wounded- </p><p>The gaps in armour around vital organs would have been relatively small. This is evidence for all time that there is no such thing as "random". This was so clearly of God.</p>


text:
<p>The battle increased that day. The king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, and died at evening. The blood ran out of the wound into the bottom of the chariot- </p><p>The weak minded Ahab genuinely wanted to do the best for his troops, and therefore remained in his chariot, propped up. Presumably Israelite soldiers knew where and who he was. It was this policy of not being removed from his chariot which resulted in the blood accumulating within it, which was required for the fulfilment of the prophecies about his blood.</p>


text:
<p>A cry went throughout the army about the going down of the sun saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his country!- </p><p>This was the exact fulfilment of Micaiah's prophecy that the shepherd of Israel would be slain, and the sheep would return to their homes (:17).</p>


text:
<p>So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria- </p><p>The double emphasis upon the death and burial of "the king" is perhaps to signpost attention to the fact that the prophecy of Micaiah about the death of the shepherd / master of the flock had been fulfilled (:17).</p>


text:
<p>They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood where the prostitutes washed themselves; according to the word of Yahweh which He spoke- </p><p>The idea may be that the women were washing in the pool whilst the blood of Ahab was washed off into it. According to <a href='B:110 21:19'>1Ki 21:19</a> "In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs will lick your blood, even yours" (Ahab's). But in <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a> the dogs [LXX "the swine and the dogs"] licked Ahab's blood in the pool of Samaria, just outside the gate of Samaria; not in Jezreel. It could be argued that "the place" refers not to a geographical locality, but rather to the place where the garbage was thrown outside a city gate. The Lord uses 'Gehenna' to describe such a place as a figure for condemnation. The way <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a> triumphs in the fulfilment of the prophecy suggests there was no perceived gap between the prediction and its fulfilment. But another possibility is that because of Ahab's repentance, the sentence was modified, just as that upon Adam was (for he didn’t die in the day he sinned, although he did die). This reflects God’s openness to human repentance in response to His stated judgments. In the gap between statement and fulfilment, there can be repentance and a change of outcomes. This is what gives intensity to our living in that gap. LXX adds to <a href='B:110 21:19'>1Ki 21:19</a> "and the harlots shall wash in thy blood". <a href='B:110 22:38'>1Ki 22:38</a> LXX says that this was fulfilled. Perhaps the idea is that they washed themselves in a spring in the rubbish dump where Ahab's blood as it were was eternally present.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he built, and all the cities that he built, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>This may not refer necessarily to the same books of Chronicles we have in our Bibles. Houses adorned with ivory were condemned by God in <a href='B:370 3:15'>Amo 3:15</a>. All of the Bible seems to cry out against high luxury living, in a world of such great spiritual and material need.</p>


text:
<p>So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place-</p><p>Ahab's naming his sons with the 'Yah' suffix in their names (he had another son called Jehoram, <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>) would be a nod toward Yahweh worship. And yet he is famed as a Baal worshipper. This helps us better understand the nature of the Baal worship then practiced; it was a mixture of Yahweh worship with Baal worship, claiming to worship Yahweh through Baal worship. This is why when Ahab is asked to produce a prophet of Yahweh, he calls up the 400 prophets of Baal who had replaced those slain by Elijah on Carmel. And this is typical of so much of our failure; justifying sin in the name of worshipping God.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel- </p><p>Jehoshaphat means 'whom Jehovah judges'. And this is largely the point of his life, which Chronicles records in more detail. He made major mistakes in his relationships with Israel, incited the wrath of God against him (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>), died without removing the high places, and yet overall was judged as having a faithful heart before God (:43; <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). And so we have a parade example of how indeed 'Jehovah judges', factoring in the various dimensions of a man's life in a way in which we cannot. The lesson is indeed that we cannot judge, nor should we be tempted to judge a person according to the high and low points on their spiritual graph, nor upon the fact they may die with unconquered weaknesses.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi- </p><p>Again the mother is maybe mentioned because of her great influence upon the spiritual path of her children. However, there is also the theme that believers arise from unbelieving backgrounds. "Azubah" means "forsaken". It is the same word used in <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>, where Jehoshaphat's father Asa was told of God "If you forsake Him, He will forsake you". It could be that Asa forsook Azubah and she was effectively a divorced woman; or perhaps the wife was renamed this because Asa felt she had forsaken Yahweh, which is how the word "forsaken" ('Azubah') is usually used.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in all the way of Asa his father; he didn’t turn aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh: however the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places- </p><p>Again we marvel at God’s positive overall opinion of Jehoshaphat. For he rejected Yahweh's word in going to fight at Ramoth Gilead, and was condemned by God for working together with those who hated Him, and "therefore is wrath upon you from Yahweh" (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>). A man may fail repeatedly, as Jehoshaphat did in his relations with Ahab and allowing his son to marry Jezebel's daughter, and even experience God’s wrath. And yet finally be judged as having done what was right in God’s eyes. That doing of right may refer therefore not to a spotless track record of behaviour, but rather to a basic faith in God, repentance and what the New Testament calls "abiding in Him". It is not the dramatic ups and downs on the graph of human spirituality over time which are significant to God. It is the overall state of the heart. And we can take courage from this in our own lives, and be guided therefore not to think too highly of those who at specific points show great commitment, nor to think too lowly of those who fail in specific points of their journey. We also learn that some men die with weaknesses, such as not taking away the high places. But this does not necessarily tip the balance towards their condemnation. This needs to be factored in to our thinking about the spiritual fate of those who die committing suicide.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel- </p><p>Or, "kings". Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram were all contemporary with Jehoshaphat, and he seems to be commended for this. And yet the Chronicles record clearly shows that he was too close to them. His son married a daughter of Ahab (<a href='B:140 18:1'>2Ch 18:1</a>), and his insistence on supporting Ahab was seen as loving those who hated Yahweh, and the wrath of God was upon him because of it (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>). And yet he is commended for having peace with the kings of Israel (<a href='B:110 22:44'>1Ki 22:44</a>), even though&nbsp; that desire for peace with them led him into major sin. But he was judged as having a heart right with God (<a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). We sense God weighting Jehoshaphat's sins with his relations with Israel against his genuine desire for peace within God’s people. And overall, as he was judged on the state of his heart, his desire for unity and peace was judged as his dominant desire. We simply cannot factor in or weight all the dimensions in a man's heart. Only God can. And the reason we are not to judge is because in fact we cannot judge, in that we don't have access to human hearts.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he showed, and how he warred, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God’s "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]... but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>The remainder of the sodomites, from the days of his father Asa, he put away out of the land- </p><p>Here we again encounter the theme of partial purges and partial living according to God’s standards; and also the reality of the fact that no soon was one apostacy stamped out by a king that it rose up again. It was this lack of abiding spiritual change which led the nation to a downward spiral which climaxed in their rejection by God as having sinned worse than Israel (Ezekiel 16, 23).</p>


text:
<p>There was no king in Edom: a deputy was king- </p><p>This explains why Solomon could have access to Ezion Geber (:48) which was in Edom (<a href='B:110 9:26'>1Ki 9:26</a>). The "deputy" was surely one imposed by Jehoshaphat (s:w. <a href='B:110 4:7'>1Ki 4:7</a>). Perhaps this effective subjugation of Edom (<a href='B:120 8:20'>2Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:120 8:22'>2Ki 8:22</a>) by Jehoshaphat is part of the overall scene of his power over the surrounding nations which we find in <a href='B:140 17:10-11'>2Ch 17:10-11</a>. Hadad of Edom had been an adversary to Solomon, who also traded through Ezion Geber (<a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>); but not to Jehoshaphat:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they didn’t go; for the ships were broken at Ezion Geber- </p><p><a href='B:140 20:36-37'>2Ch 20:36-37</a> says that this was a joint venture with Ahab's son Ahaziah. He was so slow to learn the lesson that he should not work together with the apostate ten tribe kingdom. He had almost lost his life because of this whilst fighting at Ramoth Gilead. And like us, the situations were repeated, but he was so slow to learn.</p><p>"Ships of Tarshish" is clearly a technical term for a long distance trading vessel. "Tarshish" appears to have been the source of gold, peacocks, silver etc:, which are only found together in southern India. But a ship of Tarshish wasn't necessarily a ship which went to Tarshish. "Tarshish" means 'endurance' and refers to vessels which had a capacity for long distance trading. At that time, India was the end of the earth for someone living in Israel. There is an analogous situation with how 19th century long distance trading vessels were known as "Indiamen", not because they necessarily sailed the routes to India, but because they were long distance vessels of the kind which had sailed to India. This is why 'going to Tarshish' in <a href='B:140 20:36-37'>2Ch 20:36-37</a> is paralleled with 'going to Ophir in ships of Tarshish' in <a href='B:110 22:48'>1Ki 22:48</a>.</p>&nbsp;<p>"Ophir" may have been a generic name for areas to the east, including southern Arabia (famed for gold in <a href='B:230 72:15'>Psa 72:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:22'>Eze 27:22</a>) and India; Ophir was in Arabia according to <a href='B:10 10:29'>Gen 10:29</a>. Sheba was nearby and was famed for gold, so it was through this trading that the Queen of Sheba heard of the wisdom of Solomon. <a href='B:110 10:1'>1Ki 10:1</a> goes on to speak of her after mentioning gold of Ophir in <a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a>, connecting her with this gold trade with Ophir. But <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> connects Ophir with "almug trees and precious stones". "Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.</p>


