# commentaries

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>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;</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. 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”. 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.</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".</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.</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>


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>


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;</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. 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>


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>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>


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>.</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.</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.</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>). 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.</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>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>


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>


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.</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".</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. 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.</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. 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. Was he 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>


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.</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). 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. 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.</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>


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>


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>


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.</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>).</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. 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.</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>


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>


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. 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. 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. 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.</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. But he is thereby not making any claim to be a new father to them. He therefore considered Elijah an impossible at 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>


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 give 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>


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>).</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>


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.</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>


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.</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>


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>.</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.</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>


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>


text:
<p>So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom; and they made a circuit of seven days’ journey- </p><p>I suggested on <a href='B:110 22:47'>1Ki 22:47</a> ("There was no king in Edom: a deputy was king") that Jehoshaphat had installed a Jewish deputy over Edom, so this "king" was likely a Jew governing Edom for Jehoshaphat. See on :8. The language of making a circuit in the wilderness is to point up the similarities with Israel in the wilderness; for they were to be tested likewise, and saved by the prophet Elisha, just as they had been saved by Moses. See on <a href='B:120 4:3'>2Ki 4:3</a>.</p><p>There was no water for the army, nor for the animals that followed them- </p><p>The language recalls Israel's crisis after they had come out of the Red Sea into that same wilderness. Elisha had been raised up to be, potentially, another Moses, as explained on <a href='B:120 2:21'>2Ki 2:21</a>. This was why he accompanied them (:11). See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said, Alas! For Yahweh has called these three kings together to deliver them into the hand of Moab-</p><p>We note the idolatrous king of Israel speaks of "Yahweh". The ten tribes believed that Baal worship was a form of Yahweh worship, and never totally rejected Yahweh. He wrongly assumes that Yahweh had called them all together to attack Moab, when clearly the campaign had been on his initiative. Yahweh had not been inquired of at this point (:11). So we see the theme continued of men wrongly assuming they know the will of Yahweh, as Nathan thought when he told David to go ahead and build a temple. This is a warning to us too. Our gut feeling, what seems right, following our own hearts and native intuition::. is just that, and we are playing God if we assume those things are the same as God telling us to do things. In this we see the huge value and necessity of the Bible as God's word to us.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehoshaphat said, Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh, that we may inquire of Yahweh by him? One of the king of Israel’s servants answered, Elisha the son of Shaphat is here, who poured water on the hands of Elijah- </p><p>Jehoshaphat repeats, more or less, his words at the time of the expedition against Ramoth Gilead (<a href='B:110 22:7'>1Ki 22:7</a>). He surely fears that he is about to almost lose his life as he did then. He sensed situations were repeating in his life, and didn't want to be disobedient to the prophetic word as he had been then. We too are intended to learn from situations which repeat in our lives. Jehoshaphat was apparently unaware that Elisha was present. For he seems to know Elisha (:12) but didn't realize he was with the army. As Elijah's personal assistant, 'pouring water on his hands', he would have been visible when Elijah had been.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat said, The word of Yahweh is with him. So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him- </p><p>To 'go down to' doesn't mean Elisha was somewhere else. They were all together in the desert, about to die of thirst. Typically men are spoken of going up to and down from Jerusalem. The idea is that the kings humbled themselves before God's prophetic word, and went down to His prophet from their higher estate in life. This needs to be our pattern every time we come to God's word, as we have it today in the Bible.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to the king of Israel, What have I to do with you?- </p><p>An idiom meaning 'go away' (<a href='B:480 5:7'>Mar 5:7</a>; <a href='B:490 8:28'>Luk 8:28</a>; <a href='B:500 2:4'>Joh 2:4</a>). The next verse therefore says "Go [away from me] to the prophets of your father".</p><p>Go to the prophets of your father, and to the prophets of your mother- </p><p>He is recalling the 400 false prophets who had wrongly advised Ahab at the time of the campaign against Ramoth Gilead.</p><p>The king of Israel said to him, No; for Yahweh has called these three kings together to deliver them into the hand of Moab- </p><p>"No" would seem to be a denial of Baal worship, although it could have been some kind of repentance. More likely he was still arguing that Baal worship was a form of Yahweh worship, and so he denied Elisha's attitude to him as being legitimate. This was and is always the problem for God's people- to worship the flesh in the name of serving God. Again Jehoram dogmatically assumes he knows Yahweh's plan, even though he has not inquired of His prophet.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said, As Yahweh of Armies lives, before whom I stand- </p><p>The very style and language of Elijah in <a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>. Elisha was clearly imitating Elijah.</p><p>Surely, were it not that I respect the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward you, nor see you- </p><p>Elisha was accustomed to thinking of himself in terms of a man who stood before Yahweh, in His presence, before His face (Heb:- <a href='B:120 3:14'>2Ki 3:14</a>). Later, Naaman and his "company" 'stood before' Elisha (<a href='B:120 5:15-16'>2Ki 5:15-16</a>). Remember that this was the Syrian army General, standing with a "company" in Israelite territory, at Elisha's house- at a time when 'companies' of Syrian soldiers carried out raids upon Israel (<a href='B:120 5:2'>2Ki 5:2</a>). Any Israelite would've been terrified. But Elisha responds that he 'stands before' Yahweh. Elisha was so aware of how we live in God's presence, before His very face, that he wasn't the least phased by this. If only we can share this sense, of standing in God's presence::. the most frightening of human situations will have little effective 'presence' because we know we are ultimately in God's presence, 24/7. See on <a href='B:120 6:17'>2Ki 6:17</a>.</p><p>Israel were God’s people, His 'world', and the other nations were "not a people"; effectively, they weren't people, in God's eyes (<a href='B:50 32:21'>Deu 32:21</a>). Is this Biblical evidence for a social Gospel? These words are true of all those who are out of covenant relationship with Him, including those who have fallen away. Thus Elisha told the apostate king of Israel: "Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward you, nor see you" (<a href='B:120 3:14'>2Ki 3:14</a>). We have an example here of how a man is positively dealt with by God for the sake of third parties with whom he is associated. The sick man was forgiven for the sake of his friends' faith (<a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>). This opens up huge responsibilities for us to intercede for others.</p><p>God 'looking toward' men means His salvation of them in <a href='B:230 102:19-20'>Psa 102:19-20</a>; <a href='B:290 63:15'>Isa 63:15</a> (s:w:). God 'looks toward' those who humbly tremble at His word (<a href='B:290 66:2'>Isa 66:2</a>), and not toward those who are sinners (<a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a> s:w:); and that person was Jehoshaphat and not Jehoram. But although God disapproved of Jehoshaphat's association with Jehoram, He doesn't practice 'guilt by association', and still responded to Jehoshaphat. There is a mutuality between God and man. The faithful look toward Him (s:w. <a href='B:230 34:5'>Psa 34:5</a>; <a href='B:290 22:11'>Isa 22:11</a>; <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>; <a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), and He looks toward them in salvation.</p>