text:
<p>Then Ahaziah the son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with your servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not- </p><p>Jehoshaphat finally learned his lesson of not associating with the ten tribes because of their apostacy. But he was so very slow in learning it. We would have thought that his experience in the battle at Ramoth Gilead would have taught him. But it didn’t. His ships had to be broken by the wind / storm of God’s wrath (:48). And then when Ahaziah proposes another join venture, finally Jehoshaphat learns the lesson. We marvel again at God’s patience with men. This means that we are to continue seeking the repentance of men and never cut them off, as is typically done by small minded churches 'disfellowshipping' people.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; Jehoram his son reigned in his place-</p><p>"Jehoram", 'Raised by Yah', would reflect spirituality in Jehoshaphat. We note that so many of the kings of Israel didn’t have the covenant Name within their names, whereas the kings of Judah did.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel- </p><p>The fact Ahab gave his son a name with the 'Yah' suffix ['Yah has seized'] indicates that Ahab did have some desire to show commitment to Yahweh despite Jezebel; for Jezebel surely would have been against this name. But he failed to raise the boy to be a follower of Yahweh, and in the end, Jezebel's influence was stronger upon him. We again see in Ahab a man who knew better than to live how he did, and who showed moments and aspects of commitment to the true God, but lived a life of overall failure until his final repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and walked in the way of his father and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, in which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>The language here and in :53 appears to give no credit to Ahab for his repentance which had so pleased Yahweh. Perhaps that was of no abiding value, seeing that immediately before his death he specifically rejected the word of Yahweh for that of the false prophets, which led him to his death.</p>


text:
<p>He served Baal and worshipped him, and provoked to anger Yahweh, the God of Israel, according to all that his father had done- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<e>2 Kings: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab- </p><p>We last heard of Moab when David subdued them (<a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>). The Moabite stone states that Israel and Moab were in conflict in the time of Ahab's father Omri. Tired of paying the heavy tax of <a href='B:120 3:4'>2Ki 3:4</a>, Moab seized the opportunity when Ahab died suddenly and Israel were defeated by Syria at Ramoth Gilead.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaziah fell down through the lattice in his upper room that was in Samaria, and was sick- </p><p>Elijah had prophesied that all Ahab's sons would be cut off, and here we see the fulfilment. Ahaziah means 'Yahweh possesses'. Ahab knew this and liked the idea of it, but did exactly the opposite to this spirit in murdering Naboth for not selling him Yahweh's possession. We can know things on one level and yet act otherwise. Realizing this bids us go the way of total, absolute surrender. Or perhaps he named his son this in repentance for not accepting this principle. </p><p>The record is full of connection with Elijah's healing of the widow's son in 1 Kings 17. There is an "upper room", the child falls sick and dies just as Ahaziah does, both are on a bed in an upper room (Ahaziah went up onto a bed, 2 Kings 1:4), but clearly Ahaziah is unfavourably contrasted with the Gentile widow woman. Because the widow's child "revived" (1 Kings 17:22), whereas Ahaziah did not "recover" (s.w. revived, 2 Kings 1:2). He did not come down from the bed in the upper room, whereas the widow's son did. The intention is to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh and His prophet Elijah over Baal. This is confirmed by Elijah using fire to destroy Ahaziah's men, whereas Baal was supposed to be the god of fire and rain, in that he was the god of fertility and supposedly could revive the dead. But surely this superiority of Yahweh over Baal had been demonstrated for all time by the triumph on Carmel in 1 Kings 18. But again fire is called down from Yahweh in the same way as Elijah had done in 1 Kings 18. We see how people so easily revert to idolatry, and physical, visible evidence is of little long term value.  </p><p>So he sent messengers and said to them, Go, inquire of Baal Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I will recover of this sickness- </p><p>The Pharisees accused Jesus of doing miracles by the power of a false god called Beelzebub. Jesus said, “If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out?” (<a href='B:470 12:27'>Mat 12:27</a>). <a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a> clearly tells us that Beelzebub was a false god of the Philistines. Jesus did not say, ‘Now look, <a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a> says Beelzebub was a false god, so your accusation cannot be true’. No, He spoke as if Beelzebub existed, because He was interested in getting His message through to His audience. So in the same way Jesus talked about casting out demons – He did not keep saying, ‘actually, they do not exist’, He just preached the Gospel in the language of the day.</p><p>We note they didn’t ask for healing. For only Yahweh heals. They consulted some kind of oracle there to see whether he would recover. It seems the damage from the fall had put him in some kind of condition which appeared to them as a "sickness". "Whether I will recover..." is a tacit acceptance that Baal was not a god known for healing, but simply as a foreteller of the future. </p>


text:
<p>But the angel of Yahweh said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and tell them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you go to inquire of Baal Zebub, the god of Ekron?- </p><p>Elijah had been rejected from his ministry as the lead prophet of Israel at the time of 1 Kings 19; and he had called Elisha to replace him. But he is here given another chance to serve God as a prophet. Perhaps he repented of his arrogance in considering nobody else to be a true prophet, and so God was willing to use him in some measure again. Or it could be that Elijah persisted in being a prophet, and God was willing to allow him to continue although He had asked him to resign and annoint Elisha. Elijah arrogantly persisted until God forcibly brought fire down upon him and dramatically removed him from his ministry. This reading of things inverts the common idea that Elijah had a wonderful ministry that ended in a blaze of glory and Divine acceptance. The idea that Yahweh was a God only operative in His land, Israel, was widespread. We see it in some of David’s Psalms, and in Jonah's vain attempt to flee Yahweh's presence in the land. And yet that wrong idea is 'gone along with' here, in order to make a point to Ahaziah. Just as the language of demons is likewise used in the New Testament, although demons have no real existence.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore thus says Yahweh, You shall not come down from the bed where you have gone up, but shall surely die’. Elijah departed- </p><p>Perhaps his bedroom was not on the ground floor; :2 could imply he had fallen from his upper room, and now was confined there again.</p>


text:
<p>The messengers returned to him, and he said to them, Why is it that you have returned?- </p><p>The messengers obviously took Elijah very seriously, because they did not proceed to Ekron but instead returned to Amaziah. Such disobedience to the king was not normal. They had been deeply struck by God’s word, just as those sent to arrest the Lord Jesus returned saying that no man spoke like Him. Again we see how there is a niggling conscience in man towards the one true God, and it is easily aroused. This is a comfort to us in our mission of witnessing to apparent unbelievers and agnostics.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, A man came up to meet us and said to us, ‘Go, return to the king who sent you, and tell him, Thus says Yahweh, Is it because there is no God in Israel that you send to inquire of Baal Zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you shall not come down from the bed where you have gone up, but shall surely die’- </p><p>This usage of the "Thus says Yahweh" formula is an improvement upon Elijah's earlier way of speaking; he has never previously said this. In <a href='B:110 21:21'>1Ki 21:21</a> Elijah simply announced to Ahab: “Behold I will bring evil upon you...". We expect this to be prefaced by a “Thus says Yahweh”- but Elijah was so close to God he assumed he was speaking directly from Him. And yet Elijah didn’t then repeat exactly what God had told him to say in <a href='B:110 21:19'>1Ki 21:19</a>. But now he does much better. Is this a hint at spiritual reformation in him, which was why God continued to use him? Had he previously been too familiar with God? Assuming he knew God’s will and words? But now he repeats verbatim what he was told to say. We too know God’s word. We know the Bible text well. But this can lead to an assumption that we speak for God; that we must be right in all our attitudes and positions we adopt on issues.</p><p>Several times we read that they "returned to the king". Literally, 'Repent the King'. He has been assured that he will die, but there is the hint here that if he repented, even that need not happen. This is how flexible is God's plan of working.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, What kind of man was he who came up to meet you, and told you these words?- </p><p>As with Ahab intuitively guessing what Micaiah's message from Yahweh was going to be, so surely Amaziah guessed who this man was. He has the image of Elijah in his mind as he asks this question. Again we see man's religious conscience; he had a deep fearful premonition that this person would have been Elijah. The call of Christ is to accept that conscience and to totally surrender, moment by moment and day by day in human life.</p>


text:
<p>They answered him, He was a hairy man, and wearing a leather belt around his waist. He said, It is Elijah the Tishbite-</p><p>Elijah was characterized by wearing a hairy garment like sackcloth (<a href='B:120 1:8'>2Ki 1:8</a> RV- "a man with a garment of skin" is a fair translation, and we learn from Zech. 13:4 that a hairy mantle was a sign of a prophet). He had been relieved of his ministry in 1 Kings 19, and told to anoint Elisha to replace him. But he doesn't do that, and only symbolically threw his mantle at Elisha and only had Elisha follow him as his servant, not as his replacement prophet. Clearly he had retrieved his mantle from Elisha and wore it himself, rather than leaving it on Elisha. But despite this stubborn, arrogant disobedience- God still works with him. He calls fire down from Heaven and God does so. He is not told to do this, he presumes God will answer him. And God goes along with him. Because later he was intended to look back and realize with awed shock how patient God had been with him despite his arrogance.</p><p> The whole incident on Horeb had been to make Elijah see the supremacy of the still small voice; that it is in humble, quiet service rather than fiery judgment of others that the essence of God and spirituality is to be found. But God had prepared Elijah for this earlier. Elijah had to hide by the brook Cherith (<a href='B:110 17:3'>1Ki 17:3</a>) for three and a half years (<a href='B:490 4:25-26'>Luk 4:25-26</a>). In <a href='B:730 11:3'>Rev 11:3</a>; <a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a> we meet another Elijah figure- also clothed in sackcloth, with the power to bring fire down from Heaven, who for three and a half years… prophesies / preaches. The Old Testament Elijah is famed for his hairy mantle, but the latter day Elijah has not a mantle of hair but the sackcloth of penitence and mourning. The image is of a repentant Elijah. I suggest that this figure is representative of the latter day witnesses to God’s truth in the last days. Thereby we are connected with Elijah in his sackcloth. We would expect Elijah to have been preaching during his time hidden by Cherith- but there is not a word of this in the record. We are expected to be how Elijah should have been. Could it not be that the Father wishes to show us what He was then trying to teach Elijah- that the essential prophetic witness is through us being as we are, the still small voice of witness through example…?</p>


text:
<p>Then the king sent a captain of fifty with his fifty to him. He went up to him; and behold, he was sitting on the top of the hill. He said to him, Man of God, the king has said, ‘Come down!’-</p><p>There are several connections between Elijah and Carmel; he may well have had a school of the prophets on that mountain. So that may be the locality in view. Perhaps Elijah lived on it endlessly reminiscent of what he thought to be his most glorious moment there. But he is made to show grace and come down from it. The third group of 50 did what the previous two groups of 50 did. They obeyed a command to take Elijah. They were no morally different. But Elijah is commanded to show them grace. </p><p>The squadrons of 50 soldiers were clearly sent to take Elijah by force. Amaziah didn't like the message, and so he wanted to shoot the messenger. We see this so often as the root motive and psychology behind persecution, dislike and slander of Christian preachers.  </p>


text:
<p>Elijah answered to the captain of fifty, If I am a man of God, let fire come down from the sky, and consume you and your fifty! Fire came down from the sky, and consumed him and his fifty- </p><p>This incident of calling fire down from Heaven is specifically rebuked by the Lord Jesus as not being of His Spirit (<a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a>). And He rebukes His followers for assuming that their natural prejudice against others can be justified by an appeal to Elijah’s example. When Elijah was asked to “come down” from the hill, he responds by saying that fire would come down (<a href='B:120 1:9-10'>2Ki 1:9-10</a>); he saw himself as the fire / judgment of God. Yet behind that bold façade was a very insecure man; for the Angel had to assure him not to fear, and to go down with the third captain (<a href='B:120 1:15'>2Ki 1:15</a>). Beneath his apparent zeal for Yahweh, Elijah was basically fearful, of himself, of others, even perhaps of God. So often, fear is the basic reason for our failures and misperceptions and harsh judgments. His motives were mixed; he clearly saw the similarity with how he had called fire down to consume the sacrifice on Carmel, in order to convert Israel back to God. But he clearly failed to see the value of those 100 lives he had now taken by doing the same thing in consuming people. The value and meaning of persons was lost on him. All he could think of was fighting apostasy and judging it. Elijah called the fire down in evident allusion to how fire came down from the Lord to destroy Nadab and Abihu and also Sodom (<a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a>; <a href='B:10 19:24'>Gen 19:24</a>). He did the wrong thing from wrong motives and yet he Biblically justified it- for the prophets themselves saw an apostate Israel as being like Sodom (<a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a>). Now this is probably how most Christians sin. We rarely harden ourselves and sin in willful defiance. In the heat of the moment the ‘devil’ of our own self-talk persuades us to find a pseudo-spiritual justification for actions which only later we reflect were wrong. The Lord’s wilderness temptations were all about doing justifiable things for wrong motives, based on a self-justifying recollection of Bible passages. And this in essence is how it is with most of our failures. The Lord’s victory and Elijah’s failure should serve to stop us in our tracks in careful and sustained self-examination.</p><p>The idea of fire from Heaven is found in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:490 12:49-54'>Luk 12:49-54</a>, where He associates it with division in the brotherhood. And the Lord went on to say that the Pharisees could interpret a cloud arising in the West as a sign that rain was coming, but they could not forgive their brethren, which was what was essential (<a href='B:490 12:54'>Luk 12:54</a>). This just has to be a reference to Elijah, who saw a cloud arising from the West as a sign of rain. The Lord is, it seems, sadly associating Elijah with the Pharisees. And yet... despite all this,&nbsp; Jesus likens Himself to Elijah. Jesus sent fire on earth as Elijah did (<a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a>). And the context of the <a href='B:490 9:54'>Luk 9:54</a> reference to Elijah is that the Lord’s time had come that he should be “received up”, and “he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (<a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a>). This is all very much the language of Elijah (<a href='B:120 2:1'>2Ki 2:1</a>). And elsewhere Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (<a href='B:110 17:23'>1Ki 17:23</a> = <a href='B:500 4:50-53'>Joh 4:50-53</a>). What this shows is that the Lord saw what was good in Elijah, and He didn’t separate Himself from someone who didn’t have His Spirit. He simply wanted His followers to learn better from him.</p><p>Fire from Heaven is a clear symbol of Divine judgment; we think of Sodom's judgment and the fire that fell on Job's home. Elijah calls fire down from Heaven apparently at will- both on Carmel and in destroying the soldiers sent to take him. God is not recorded as telling him to do this. He is extremely confident that God's judgment must fall, and his faith is rewarded. But he was so far from God in his spirit, as the Lord's allusion to the incident shows. But God patiently doesn't forcibly stop him nor force him out of ministry. He allows us leeway in how we serve Him; as in the parable of the talants, we are given the ability to serve but aren't told specifically how to in practice. And we will make mistakes and be unbalanced in our positions as we work towards maturity. God's patience with us is amazing. </p><p> Finally God sends fire from Heaven to remove Elijah from his ministry, as he was refusing to quit it as asked. The fire that came from Heaven to remove Elijah was therefore some kind of judgment of him, although he was not slain by it and was apparently removed to live in obscurity elsewhere. The chariots of fire that came to remove him were not therefore the blaze of glory in which a glorious ministry ended- but rather the opposite. It was God's judgment upon him, although he was not destroyed by it, but forcibly removed to obscurity. And in that obscurity, he apparently repented- for the transfiguration appearance make it clear that he will be in God's Kingdom. Jonah is very similar to Elijah, and we are left to infer his similar repentance after the narrated events finished.</p>