text:
<p>But now bring me a minstrel. It happened, when the minstrel played, that the hand of Yahweh came on him- </p><p>It's unclear whether the "him" is the minstrel or Elisha. The sons of the prophets were musical (<a href='B:90 10:5'>1Sa 10:5</a>), and the hand of Yahweh coming upon a person effectively means they received a revelation of God's word (e:g. <a href='B:330 33:22'>Eze 33:22</a>). "Minstrel" is a word multiple times used of David as he harped [LXX has "harper"] and sung his Psalms. So maybe this minstrel sung Psalms of David, which were then accompanied by this new prophetic revelation.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Make this valley full of trenches’- </p><p>As with the woman told to borrow empty pots to have oil multiplied in them&nbsp; (<a href='B:120 4:3'>2Ki 4:3</a>), the extent of this miracle was controlled by the degree to which the people were obedient. The more ditches [LXX "pits"] were dug, the greater the amount of water would be provided, and the greater the effect of the illusion upon the Moabites. And in essence it is the same with us. The greater our faithful response, the further God works with us. God can do anything, but the extent of His working is in some sense limited by our faith and response, rather than His possibility- which is boundless. Hence when the man asks Jesus to help him "if You can do anything", the Lord replies that if he can believe, all things would be possible to him (<a href='B:480 9:22-23'>Mar 9:22-23</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For thus says Yahweh, ‘You will not see wind, neither will you see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, and you will drink, both you and your livestock and your animals- </p><p>Wind after a drought usually preceded rain in Palestine, and it could be "seen" in that wind blew the dust. I see this as meaning that the provision of water was by a miracle and not some cloudburst (see on :22), although see on :20. The allusion is clearly to the way Elijah did see wind and the approach of rain in <a href='B:110 18:41'>1Ki 18:41</a>; <a href='B:110 18:45'>1Ki 18:45</a>, again in response to his prayer. But God was working at a far greater extent through Elisha than He had done through Elijah. For now they would not see the rain or wind coming, but rain would come. And the rain came in response to Elijah's seven prayers for it, whereas there is no recorded, verbalized prayer here. God perceived their need and Elisha's presence as prayer, and responded even more mightily.</p>