text:
<p>Again he sent to him another captain of fifty and his fifty. He answered him, Man of God, the king has said, ‘Come down quickly!’- </p><p>Elijah sees himself as the fire sent from God; he associates himself directly with God and His judgments. He hadn’t learnt the lesson that God wasn’t in the fire but in the small voice. The captain wanted Elijah to come down from the high hill (cp. Heaven), so Elijah calls fire to come down from Heaven. He sees himself as the fire, as God coming down. He had the wrong attitude and yet God still heard his prayers; God worked with Elijah as Elijah wanted. And so we perceive the subtleties of a man’s relationship with God. Prayer may be answered, and the extent of Elijah’s faith in ‘commanding’ the fire to come down is indeed awesome, but we may even then still be ‘playing God’ in a wrong way. This playing of God, this over certainty that God was behind him, led Elijah into some arrogance.</p><p>Elijah was being sarcastic in quipping that they had asked him to "come down", but he would call fire to "come down" upon them. But God still worked with him, as with his calling of fire down on Carmel despite again being sarcastic about Baal being in the toilet. God does work with people despite their immaturity. The situations repeat- and so does Elijah's failure. We are tested with situations and we may fail each time.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah answered them, If I am a man of God, let fire come down from the sky, and consume you and your fifty! The fire of God came down from the sky, and consumed him and his fifty- </p><p>Elijah like the disciples thought that he was the judge on God’s behalf, and that he was justified in calling down fire, evocative as that was of the way God Himself judges sinners. But Jesus puts it all another way- our focus, if we have His spirit, should be on saving people by getting them to destroy / lose their own fleshly lives through following Him. <a href='B:500 12:25-26'>Joh 12:25-26</a> makes the same point- he who loves his life loses / destroys it, but he who picks up the cross and follows Jesus will save it. Our absolute focus must be on the salvation of others through helping them condemn / destroy / lose themselves for the Lord’s sake; and we achieve this by following Jesus in the life of the cross, not by destroying others ourselves. The Lord came to save not destroy; to save the lost / destroyed (<a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a>; <a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a> - the same words are used; note how this theme is developed specifically by Luke). But He did this through getting people to destroy their lives. And He begged- and begs- His followers to have His spirit / attitude in all this. And His point was that Elijah didn’t have His Spirit. Note that God worked with Elijah- He heard his prayers. Elijah like the disciples had the “Spirit”, the power that God was willing to let them have; and yet the Spirit of Jesus is more than raw power. And so it could be said of us, that we so often know not what manner of spirit we are of. We may be correctly reflecting the judgment of God, we may have Biblical justification for the hard line we adopt; but this doesn’t mean that we fully have the spirit of Christ. Yet as with Elijah, the fact our prayers are heard, that Scripture appears to back us, can make us blind to such major insufficiencies in our spirituality. We have a choice in how we respond to others’ weakness; there are different levels of response. “If thy brother sin against thee”, the Lord said- we can ultimately take others with us and then treat him as a Gentile or tax collector. But He continues- if our brother sin against us, we should forgive to an unlimited extent. This is the higher level of response to your brother’s weakness. Elijah and the disciples took the first of those options, as many of us do; but in doing so we so easily forget what manner of spirit we are of; for we are to be of the spirit of Christ, not Elijah. And His attitude / spirit was most definitely to save rather than to destroy, to share table fellowship rather than disassociate... The Lord Jesus purposefully inverted the common assumption that the duty of a righteous man was to condemn the sinners. When He said that there is much joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents (<a href='B:490 15:10'>Luk 15:10</a>), the Lord was purposefully inverting the common contemporary Jewish saying that there was much joy in Heaven whenever one sinner is destroyed in judgment. His desire is to seek to save rather than to destroy. And Elijah had not attained to this spirit of Christ when he called fire down from Heaven.</p><p>The same words are used as in 1 Kings 18:38 for how Elijah called down fire to "consume" the sacrifice. Probably Elijah is again on Carmel. He was not fold to do what he did on Carmel, but rather he exercised his initiative. And the same here. This is my angle on the morality of the miracle. The fire came from God and consumed 50 men, all somebody's sons and fathers... and then, another 50. But I suggest God had delegated His power to Elijah, and he chose to use it this way. Elijah confidently states that fire shall come down- the Hebrew is emphatic. Just as he said there would be no rain according to his word. There is no "Thus says the Lord". Rather does he present as so strong in faith that he was confident that what he said would happen. Although he lacked the love which is so necessary. </p>


text:
<p>Again he sent the captain of a third fifty with his fifty. The third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah and begged him and said to him, Man of God, please let my life, and the life of these fifty your servants, be precious in your sight- </p><p>Twice Elijah has said that if he is a "man of God", a prophet, then fire would come down. His ministry as Israel's lead prophet had been removed in 1 Kings 19 because of his arrogant refusal to accept the other faithful in Israel. So it's as if he really wants to demonstrate that he is still a "man of God", a prophet. And the third captain perceives that, and therefore addresses Elijah as "Man of God". But he implies that a true man of God would perceive the value and meaning of the human person, and not slaughter people in such a light hearted manner.</p><p>We wonder if this slaying of two groups of 50 contrasts with how Obadiah [whom Elijah had despised as insincere] had saved the lives of two groups of 50 prophets of Yahweh- whom Elijah had discounted as insincere, since he had protested that he was the only prophet of Yahweh. Elijah thought nothing of taking two groups of 50 lives, whereas Obadiah (whom he despised) risked his life to save two groups of 50. Time and again, Elijah is presented poorly. Defence of God's truth trumped, in a word, people. And he is condemned for this attitude, both by the record, and the Lord's interpretation of these events. We must not think that these things don't apply to us- for each of us has a strong tendency towards judgmentalism, seen from toddlers to old ladies facing their grave planks. And some of the greatest 'defenders of the faith' in Christianity have shown no care for people. </p>


text:
<p>Behold, fire came down from the sky, and consumed the two former captains of fifty with their fifties. But now let my life be precious in your sight- </p><p>The captain chose his phrase carefully, for these were the very words of Saul to David (<a href='B:90 26:21'>1Sa 26:21</a>). He is asking Elijah to show the spirit of grace which David showed to Saul; and David showed that spirit because he was but reflecting the extreme preciousness of human life in the sight of God. He uses the same phrase of how the Messianic King would likewise consider the life of others to be precious in his sight (<a href='B:230 72:14'>Psa 72:14</a>). Elijah is apparently unmoved by this appeal to show grace. He only goes down because an Angel tells him to (:15).</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Elijah, Go down with him. Don’t be afraid of him. He arose, and went down with him to the king- </p><p>Despite all the bravado of Elijah against these captains and their soldiers, one simple reason he called down fire was because he was "afraid" of them. The "him" of whom Elijah was afraid was perhaps the young king Ahaziah.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal Zebub, the god of Ekron, is it because there is no God in Israel to inquire of His word? Therefore you shall not come down from the bed where you have gone up, but shall surely die’- </p><p>As noted on :6, Elijah's verbatim repetition of God’s words, prefaced with a "Thus says Yahweh", was an improvement on his previous attitudes. Earlier it seems Elijah had preached Yahweh's word to Ahab and Jezebel with no fear of consequences, ready to die. But now he fears Ahaziah (see on :15), even though the man was sick and incapacitated. His repentance about his pride led him to open himself up as a real person, true to himself. His bravery came largely from his pride. Now he had repented of his pride, he is less brave. It is all so very psychologically credible, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired record; and of a man who really did repent and become humble.</p>


text:
<p>So he died according to the word of Yahweh which Elijah had spoken. Jehoram began to reign in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son- </p><p>We note that both Israel and Judah had a king called Jehoram at this time. This was perhaps intentional, because Jehoshaphat's son had married Ahab's daughter. "The accession of the Israelite Jehoram (Ahab’s brother) took place, according to <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>, in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram of Judah perhaps received the royal title from his father as early as his father’s sixteenth year, when he was about to join Ahab against the Syrians; the same year might then be called either the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat or the second year of Jehoram".</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>This is not necessarily the books of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Yahweh would take up Elijah- </p><p>The Lord Jesus likens Himself to Elijah at times. Jesus sent fire on earth as Elijah did (<a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a>). He quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (<a href='B:110 17:23'>1Ki 17:23</a> = <a href='B:500 4:50-53'>Joh 4:50-53</a>). What this shows is that the Lord saw what was good in Elijah, and He didn’t separate Himself from someone who didn’t have His Spirit. And here we have another example. The context of the <a href='B:490 9:54'>Luk 9:54</a> reference to Elijah is that the Lord’s time had come that he should be “received up”, and “he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (<a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a>). This is all very much the language of Elijah being received up into the sky / heaven. Elijah set his face to do this; but it was a setting of his face to have the humility to give up his much coveted ministry to Elisha. We could possible reason [although see later] that Elijah set his face, he was determined... to be humble. To not cavil against God’s word that Elisha was to replace him. And so the Lord set His face to the humility required for the cross, and the ascension not into the sky [as Elijah did] but into Heaven itself.</p><p>By a whirlwind into heaven, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal-</p><p>Elijah didn’t go to Heaven itself, for no man has ascended to Heaven (<a href='B:500 3:13'>Joh 3:13</a>). He was a sinner and the wages of sin is death. The time for reward and eternal life is not after death, but at the return of the Lord Jesus. We know from <a href='B:140 21:12-15'>2Ch 21:12-15</a> that Elijah died, and wrote a letter soon before his death. So indeed he was snatched away and taken to another point on earth. Obadiah had implied this was a regular occurrence. Hence the young men later went out looking for Elijah. Elijah was taken away to a life of obscurity, during which he repented of his narcissism. He wrote a letter to Joram king of Judah, meaning he lived for quite some time after his snatching away.</p><p>Gilgal was where there was a school of the prophets (<a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>). Before being snatched away, Elijah was it seems touring the groups of "sons of the prophets".</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to Elisha, Please wait here, for Yahweh has sent me as far as Bethel. Elisha said, As Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you. So they went down to Bethel- </p><p>"Leave" is "deny". Elijah's ascension into the sky has remarkable similarities with that of the Lord, into Heaven itself- a group of men sent to take him; Elisha cp. Peter saying ‘I will not deny you’ (<a href='B:120 2:2'>2Ki 2:2</a> Heb:); a cloud of Angels receive him; men stand watching on earth; the Holy Spirit given on his ascension…<strong></strong></p><p>Elijah tells his servant to remain whilst he goes out into the desert alone, intent on committing suicide (1 Kings 19:3). When he is finally snatched away, he tried to get his servant Elisha to likewise remain whilst he went further alone. Again he intended suicide and Elisha likely perceived this. And so God did snatch him away, either to death or to make him end his ministry. </p>