text:
<p>This is but a light thing in the sight of Yahweh. He will also deliver the Moabites into your hand- </p><p>This is an example of answered prayer being above all we ask or think. God sees our unexpressed desires as prayer. He knew that they wanted victory over the Moabites as well as preservation from death by dehydration. Just as the desire of Mary and Martha was that Lazarus would be immediately resurrected, and not just at "the last day". Those desires weren't verbalized, but the power and nature of prayer doesn't depend upon our ability at verbalizing. For some can do this better than others. God sees our core desires as prayer, and responds. Perhaps this idea of a "light thing" inspired Hezekiah to have the spiritual ambition shown in <a href='B:120 20:10'>2Ki 20:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>You shall strike every fortified city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all springs of water, and spoil every good piece of land with stones’- </p><p>Here we have an example of how prophecy merges into commandment, and if that commandment isn't fulfilled, then the prophecy doesn't have its fulfilment. The apparent prophecy of a temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is likewise more command than prediction, and most of it was not obeyed. The command to fell good trees presumably refers to fruit trees, for that was how a tree was defined as "good". A good tree brings forth fruit (<a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a>; <a href='B:470 7:17'>Mat 7:17</a>). But fruit trees were not to be cut down in military operations (<a href='B:50 20:19'>Deu 20:19</a>). I see this as an example of where within the Biblical text, Divine laws can be overridden or changed according to situation. Even within the structure of the Mosaic law there are examples of this, and the Lord points out the apparent tension between the Sabbath laws and the need at times to work on the Sabbath. These tensions are not a case of situational ethics, whereby we allow situations to change ethics; but rather to demonstrate that God is not a literalist or legalist and neither should we be. The apparent conflicts within the Divine legal code are to elicit an appreciation of the spirit of the law. And we must note that it is God not man who can make these ammendments to Divine law.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the morning, about the time of making the offering, that behold, water came by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water-</p><p>It could be implied by :17 that the water was totally miraculously provided, and not from any cloudburst. However it is possible in that mountainous region that there was a cloudburst the other side of a mountain, unseen by them, which resulted in water pouring towards them from the direction of Edom. But we note that the fulfilment of the promise was at the time of the morning daily sacrifice. The promise was potential, and required their continuance in regular daily obedience.</p>


text:
<p>Now when all the Moabites heard that the kings had come up to fight against them, they gathered themselves together, all who were able to put on armour, young and older, and stood on the border- </p><p>This matches the way Israel had gathered themselves together for this conflict (:6). "The border" may refer to the Arnon river (<a href='B:70 11:18'>Jdg 11:18</a>; <a href='B:40 21:13'>Num 21:13</a>; <a href='B:40 21:15'>Num 21:15</a>). The more spiritually minded would have recalled that God had won a great victory against Moab in the time of the wilderness journeys, associated with the waters which formed their border (<a href='B:40 21:13-15'>Num 21:13-15</a>). That victory was won by Moses, and so this would be another encouragement to Elisha that he was being used as a new Moses. This had been God's intention with Elijah, but Elijah lacked the meekness of Moses; see on :9. Now Elisha was being led to fulfil that potential.</p>


text:
<p>They rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone on the water, and the Moabites saw the water over against them as red as blood- </p><p>This was a time of major drought, so they would have been sure this was not water, as there had been no rain. This confirms the suggestion that the water was provided by a total miracle and not be an observable cloudburst. See on :20. The redness of the soil combined with the rays of the sun at dawn would have created the optical illusion they experienced:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They said, This is blood. The kings are surely destroyed, and they have struck each other. Now therefore, Moab, to the spoil!- </p><p>In this spirit, they ran towards the Israelites in an undisciplined way, each soldier bent on only personal gain rather than obedience to military formation or command. They were therefore very vulnerable to an orderly Israelite attack.</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and struck the Moabites, so that they fled before them; and they went forward into the land smiting the Moabites- </p><p>"The camp of Israel" may refer specifically to that of the ten tribes under Jehoram, as the camp of Edom is mentioned separately in :26:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They beat down the cities; and on every good piece of land they cast every man his stone, and filled it. They stopped all the springs of water, and felled all the good trees, until in Kir Hareseth only they left its stones; however the men armed with slings surrounded it, and struck it- </p><p>I will suggest on :27 that this destruction of the Moabites' land was the maximum judgment God had decreed upon Moab. The kings are to be commended for doing just this, and nothing further, even when it was in their power to do so. See on :19 for the issue of felling the "good trees".</p>


text:
<p>When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too severe for him, he took with him seven hundred men who drew sword, to break through to the king of Edom; but they could not- </p><p>He may have considered that the Edomite contingent was the weakest out of the three kings. But he was wrong. I suggested on :8 that the king of Edom was in fact an Israelite deputy, and the soldiers with him were perhaps the garrison of Judah in Edom.</p>


text:
<p>Then he took his eldest son who would have reigned in his place, and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. There was great wrath against Israel, who departed from him, and returned to their own land- </p><p>Perhaps he was trying to imitate Abraham offering Isaac, in an attempt to desperately turn to Israel's God. As a Moabite, Abraham was also his ancestor. We wonder why Israel departed from him. Perhaps they were awed by God's grace, and realized that the destruction of Moabite land and property was the extent of judgment God required, and they should not go beyond that. Maybe the sight of the man sacrificing his son was so tragic that they realized he had been punished enough and it would be inappropriate to press further the man's judgment. Anything further than what they did in destroying Moabite land would have been personal bloodlust rather than Divine judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets to Elisha, saying, Your servant my husband is dead- </p><p>Josephus (Antiquities 9:4:2) says this woman was the widow of Obadiah, Ahab’s servant.</p><p>You know that your servant feared Yahweh- </p><p>This is exactly how Obadiah described himself (<a href='B:110 18:12'>1Ki 18:12</a>). We have here another example of how Elijah was so wrong to insist that he alone feared Yahweh; and for this arrogance he was removed from his post as chief prophet of Israel. Elisha 'knew' of this man's faithfulness to Yahweh, and therefore realized Elijah was wrong in his attitude; and yet Elisha clearly respected Elijah very deeply, looking at the whole man rather than one area of life in which he failed. This is an example to us.</p><p>Now the creditor has come to take for himself my two children to be slaves-</p><p>The sons of the prophets were not wealthy. We think of the borrowed axe head, and their cooking stew of whatever they could find. They would have been discriminated against in Israelite society. Such behaviour by a creditor was contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law, but clearly it was the kind of thing which went on in Israel at the time. The children could be taken as servants, but not as slaves (<a href='B:30 25:39-41'>Lev 25:39-41</a> uses the same word for "slaves" as used here). Instead of challenging the creditor as to his disobedience to the Mosaic law, Elisha chose to resolve the situation another way. Head on confrontation with people over their disobedience to Divine law may have been the way of the spirit of Elijah and John the Baptist, but the Lord Jesus like Elisha tended to tackle such issues in a more oblique manner. As discussed on :7, a far more powerful witness and appeal was made to the man when the woman paid her debt, than if he had simply been challenged point blank regarding his breaking the spirit and letter of the law:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to her, What shall I do for you?- </p><p>The Lord Jesus appears to quote this in <a href='B:480 10:36'>Mar 10:36</a>. Elisha is alluding to Elijah's words to him: "What shall I do for you?" (<a href='B:120 2:9'>2Ki 2:9</a>). Elisha had asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit. And he had apparently received that. And so his question to the woman is seeking for an opportunity to use that spirit.</p><p>Tell me: what do you have in the house? She said, Your handmaid has nothing in the house, except a pot of oil- </p><p>"Pot" is from the same root as 'anoint'; it refers to oil used for anointing, not for cooking. Hence LXX "save the oil with which I shall anoint myself". It is the same word translated "jewels" in <a href='B:20 3:22'>Exo 3:22</a>. She had no food. She was worse than the widow of Zarephath who had a little oil and a little flour. This widow had no food at all. So this is an example of Elisha doing greater miracles than Elijah, having a double portion of his spirit. The sale of a large amount of such anointing oil would really have been enough to clear her debts and to live on for the rest of her days, whereas multiplying cooking oil would not have had the same effect.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, Go, borrow containers, empty ones, from of all your neighbours- </p><p>The word for "container" is translated "jewels" in <a href='B:20 3:22'>Exo 3:22</a>; <a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a>, where the same three Hebrew words are found. The Israelites were to "borrow" from their "neighbours" such "jewels / containers". The connection is in that once again Elisha is being set up as Moses. Elijah had been set up to be as Moses; see on <a href='B:110 19:11'>1Ki 19:11</a>. But when in Moses' cave on Sinai, he had been shown that he was not as Moses because he lacked Moses' humility. And he had been sent to anoint Elisha to replace him. Elisha therefore is being set up as Moses, as noted throughout 2 Kings 3. It could be that now he takes the initiative, and himself now structures a miracle in order to present himself as Moses. The obvious connection was also to lift the woman up to a higher level, to see beyond her immediate problem of debt. She was not only going to get out of the debt problem, an exodus from her immediate 'Egypt'. She was to be given wealth which was to be used as the Israelites used what they borrowed from their immediate neighbours- to build God's tabernacle / dwelling place. But she was to do that through spending the wealth on raising her sons in the faith. That for her was building the tabernacle.</p><p>Don’t borrow just a few-</p><p>See on <a href='B:120 8:10'>2Ki 8:10</a>. The word / Gospel will inevitably have a result, and yet it is also limited by the attitudes of men. The widow woman was told to borrow pots in which to place the oil which would be miraculously provided. The extent of the miracle was limited by the number and size of the pots she borrowed in faith. The same principle is seen in <a href='B:120 3:16'>2Ki 3:16</a>; the more trenches were dug, the more water was provided. And so the exhortation is to us, to not "borrow just a few", to not be minimalists in our approach to God's ways but seek to realize our spiritual potentials to the maximum. "Few" is the same word used for how the widow whom Elijah helped had a "little" oil in a container (<a href='B:110 17:12'>1Ki 17:12</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:230 37:16'>Psa 37:16</a>; <a href='B:240 15:16'>Pro 15:16</a>). This widow woman was being invited to see the similarities, and to act likewise so that her oil would also be enough for her and her family.</p>