text:
<p>The sons of the prophets who were at Bethel came out to Elisha and said to him, Do you know that Yahweh will take away your master from your head today? He said, Yes, I know it. Hold your peace- </p><p>The day for Elijah to be publically removed and Elisha to take his place had been set, and the other prophets knew this. Elisha was to take over as their chief. We can appreciate how hopeless it was for Elijah to be leader of the various schools of the prophets, if he had been persuaded that they were all insincere and he alone was left Yahweh's only true prophet. For this reason he was removed from the office. See on :5,23.</p><p>Elijah was told to replace himself with Elisha, but it seems he only called Elisha to be his servant and didn't anoint him as asked. Hence the section about this finishes with the comment that Elisha served him (1 Kings 19:21). 2 Kings 3:11 describes Elisha as the one ‘who used to pour water on the hands of Elijah’- he was his servant. That was not at all what God asked of Elijah. His taking up and snatching away was God forcing him to end his ministry; Elisha was told that Yahweh would take away his master from above his head, indicating Elijah was in the role of Elisha's master [and Elisha was his servant] right up to the moment he was carried away in the whirlwind. Taken away from above his head (2 Kings 2:3 "Yahweh will take away your master from your head today") is a strange phrase. Perhaps it indicates that Elijah was forcibly removed from having Elisha as his servant, and the way Elijah refused to relinquish his role was displeasing to God. But we note how in the gap between being fires from his ministry and being forcibly stopped from continuing it, God graciously still used him. See on :9.   </p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to him, Elisha, please wait here, for Yahweh has sent me to Jericho. He said, As Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you. So they came to Jericho- </p><p>It seems Elijah was being sent around the various schools of the prophets (all of whom, as noted on :3, he had despised as apostate). They were to see him as their leader for one last time. There is no sense that they were that distressed about losing him, unlike the weeping at Troas when Paul told the disciples they would see his face no more. This is understandable, seeing he had claimed he was the only true prophet and they were all astray on this or that point of doctrine or practice.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of the prophets who were at Jericho came near to Elisha and said to him, Do you know that Yahweh will take away your master from your head today? He answered, Yes, I know it. Hold your peace- </p><p>We note that all the sons of the prophets speak to Elisha of Elijah as "your master" rather than "our master" (also :3). Perhaps Elijah had formally disfellowshipped them for some apostacy or other, and demanded they never call him their master. No wonder he needed to be replaced. Or perhaps they didn’t share Elisha's huge respect for Elijah.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah said to him, Please wait here, for Yahweh has sent me to the Jordan. He said, As Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you. They both went on- </p><p>It seems Elijah didn’t want Elisha to be present when he was snatched away. Or as suggested above, the similarity with his attempted suicide near Beersheba suggests that he wanted to do the same again. And although Elisha had been told Elijah would be snatched away, the record carefully avoids saying that Elijah knew he would be snatched away at that time. He keeps asking him not to follow him. Perhaps he knew that his mantle would then drop to the earth and Elisha would have it. And he was resistant, still, to the idea of another man taking his ministry. He knew that if Elisha saw him ascend into the sky, then Elisha would have a double portion of his spirit (:10), making him greater than Elijah. And Elijah apparently didn’t want that.</p>


text:
<p>Fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood opposite them at a distance; and they both stood by the Jordan- </p><p>We recall how Obadiah had hidden prophets by groups of 50 in a cave; and yet Elijah didn't accept them as legitimate, considering himself the only true prophet of Yahweh and Obadiah as a servant of Ahab rather than Yahweh. So their relationship was somewhat strained. Perhaps these meetings with them were intended by God to lead Elijah to repentance. But he refused, and so was snatched away from any public ministry in a clear, dramatic way. There had been one cave for the two groups of 50 (<a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a>). So perhaps a 'group of 50 prophets' was not a literal group of 50 men, but a kind of prophetic division of prophets. Rather like a "thousand" likewise refers to a family or military subdivision of an army, rather than literally 1000.</p>


text:
<p>Elijah took his mantle, wrapped it together and struck the waters, and they were divided here and there, so that they two went over on dry ground- </p><p>This recalls the great miracles of Joshua and Moses. The crossing of the Jordan was near Jericho (:4), exactly where Joshua dried up the Jordan and passed also to Gilgal (Josh. 3:16; 4:13,19). To ask for a double portion of this Spirit was reflective of quite some spiritual ambition on Elisha's part. We see here Elijah acting as Moses; although when in Moses' cave on Sinai, he had been shown that he was not as Moses because he lacked Moses' humility. Although he had been set up to be as Moses; see on <a href='B:110 19:11'>1Ki 19:11</a>. Perhaps he was trying still to assert himself as Moses; or maybe he had finally arrived at the required humility, and so was permitted to act as Moses. And that is why he is given a role parallel to Moses&nbsp; at the transfiguration. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>When they had gone over, Elijah said to Elisha, Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you-</p><p>Maybe he knew that he would be snatched away east of Jordan, and so now they had crossed the river, he knew the end was near. However, it could be argued that he had no idea that he would be taken away as and when he was- although surely he had a premonition about it. The Hebrew could equally mean "What shall I do for you, seeing I've not yet been taken from you". The same word for "before" is found in 1 Sam. 3:7 "Samuel did not yet know Yahweh". So he could even be hinting that seeing he had not yet been forced out of the ministry, he could still do miracles, and so he enquired what he might do for Elisha personally. This position was what called forth the abrupt, dramatic, public ending of his ministry by the fire coming down from Heaven to remove him.</p><p>Elisha said, Please let a double portion of your spirit be on me- </p><p>The allusion may be to the double portion of the firstborn (<a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a>). The "sons of the prophets" had Elijah as their father; and so Elisha as now the senior prophet is asking to be treated as the firstborn of Elijah amongst the sons of the prophets (:12). That Elijah should have rejected them all, considering himself the only prophet of Yahweh, was as bad as a father disowning his children. No wonder Elijah had to be replaced as the 'father' of the sons of the prophets. But by asking to be treated as the firstborn, Elisha is showing that he considers himself just another son of the prophet Elijah, even if the firstborn.  Elisha has not grasped that he is to replae Elijah because Elijah had failed the test of humility, as explained in 1 Kings 19. And Elijah had clearly not explained that to him. But he is thereby not making any claim to be a new father to them. He therefore considered Elijah an impossible act to follow, even though Elijah had earlier condemned him. He focused on the positive in Elijah rather than being fazed by his arrogant rejection of all his brethren. This is indeed a challenge to us; for self congratulatory brethren who condemn all others are some of the hardest people to be positive about. It is so hard to make ourselves see the good in them, as Elisha clearly did to Elijah:&nbsp;</p><p>If indeed Elisha is asking to be treated as Elijah's spiritual firstborn, he is apparently ignorant of the fact that Yahweh had told Elijah on Carmel to replace himself with Elisha by anointing him. But it seems Elijah hadn't told Elisha that, reflective of how he so struggled against the command to retire. See on :3. Elisha shouts out to Elijah as he departs "My father, my father!", as if he wishes to stake his claim as Elijah's spiritual firstborn. But Elijah considered all the other prophets to be fake, probably including Elisha and Elisha's family, and only himself sincere. As he departs, he throws his mantle onto Elisha, as if finally accepting that he has been replaced by Elisha.</p>