text:
<p>You shall go in, and shut the door on yourself and on your sons- </p><p>There is a connection between shutting the door and praying (:33; <a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>). The idea was that her situation was going to be read as a prayer. And practically, Elisha didn't want others seeing the miracle. The actions of God in our lives are intimate, between Him and ourselves; and not to be disturbed by the observations and perceptions of others.</p><p>And pour out into all those containers; and you shall set aside that which is full- </p><p>The idea was that the pouring out had to be continuous (:6). This was an exhortation to use to the maximum the potential given. The oil would continue to be there to be poured out, as long as she had containers for it to go into. If she were to take a break and run out for more containers, the oil would cease to flow. The extent of the miracle was directly related to how much faith and effort she had shown in borrowing the containers.</p>


text:
<p>So she went from him, and shut the door on herself and on her sons; they brought the containers to her, and she poured out- </p><p>The Divine cameraman is as it were zoomed in upon the scene, as the boys brought the containers to her, with her pouring continually into them. For the pouring was continuous (see on :4). The words for 'pouring out' and "oil" in :2 are those used of pouring out oil in anointing (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>; <a href='B:10 35:14'>Gen 35:14</a>; <a href='B:30 8:12'>Lev 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 10:1'>1Sa 10:1</a> etc:) and preparing the offerings (<a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a>; <a href='B:30 2:6'>Lev 2:6</a>). She was being bidden see this act of faith as a religious act, preparing for a life of further sacrifice and dedication to Divine service, rather than simply a means of getting out from her immediate problems. The word for 'pouring out' is used later in this chapter (:40,41). The same spirit of faith in pouring out was being asked for, and the widow was the parade example to those men.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the containers were full, that she said to her son, Bring me another container. He said to her, There isn’t another container. The oil stopped flowing- </p><p>As discussed on :4, the oil flowed continually, and the extent of the miracle was therefore only limited by the number of containers which they had borrowed in faith and works of faith. The filling of the containers with the oil of the Spirit may look forward to how Israel had become as empty containers at the hands of the Babylonians, but were to be filled with the Spirit as far as they believed the promise (s:w. <a href='B:300 51:34'>Jer 51:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then she came and told the man of God. He said, Go, sell the oil, and pay your debt- </p><p>We are left to imagine the surprise and awkwardness of the creditor. This was a far more powerful way of leading him to a more Godly attitude than a head on confrontation with him bout his breaking the letter and spirit of the Mosaic law. See on :1.</p><p>And you and your sons shall live on the rest-</p><p>I suggested on :3 that the wealth received from borrowing pots from her neighbours was analogous to that received by the Israelites when they borrowed from their neighbours when they left Egypt. And they used it to build God's dwelling place. But she was to do that through spending the wealth on raising her sons in the faith. That for her was building the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>It fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where there was a prominent woman; and she persuaded him to eat bread. So it was, that as often as he passed by, he turned in there to eat bread- </p><p>Shunem would have been a logical stopping point on journeys from mount Carmel, where it seems there was a school of the prophets, to the towns of Galilee where apparently Elisha ministered on the kind of circuit which Samuel operated. Maybe her persuasion of Elijah to eat food with her was because he felt awkward in the presence of a wealthy person.</p>


text:
<p>She said to her husband, See now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God that passes by us continually- </p><p>It seems that Elisha didn't specifically tell her of his prophetic work. Perhaps he as a poor man was shy to witness to the wealthy, as we can be. If even the lead prophet of Israel felt like this, it's unsurprising that we also do.</p>


text:
<p>Please let us make a little room on the wall- </p><p>The fact she "went up" to the room (:21) suggests it was a room on the wall in the sense of built above and upon the structural wall of the ground floor.</p><p>Let us set for him there a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp stand. It shall be, when he comes to us, that he shall turn in there- </p><p>The furniture might suggest that Elisha was literate and was involved in the study of the scrolls as well as writing.</p>