text:
<p>He said, You have asked a hard thing. If you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so- </p><p>It's difficult to see why the gift of a double portion should be predicated upon this. Maybe Elijah means that if Elisha will continue to follow him to the absolute end, then he would support this idea. But the giver of the Spirit was God and not Elijah. So Elijah may mean that if Elisha truly follows Elijah to the very end, when none of the other sons of the prophets apparently wanted to personally accompany him, then he was sure that God would indeed do so. See on :6.</p><p>The Hebrew for "hard" means 'unpleasant', rather than difficult. It was bitter and unpleasant for Elijah to have to give his prophetic spirit to Elisha. This indicates how bitterly he resented having to accept that he was fired from the prophetic ministry, and had been replaced by Elisha.</p><p>We enquire why Elijah should reason that if Elisha saw him taken away, then he would receive the requested gift of Elijah's spirit. Most expositors glide over this question. "When I am..." is in italics in the KJV. These are words added to try to make sense of a difficult text. The idea is, 'If you see me taken from you... then you will receive my spirit'. Elijah had been told to anoint Elisha, the oil representing his spirit being placed on Elisha. He had refused to do so, and only treated Elisha as his servant and run around. They are on the road together, visiting the sons of the prophets. Elijah had a premonition God might cut short his ministry but had no idea how that might happen. He ought to have anointed Elisha with his spirit, but he doggedly insisted on keeping on in his ministry when God had fired him from it on Horeb. It's as if he is saying: 'Elisha, I'd need to be taken forcefully away from my ministry for you to get my spirit. If you live to see that, then I guess you will get it'. This was arrogant disobedience to the command to anoint Elisha and thus give him his spirit. And so... woosh, God does indeed forcibly remove Elijah from his ministry. And Elijah gets that and throws his mantle (the sign of his prophetic office) down to Elisha as he is snatched away, in some kind of last minute acceptance that he has indeed been replaced by Elisha.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as they still went on, and talked- </p><p>This has similarities with the lead up to the Lord's ascension (<a href='B:490 24:50-51'>Luk 24:50-51</a>).</p><p>That behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into the sky- </p><p>This may have been visible only to Elisha and Elijah, just as Elisha's servant alone saw the horses and chariots at Dothan (<a href='B:120 6:17'>2Ki 6:17</a>). Horses, fire from Heaven and whirlwind are all the language of Divine judgment. And Elijah himself had called fire from Heaven in judgment. It is hard not to get the impression of God's wrath- with Elijah. This was not the ending of a ministry in a blaze of glory. The ministry had been ended on Horeb when God fired Elijah from the prophetic ministry. And yet Elijah had continued to want to work for God, and he had been accepted- so far. But his attitude to giving his spirit to Elisha was enough to trigger this dramatic, enforced ending of his ministry.</p><p>It could be that after the triumph on Carmel, there had been another vision of God’s glory in order to humble Elijah. I say this on the basis that the description of the cloud in <a href='B:110 18:44'>1Ki 18:44</a> “like a man’s hand” recalls “the likeness of a man’s hand” under the cherubim in Ezekiel’s visions. Clouds and rain are invariably part of theophanies. Elijah spoke of how, by faith, he heard “the feet of rain” (<a href='B:110 18:41'>1Ki 18:41</a> LXX), as if he believed that the Angels were coming with rain. Perhaps Elijah therefore told Ahab “prepare your chariot” and ride with the rain- i:e. ‘be part of the vision of glory / cherubim chariots on the ground as it passes overhead’. This was the point of Ezekiel’s vision; Israel were to reflect the Cherubim on earth, just As David moved in step with the Spirit / the sound of marching in the mulberry trees. Therefore in <a href='B:110 19:13'>1Ki 19:13</a> when in the face of all this, Elijah places his&nbsp; face between knees, he may be doing the same thing as when he hides his face in the mantle. He sensed the glory of God near him but didn’t want to face up to it personally. He didn’t want to become part of the Cherubic vision of glory, even though he advised Ahab to do so. We must identify ourselves with the vision of God’s glory, and face up to the life-changing implications of it.</p><p>Elijah ultimately did this, although it took him a lifetime- he was caught up in another cherubic vision and threw away his mantle and became part of the vision of glory; and hence he was called “the chariot of Israel and the [great] horseman thereof” [reading “horsemen” as an intensive plural]. The chariots and horsemen of God appeared; and Elisha perceived that Elijah had finally become identified with them. For Elisha sees them and then describes Elijah as being them- the chariot and horseman of Israel (<a href='B:120 2:11-12'>2Ki 2:11-12</a>). Finally, Elijah became part of God’s glory; He merged into it rather than resisting it for the sake of his own &nbsp;glory. He was the charioteer of the cherubim; for his prayers had controlled their direction. This identification of ourselves with God’s glory, this losing of ourselves and our own insistence upon our rightness, and our focus on others’ wrongness... this is the end result of our lives if they are lived out after the pattern of Elijah’s.</p><p>Fire from Heaven is a clear symbol of Divine judgment; we think of Sodom's judgment and the fire that fell on Job's home. Elijah calls fire down from Heaven apparently at will- both on Carmel and in destroying the soldiers sent to take him. God is not recorded as telling him to do this. He is extremely confident that God's judgment must fall, and his faith is rewarded. But he was so far from God in his spirit, as the Lord's allusion to the incident shows. But God patiently doesn't forcibly stop him nor force him out of ministry. Finally God sends fire from Heaven to remove Elijah from his ministry, as he was refusing to quit it as asked. The fire that came from Heaven to remove Elijah was therefore some kind of judgment of him, although he was not slain by it and was apparently removed to live in obscurity elsewhere. The chariots of fire that came to remove him were not therefore the blaze of glory in which a glorious ministry ended- but rather the opposite. Chariots and whirlwind are all the language of Divine judgment. It was God's judgment upon him, although he was not destroyed by it, but forcibly removed to obscurity. And in that obscurity, he apparently repented- for the transfiguration appearance make it clear that he will be in God's Kingdom. Jonah is very similar to Elijah, and we are left to infer his similar repentance after the narrated events finished.</p><p>We note how in Lk. 9:8, Herod enquires whether the Lord is in fact Elijah, and then in Lk. 9:19 we learn that many people thought that He was Elijah. In between those two questions about whether the Lord was Elijah, we have the feeding of the five thousand- a miracle framed in terms of how Elisha, not Elijah, fed 100 men in a similar way (2 Kings 4:43.44). It could be that the Lord is replying that He is not Elijah, but He is more in the spirit of Elisha, the prophet intended to replace Elijah. This all again hints that the Lord is pointing out that He was not of Elijah's spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father- </p><p>We saw on :9 that Elisha considered himself as Elijah's spiritual son, indeed his firstborn.</p><p>The chariots of Israel and its horseman! He saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and tore them in two pieces- </p><p>Although Elijah had been rejected from his ministry as lead prophet of Israel because of his refusal to accept other prophets and believers as valid, and those included Elisha, Elisha really respects Elijah and the tearing of his own clothes reflects that. In this he showed the humility which was so necessary for the prophetic office.</p><p>Israel had been forbidden horses and chariots in Deuteronomy 17. Elisha is saying that Elijah was the true horse and chariot of Israel, it was his ministry which had brought victory. And yet it seems Elisha had a wrong view of Elijah. Elisha had been chosen to be the prophet of Israel, from Horeb onwards. But Elisha had not risen up to this, and instead his loyalty to Elijah had reinforced Elijah in his rebellion against God's intentions. And this is so true to how things are amongst God's people. God may seek to remove a man from ministry, but this is militated against by his followers' blind loyalty and mesmerization with him. This is a phenomena seen in politics, religion, companies, families... someone who ought not to be leader any longer is upheld in power by unwise loyalists. Perhaps this is why in 2 Kings 6:17, Elisha is shown again who are the true horsemen and chariots of Israel- hosts of Angels, not Elijah: "The mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha".</p>


text:
<p>He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan- </p><p>In <a href='B:110 19:13'>1Ki 19:13</a>, Elijah had wrapped his face [s:w. “before” the Lord] in his mantle and “stood” [s:w. ‘stand’ before the Lord] in the cave mouth before the Angel. In Hebrew, the words for ‘face’ and ‘before’ are the same. Too ashamed to really stand before the Lord, Elijah therefore wrapped his face. Earlier, he had been so keen to use this phrase of himself (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>; <a href='B:110 18:15'>1Ki 18:15</a>); he had prided himself on the fact that he stood before the Lord. But now he hid his face, a common idiom often used by God for withholding fellowship. The fact we too are God’s covenant people can initially be a source of pride to us as we do our theological gladiatorship with others. But the implications are so far deeper; and through Angelic work in our lives, we too are brought to see this. The word for “Mantle” is translated “glory” in <a href='B:450 11:3'>Zec 11:3</a>; Elijah wrapped his presence in his own glory, rather than face up to the implications of God’s glory. A desire for our own glory prevents us perceiving God’s glory. Perhaps Elijah was being pseudo-humble, misquoting to himself a Biblical precedent in all this, namely that the cherubim wrapped their faces (<a href='B:290 6:2'>Isa 6:2</a>). In this case. Elijah was doing a false impersonation of the cherubim, manifesting himself before God’s manifestation of Himself. Only at the very end does Elijah cast away his mantle (<a href='B:120 2:13'>2Ki 2:13</a>), his human strength, allowing himself to merge with God’s glory. He should have cast away his mantle earlier, when he stood before the still small voice on Horeb. The question of <a href='B:110 19:13'>1Ki 19:13</a> “Why are you still here, Elijah?” may imply that Elijah should have allowed himself to be carried away by the cherubim, he should have surrendered himself to the progress of God’s glory, rather than so obsessively insist upon his own personal rightness and the wrongness of others. And this was why God’s ultimate response to Elijah’s attitude on Horeb was to dismiss him from his prophetic ministry and instate Elisha as his successor (<a href='B:110 19:16'>1Ki 19:16</a>). Elijah seems to have finally learnt his lesson, for he calls Elisha to the ministry by ‘passing by’ Elisha as in a theophany, taking off his mantle and throwing it upon Elisha (<a href='B:110 19:19'>1Ki 19:19</a>). He realized that he had hidden behind that mantle, using it to resist participating in the selfless association with God’s glory [rather than his own] to which he was called. But he got there in the end; hence the enormous significance of Elijah giving up his mantle when he finally ascends to Heaven in the cherubim chariot (<a href='B:120 2:13'>2Ki 2:13</a>).</p><p>Elijah's mantle doesn't have a good history. He went to Horeb / Sinai at his own initiative, trying to force himself to be the predicted prophet like unto Moses. He goes to the same cave Moses was in, the cleft in the rock, where Yahweh Himself hid Moses' face as He passed by him. Elijah expects this same intimacy with God and hides his face in his mantle in expectation of a similar theophany. But it was an empty theophany- Yahweh was not in the earthquake, wind nor fire, but in the sound of silence- that was the message to Elijah. "What are you doing here?" is a way of rebuking his attempt to put himself in Moses' place. He was not Moses, he prayed to God against Israel rather than as Moses did, offering himself for them. He was then fired from the ministry and told to anoint Elisha to replace him. He doesn't do this, but throws his mantle on Elisha as a sign that Elisha is to become his personal servant- an abuse of the mantle, a sign of his prophetic office.  So in :14 we read that when Elisha tried to part the waters by striking them with Elijah's mantle, it seems it didn't work- and so he has to ask "Where is Yahweh, the God of Elijah?". The mantle of itself is shown not to be powerful. Elijah had rather abused it, considering that because he was a prophet therefore he could do anything.</p>


text:
<p>He took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and struck the waters, and said, Where is Yahweh, the God of Elijah?- </p><p>The LXX says that the first time Elisha smote the waters, they didn’t open. Hence his question. Perhaps this happened, as such things happen to us, to make Elisha realize that the action of God is not automatic. It requires intense personal faith, and not merely following the pattern of other believers.</p><p>When he also had struck the waters, they were divided here and there; and Elisha went over-</p><p>Elisha is being taught that indeed, the spirit and power of Elijah had fallen upon him. He could perform the same miracles. The parting of water at the Red Sea and by Joshua at the same Jordan river had all been for the salvation of God’s people, towards their entry into the kingdom. And so it was with Elisha's work too. This was the reason he was being given this power. Elisha is being set up as a second Joshua, who did the same in crossing the Jordan miraculously at the same place. Elijah was intended to have been the prophet like unto Moses, but he failed; and we wonder whether the lack of further allusions to Joshua in Elisha's life might suggest he likewise failed to be the second Joshua. </p>


text:
<p>When the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho opposite him saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha. They came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him- </p><p>The present site of Jericho is about four miles from the Jordan, but perhaps "Jericho" is being used of the region around the city. "Which were over against him" (AV) could imply, as we shall see later, that they were not particularly supportive of Elisha.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, See now, there are with your servants fifty strong men. Please let them go and seek your master- </p><p>They still call Elijah "your master" rather than "our master". A noted earlier, this suggests a lack of respect toward Elijah. And yet I will suggest on :18 that they respected Elisha even less. I suggested on :7 that a 'group of 50 prophets' was not a literal group of 50 men, but a kind of prophetic division of prophets.</p><p>Perhaps the spirit of Yahweh has taken him up, and put him on some mountain, or into some valley. He said, You shall not send them- </p><p>As Obadiah earlier pointed out, such snatching away of Elijah, from one place on earth to another, had been quite common (<a href='B:110 18:12'>1Ki 18:12</a>). It was just as Philip was snatched away from the Ethiopian and then found at Azotus, and Ezekiel likewise (<a href='B:330 37:1'>Eze 37:1</a>). It further indicates that Elijah was snatched away into the sky, not to Heaven itself.</p>


text:
<p>When they urged him until he was ashamed- </p><p>Probably a figure of speech meaning that he finally reluctantly agreed, for their benefit rather than his. He wanted them to accept the Divine word that Elijah had been removed and replaced by himself.</p><p>He said, Send them. They sent therefore fifty men; and they searched for three days, but didn’t find him- </p><p>This strong desire to find Elijah likely reflected their dissatisfaction at the prospect of having Elisha as the 'father' of their school of sons of the prophets. Although they could not doubt that Elisha did now have the spirit of Elijah.</p>


text:
<p>They came back to him while he stayed at Jericho; and he said to them, Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t go?’-&nbsp; </p><p>Elisha appeared angry that they were so persistent in trying to find Elijah. By being so desperate to have Elijah back with them, they were effectively going against the Divine intention that he be replaced by Elisha. So in political terms, things didn’t start well for Elisha. The sons of the prophets at Jericho hankered after Elijah rather than Elisha; and those at Bethel despised both Elijah and Elisha (see on :23):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The men of the city said to Elisha, Behold, please, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land miscarries- </p><p><a href='B:120 2:19'>2Ki 2:19</a> (AV mg:) records how the people complained that “the water is naught, and that ground causing to miscarry”. This was evidently an incorrect superstition of the time; barren ground cannot make the women who live on it barren. But Elisha does not blow them into next week for believing such nonsense. Instead he performed the miracle of curing the barrenness of the land. The record says that there was no more barrenness of the land or women “according to the word of Elisha which he spoke” (:22). Normally the people would have recoursed to wizards to drive away the relevant demon which they thought was causing the problem. But the miracle made it evident that ultimately God had caused the problem, and He could so easily cure it. This was a far more effective way of sinking the people’s foolish superstition than a head-on frontal attack upon it. The Lord's attitude to the ideas of demon possession in the NT is similar.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Bring me a new jar, and put salt in it. They brought it to him-</p><p>The Jordan valley, especially around Jericho, is full of salty springs which don't give good water. The Dead [Salt] Sea is not far from there. So putting salt into the salty spring to change it is a way of showing that God uses that which appears the problem in order to cure the problem. We think of the Lord Jesus having our human nature in order to make a way to overcome it. The jar perhaps represented the well.</p><p>We note that  sprinkling salt on a city is a symbol of its destruction (Jud. 9:45). It's as if the just judgment upon Jericho is accepted, but through that acceptance, blessing and healing comes.</p>


text:
<p>He went out to the spring of the waters, and threw salt into it, and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘I have healed these waters. There shall not be from there any more death or miscarrying’-</p><p>Immediately after Moses had parted the waters, he made bitter waters "sweet" through casting a tree into them, looking ahead to the cross, so that the people could drink from them (<a href='B:20 15:25'>Exo 15:25</a>). Elisha had just parted the waters, and he does a similar miracle to Moses. I discussed on :8 and <a href='B:110 19:11'>1Ki 19:11</a> how Elijah was set up as another Moses, but he failed to completely attain that potential because unlike Moses, he was not meek enough. Elisha is being shown that he too is called to be as Moses. See on <a href='B:120 3:9'>2Ki 3:9</a>. This is how much of Bible prophecy works. A potential is set up [in this case for Elijah to be the prophet like Moses]; if the person failed, then  another option is tried, in this case  Elisha. When that person failed, the prophecy became reapplied and reinterpreted in the ultimate fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. And those failed fulfilments become, as some see them, 'types' of Christ- in that their experiences do partially point forward to Him.</p>