text:
<p>One day he came there, and he turned into the room and lay there- </p><p>We are invited to imagine him meditating as he lay down, counting his blessings, amongst which was the kindness of this wealthy woman. And he wanted to respond to her grace.</p>


text:
<p>He said to Gehazi his servant, Call this Shunammite. When he had called her, she stood before him- </p><p>Although she was a great woman, and I discussed on :8,9 how Elisha may have been keenly aware of this, she stands before him as a subordinate to his spirituality. Or it could be that she stood before Gehazi (:13), on the basis that the representative of a person is spoken of as them. This is why the Lord Jesus as God's supreme representative can be spoken of functionally as "God", although He was not God in any Trinitarian sense.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Say now to her- </p><p>As discussed on :12, it is possible that Gehazi spoke with her on Elisha's behalf. But it could be that [as so often with the Biblical text] this is not in chronological order. We are being given the background as to what had gone on when finally the woman "stood before" Elisha himself in :12. It would seem inappropriate for Elisha to ask Gehazi to call the woman to him if in fact Gehazi was to speak with her (:12). Rather would Elisha have told Gehazi to go to her and speak directly with her.</p><p>‘Behold, you have cared for us with all this care. What is to be done for you?- </p><p>The Hebrew word for "care" also means "reverence". She 'reverenced' him (RVmg:). To reverence someone is to care for them. Care therefore comes out of a respect / reverence for the person. If we respect persons for who they are, we will care. Care in that sense can't in any sense be properly done or shown if it's simply from a sense of duty, because we're paid to do it, because we might get some benefit from doing so, etc.</p><p>Would you like to be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the army?’- </p><p>Elisha lived in Samaria, or at least had a house there, and was well known it seems to the Israelite leadership- despite his insistence upon Yahweh worship. The leadership likely tolerated him in that they considered that they were worshipping Yahweh, but did it through their Baal worship. This was and is now the essential temptation to all God's people.</p><p>She answered, I dwell among my own people- </p><p>This would imply she was a Gentile, and didn't want to be spoken of to the king of Israel. Thus continues the similarities with Elijah, who was also cared for by a Gentile woman. The woman may well have been a Philistine, as the events of <a href='B:120 8:2'>2Ki 8:2</a> appear to have happened at this time.</p>


text:
<p>He said, What then is to be done for her? Gehazi answered, Most certainly she has no son, and her husband is old- </p><p>The scene is so imaginable. Two men in the guest room discussing what the know about their host and how best to help her. Gehazi observes the age difference between the man and his wife, and seems to sense she had never had her own children. We are left to imagine the wide range of possible scenarios which may have resulted in this situation. The narrative seems purposefully open ended at points like this, so that we can enter into the situation.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Call her. When he had called her, she stood in the door- </p><p>The Shunamite woman stood "in the door", i:e. on the threshold, when Elisha gave her the message that she would have a child. This was surely to help her see the similarities with Abraham and Sarah in the tent door, who were given the same message; and they like the Shunamite woman almost lost and then 'received back' the promised son.</p>


text:
<p>He said, At this season, when the time comes around, you will embrace a son. She said, No, my lord, you man of God, do not lie to your handmaid- </p><p>As noted on :15, this continues the connection with Abraham, for these are similar words to those spoken to him by the Angel (<a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a>). And she responds as Sarah does. Seeing that God's word does not lie (<a href='B:40 23:19'>Num 23:19</a>; <a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a>), her words are tantamount to disbelief in the prophetic word. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>The woman conceived, and bore a son at that season, when the time came around, as Elisha had said to her-</p><p>Again the language is so similar to the record of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac. But we note that the woman didn't apparently have faith in God's word to her. And as noted on :37, at the end of the story we are left wondering whether she did really personally believe. Remember that she was a Gentile (:13). The point is, great things were done for a woman who was at best an agnostic, because of the faith of third parties. We see the same in <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>. And this opens up a huge range of pastoral responsibility for us in the lives of others.</p>


text:
<p>When the child was grown, it happened one day that he went out to his father to the reapers- </p><p>There are intentional connections with Boaz, who also married a much younger woman and had a child by her. But as discussed on :37, the question is left open in the narrative here as to how much they really believed.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his father, My head! My head! He said to his servant, Carry him to his mother- </p><p>He assumed it was just sunstroke. We note the man's wealth, having servants.</p>


text:
<p>When he had taken him, and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees until noon, and then died-</p><p>Sitting on her knees implies he was still young.</p>


text:
<p>She went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door on him, and went out-</p><p>I discussed on :4 how there is a connection between shutting the door and praying (:33; <a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>). But the record doesn't say that she prayed. She simply thinks in a superstitious way that the dead child may be somehow blessed if he lays on the bed of the man of God. The narrative leaves us guessing as to whether she ever came to true faith in the God of Israel, seeing she was a Gentile (:13) with her own belief systems.</p>


text:
<p>She called to her husband and said, Please send me one of the servants, and one of the donkeys, that I may run to the man of God, and come again- </p><p>A full believer would surely have prayed directly to God. But she passionately believes that the physical presence of the man of God might possibly lead to the child's resurrection. Again the narrative teases us with the question of how far she really believed herself in Israel's God.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Why would you want go to him today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath. She said, It’s alright- </p><p>We conclude that she had not told her husband that the child had died, leaving him caught up in all the concerns of harvest time, his busiest time of the year, thinking that the child had just suffered sunstroke (see on :19). His response could suggest that she was used to travelling by donkey to keep the Sabbath and new moon feasts. Or his faith and spirituality may have been so weak that he thought that the man of God could not be bothered by anyone apart from on such occasions. This was the thinking of mere religion rather than spirituality. And he may be saying that a Jewish prophet could only be approached on such festivals, so it was a pointless journey. Again the record is intentionally vague, eliciting constantly in us the question as to whether or how far the woman personally believed in Israel's God. We note that the ten tribe kingdom considered Sabbath keeping and new moon observance as quite normal. The problem was that they thought they could worship Baal as part of Yahweh worship, and so festivals of Yahweh were mixed with Baal worship- just as effectively happened in the church at Corinth.</p>


text:
<p>Then she saddled a donkey, and said to her servant, Drive, and go forward! Don’t slow down for me, unless I ask you to- </p><p>It was normal for the head of a household to have their donkey saddled by servants or inferiors (<a href='B:110 13:13'>1Ki 13:13</a>; <a href='B:110 13:27'>1Ki 13:27</a>). But this "great woman" was so urgent that she saddled her own donkey.</p>


text:
<p>So she went, and came to the man of God to Mount Carmel. It happened, when the man of God saw her afar off, that he said to Gehazi his servant, Behold, there is the Shunammite- </p><p>Although Elisha had a house in Samaria, he was clearly associated with a school of prophets on Mount Carmel. Elisha would have seen her coming up the mountain.</p>


text:
<p>Please run now to meet her, and ask her, ‘Is it well with you? Is it well with your husband? Is it well with the child?’ She answered, It is well- </p><p>As noted throughout this account, we are left to ponder whether "It is well" was a statement of her faith that Elisha would make things "well" in the end; or a vague answer because she wanted to talk with Elisha and not Gehazi. There are so many of these kinds of open ended statements in the narrative that we assume they are intended.</p>


text:
<p>When she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught hold of his feet. Gehazi came near to thrust her away; but the man of God said, Leave her alone; for her soul is troubled within her; and Yahweh has hidden it from me, and has not told me- </p><p>Although she was angry with Elisha (:28), her passionate clinging to his feet reflects genuine respect and devotion. These two conflicting strands of feeling are quite often found in people as they come to God, or His representatives, in times of grief and loss. On one hand there is anger with God, and yet also devotion towards Him and a clinging on in faith. God hiding things from people is typically a sign of His displeasure; and He reveals that which is hidden from the world to His true servants (<a href='B:290 48:6'>Isa 48:6</a>; <a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a>; <a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a>; <a href='B:580 1:26'>Col 1:26</a>). So we can appreciate Elisha feeling at this point that he is somehow out of step with God.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, Did I desire a son of my lord? Didn’t I say, Do not deceive me?- </p><p>Her view is that God had come into her life through Elisha, on His initiative, and she had been given the child on Elisha's initiative. She recalls years later how she had suspected Elisha was somehow deceiving her. And so she pins the guilt for the child's death directly on Elisha, even though this was unreasonable. But it is absolutely psychologically credible. For the death of a child creates an almost overwhelming desire to pin the guilt upon somebody. And Elisha was a convenient person.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to Gehazi, Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand, and go your way. If you meet any man, don’t greet him; and if anyone greets you, don’t answer him again. Then lay my staff on the face of the child- </p><p>Perhaps Gehazi was sent ahead at the fastest possible speed, not even wasting a moment on greeting people (which was often a lengthy business), because Elisha thought that time was of the essence in saving the child. And Gehazi could run or travel far faster than Elisha could as an older man.</p><p>But a snapshot of Gehazi's earnest, speedy journey is taken in the New Testament, and applied to the preachers of the Gospel, who likewise have limited time in which to share the vital power of resurrection with those who are about to die, or already spiritually dead. Therefore the disciples were to go on their preaching mission without pausing to greet others, such was their haste (<a href='B:490 10:4'>Luk 10:4</a> cp. <a href='B:120 4:29'>2Ki 4:29</a>). The Greek word translated ‘greet’ also carries the idea of joining together with others. People rarely travelled alone unless they were in great haste, but rather moved in caravans. But for the Lord’s messengers, there was to be no loss of time. Every minute was to be precious. In a world full of time wasting distractions, information we don’t need to know… this is all so necessary. No wonder that when those men finally came to themselves, realized their calling, and hurled themselves in joy at this world after the Lord’s ascension… they preached repentance, immediate conversion and quick baptism, right up front.</p>