text:
<p>So the waters were healed to this day, according to the word of Elisha which he spoke- </p><p>The miracle was essentially by the word of Yahweh which Elisha spoke; the use of the salt in the new jar was shown not to essentially be the cause for the cure. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>He went up from there to Bethel- </p><p>Now the mantle had fallen upon Elisha, he visits the schools of the prophets at Jericho, Bethel (:3) and then at Carmel (see on :25).</p><p>As he was going up by the way, some youths came out of the city and mocked him, and said to him- </p><p>"Youth" is the same word used of Solomon when he became king. It can apply to young men and not just children. "The city" may not be Bethel but Jericho, because Elisha was going to Bethel from Jericho, and he turned behind him to address the youths (:24). They may have been young men who had worked as water carriers who were now out of work because Elisha had healed the bitter waters; but I suggest they are young men of the sons of the prophets who were bitter with Elisha because they were loyal to Elijah, and shared his bitter attitude and perspective that he could not be replaced- for he never anointed Elisha as asked, and resisted the Divine call to retire and give place to Elisha. The Hebrew qereah translated "baldy" is a form of "Korah", who had rebelled against Moses' authority. The implication would be that they considered Elijah the prophet like unto Moses, and Elisha to be a usurper of Elijah. They saw Elisha as Elijah had taught them to. And this is an essay in his arrogant resistance to God's firing of him as lead prophet, and replacing him with Elisha. So the position of these young men actually says much about what Elijah's position was. But they were in fact the "Korah" usurpers of Divine authority; they were "torn" by the bears (:24), using the same word for how the ground 'tore open' beneath Korah and consumed him (Num. 16:31). The bears "went out" (:24), the same word for how the fire "went out" from Yahweh to destroy Korah's group (Num. 16:35).   </p><p>Go up, you baldy! Go up, you baldhead!- </p><p>I suggest they were challenging him to "go up" into the sky as Elijah had. They mock him as being bald, rather than being as Elijah, who was famed for being a hairy man (<a href='B:120 1:8'>2Ki 1:8</a>). These young people from Bethel were doubtful that Elisha could indeed carry the mantle of Elisha, which he was presumably wearing. Elijah and Elisha had visited the "sons of the prophets" in Bethel just before Elijah was snatched away (:3), and at that time they had spoken of Elijah as Elisha's master, "your master", rather than "our master". They were not great enthusiasts for Elijah, and it seems they were the "youths" here. They disliked the way Elisha was now claiming to be as Elijah, a prophet for whom they had no respect. I suspect therefore that it is some of them who were these youths, and they were not just random cheeky kids who were punished for their cat calling.</p><p>Another view would be that young men are always "the sons of the prophets" in this section of scripture. They may have been Elijah loyalists who like Elijah, considered all other prophets fake- including Elisha. "Go up" is also used to going up to a sanctuary to worship, e.g. Hos. 4:15 "Do not go up to Beth Aven" ['house of sin', another name for Bethel where Elisha was heading towards]. We note the frequent references to 'going up' to worship at Jerusalem or the sanctuary. They may have been challenging him to "go up" to the nearby sanctuary at Bethel and worship the golden calves there. Because they as Elijah loyalists considered him fake. But any such attempt to incite another to sin would account for the severe judgment of them. For to make others sin is the worst sin.</p><p>Despite these suggestions, we can also opt for the simplest view- that these were youngsters who were catcalling a bald man with no particularly malicious intent nor hidden meaning. Elisha calls down severe judgment upon them, apparently out of proportion to their naughtiness. He did this with all the immaturity and impatience of a young, prematurely bald man- for he lived around 60 years after this. This would then be exactly like Elijah calling down fire from Heaven to destroy the two groups of 50 soldiers- an act criticized by the Lord as being not of His spirit. But as discussed on 2 Kings 1, Elijah had been delegated God's power and had a wide leeway of parameters within which to use it. It could be that Elisha in a moment of irritation and embarassed anger followed the bad example of his one time master Elijah. He did just the same. The old covenant cursed those who went after Baal, and it's possible the "go up" was to the fake sanctuary at Bethel. Balaam could only curse those whom God had cursed (Num. 23:8), and "an undeserved curse does not come to rest" (Prov. 26:2). And so Elisha felt he could curse any idolators including these kids. This curse did come to rest, although it seems so extreme and uttered in irritation and short temper. Maybe Elisha was aware of Hos. 13:8 "Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open"; or Am. 5:19 "It will be as though a man fled from a lion and a bear met him". So perhaps, as with Elijah bringing drought upon Israel because this was the punishment for breaking the covenant, so Elisha is reasoning that these youngsters were cursed by God anyway, so he could curse them in God's Name. Breaking the covenant would lead to God sending "wild animals against you, who will rob you of your children" (Lev. 26:22). The threat of wild beasts being sent against God's covenant breaking people is quite common (Jer. 5:6; 8:17; Ez. 5:17; 14:15,21 etc.). And so God went along with that, as He did with allowing Elijah to bring fire down from Heaven even if that was not how He wished His Spirit to be used. The spirit of Christ is to bless those who curse us and bless and not curse (Rom. 12:14; Mt. 5:44), to not repay cursing for cursing (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:12; 2 Pet. 1:5-7).</p>


text:
<p>He looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of Yahweh. Two female bears came out of the woods, and mauled forty-two of those youths- </p><p>That he "looked behind him" shows they did not confront him, but called out these words from a secluded place. The extreme punishment, as explained on :23, was because they were the sons of the prophets at Bethel who had refused Elijah's leadership (probably because he despised them as unfaithful and rejected them when he should have accepted them)- and now refused that of Elisha, seeing he was acting as Elijah. The death of 42 of them may have meant the entire community of sons of the prophets there was virtually wiped out. For it could be argued from :16 that there were only 50 sons of the prophets at Jericho, and perhaps there were only the same at Bethel. There seems a connection with the disobedient prophet who was killed by a lion near this same city of Bethel (<a href='B:110 13:24'>1Ki 13:24</a>). And these were disobedient sons of the prophets.</p>


text:
<p>He went from there to Mount Carmel- </p><p>Elijah seems often associated with Mount Carmel, and it seems likely he had a school of the prophets there, which Elisha now visited- having just visited the school of the prophets at Bethel (:3,23). This would corroborate the suggestion on :23 that the disrespectful youths were sons of the prophets.</p><p>And from there he returned to Samaria- </p><p>We learn from the account of Naaman in </p>


text:
<p>Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years- </p><p>We noted on <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a> that both Israel and Judah had a king called Jehoram at this time. This was perhaps intentional, because Jehoshaphat's son had married Ahab's daughter. "The accession of the Israelite Jehoram (Ahab’s brother) took place, according to <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>, in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram of Judah perhaps received the royal title from his father as early as his father’s sixteenth year, when he was about to join Ahab against the Syrians; the same year might then be called either the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat or the second year of Jehoram".</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, but not like his father or his mother; for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made- </p><p>Even amongst those who ultimately fail, God recognizes degrees of sin, and graciously takes note of the good things they do. We see in all this His extreme sensitivity to human behaviour. And yet we also see that He judges the overall state of heart and spiritual thrust of a person's life, and occasional, isolated acts of righteousness [such as putting away the Baal pillar of Ahab] do not count for much, just as specific acts of failure likewise do not preclude God from saying that men like David and Jehoshaphat followed Him with all their hearts all their days.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless he held to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin; he didn’t depart from them- </p><p><a href='B:120 3:2-3'>2Ki 3:2-3</a> implies that Jeroboam did not actually worship Baal. Jehoram put away the image of Baal, but he cleaved to the sins of Jeroboam. The implication is that Jeroboam was not a Baal worshipper, which is what the majority of the wicked kings were guilty of. Instead he mixed true and false worship of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder; and he rendered to the king of Israel the wool of one hundred thousand lambs, and of one hundred thousand rams-</p><p>This Mesha is mentioned on the very first line of the Moabite stone. Whilst the stone records history from the Moabite perspective, it is a powerful corroboration of the Biblical account here.</p>


text:
<p>But it happened, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel- </p><p>We last heard of Moab when David subdued them (<a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>). The Moabite stone states that Israel and Moab were in conflict in the time of Ahab's father Omri. Tired of paying the heavy tax of <a href='B:120 3:4'>2Ki 3:4</a>, Moab seized the opportunity when Ahab died suddenly and Israel were defeated by Syria at Ramoth Gilead (<a href='B:120 1:1'>2Ki 1:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>King Jehoram went out of Samaria at that time, and mustered all Israel- </p><p>The 'going out' was to war. That it was the figure of speech means. "Mustered" is 'numbered' and we recall from David’s numbering the people that Israel would be plagued whenever they were numbered and didn’t pay the required temple tax. But the ten tribes had no temple, so we can assume this tax was not paid. And yet God gave Israel a victory at this time. God responds differently to the same sins being committed, because He weighs up the context and dimension of the sin in a way which we cannot. We are not to judge not least because we in fact cannot judge. We lack the huge and total background factoring which God alone has access to.</p>


text:
<p>He went and sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me against Moab to battle? He said, I will go up. I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses- </p><p>This was the same request made to Jehoshaphat by Ahab, and he responds in the same positive way with the same language he used to him (<a href='B:110 22:4'>1Ki 22:4</a>). And yet by doing that, he had incited the wrath of God against him for helping those who hated Yahweh (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>). He very nearly lost his life at Ramoth Gilead for doing this. But he didn’t learn. So he was tested again by various requests from Ahaziah, Ahab's son, to do further joint ventures. He agreed, wrongly, and his ships were destroyed (<a href='B:110 22:48'>1Ki 22:48</a>), Chronicles adding that this was because of God’s wrath at his working with Ahaziah. After that Ahaziah made another such request, and it seemed Jehoshaphat learned his lesson and refused to work with him again (<a href='B:110 22:49'>1Ki 22:49</a>). But he hadn't. For now he again works with Ahab's son. And yet he was finally counted righteous with God because his basic state of heart was for Him. We marvel again at God’s patience with men. This means that we are to continue seeking the repentance of men and never cut them off, as is typically done by small minded churches 'disfellowshipping' people.</p><p>Jehoshaphat agreed, partly because the sister of Jehoram had married his son, and partly because he himself had been attacked by Moab recently (<a href='B:140 20:1'>2Ch 20:1</a>). He allowed family pressures and the desire for personal security to override spiritual principle; and that in essence is our abiding temptation likewise.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Which way shall we go up? He answered, The way of the wilderness of Edom-</p><p>This answer perhaps came from Jehoshaphat, who as noted on <a href='B:110 22:47'>1Ki 22:47</a> had installed his own deputy in Edom. The idea was that supportive Edomite forces, or perhaps the garrison of Judah in Edom, would join this assault upon Moab. There were two ways to attack Moab, from the north or from the south, and Jehoshaphat advises from the south. The northern route would have been through Ramoth Gilead, where Jehoshaphat had nearly lost his life supporting Ahab. So it is understandable he wished to avoid that.</p>