text:
<p>The mother of the child said, As Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you. He arose, and followed her- </p><p>The woman apparently had no faith in Gehazi, and was insistent that Elisha personally was her only hope for the restoration of her child. "I will not leave you" were the very words spoken by Elisha to Elijah (<a href='B:120 2:2'>2Ki 2:2</a>; <a href='B:120 2:4'>2Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:120 2:6'>2Ki 2:6</a>). Elisha then had in view not simply a literal determination to follow Elijah, but a commitment to spiritually follow him. "Leave" is the usual word for "forsake", used in the many appeals not to forsake Yahweh for other gods. Again we are left with intentional unclarity, as to whether the woman was vowing to follow Elisha spiritually despite the loss of her child.</p>


text:
<p>Gehazi passed on before them, and laid the staff on the face of the child; but there was neither voice nor hearing. Therefore he returned to meet him, and told him, saying, The child has not awakened- </p><p>Elisha was perhaps elderly or weak, and the urgency of the situation meant that Gehazi was sent to run ahead of them. But the lesson was that the external symbols of religion, such as the staff of a prophet, would not bring the power and presence of God. "Neither voice nor hearing / response" is the very phrase used of how there was no such response or hearing from Baal when the prophets of Baal cried to him on Carmel (<a href='B:110 18:26'>1Ki 18:26</a>; <a href='B:110 18:29'>1Ki 18:29</a>). So we get the hint that Gehazi may possibly have invoked Baal as well as Yahweh, and we will see in 2 Kings 5 that his spirituality was at best questionable. Or it may be that the woman also entertained some aspects of Baal belief, for she was a Gentile (:13) and as noted throughout, we are left never completely sure that she was a fully believer in Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>When Elisha had come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid on his bed- </p><p>This was precisely the situation with the child whom Elijah resurrected; the same words for "laid on his bed" are used in <a href='B:110 17:19'>1Ki 17:19</a>. Elisha was inspired to faith by perceiving the similarities between this situation and that faced by Elijah. We too will be inspired by perceiving that no situation in essence is unique, but all were somehow met before in the range of histories we have in the Biblical record.</p>


text:
<p>He went in therefore, and shut the door on them both, and prayed to Yahweh- </p><p>The "therefore" may allude to how he perceived the situation as so similar to that Elijah had faced in <a href='B:110 17:19'>1Ki 17:19</a>. He knew what to do because he perceived the similarities with the precedent set for him by Elijah. It's hard to discern how much of this kind of behaviour was explicitly commanded by God, and how much was purely on Elisha's initiative. He had not laid the child on his own bed, the woman had, and so he was nudged by that towards perceiving the similarities with the Elijah precedent. And therefore he entered the room, knowing he was set up to resurrect the child. <a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a> alludes here, inviting each of us to see ourselves as in Elisha's position, every day- closing the door on our room and praying in secret.</p>


text:
<p>He went up, and cast himself on the child, and put his mouth on his mouth, and his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. He lay upon him; and the flesh of the child grew warm- </p><p>Elijah cast himself down in prayer (<a href='B:110 18:42'>1Ki 18:42</a>). 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. See on :32,33. 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>Then he returned, and walked in the house once back and forth; and went up, and cast himself on him. Then the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes- </p><p>The resurrection wasn't immediate. Elisha had to cast himself down in prayer again, just as Elijah (whose example he was imitating, <a href='B:110 18:42'>1Ki 18:42</a>) had to do so several times before the rain came. The reason is multi factorial, but as with Divine responses to our prayers, part of the picture may be that immediate answers to prayers would turn God into some kind of magic man who comes up with the goods at the click of our fingers. Whereas His response to man is part of the ongoing, mutual relationship with man which He so seeks. And the need to keep on praying, receiving partial answers before we get the complete answer, is part of developing that relationship.</p>


text:
<p>He called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite! So he called her. When she had come in to him, he said, Take up your son- </p><p>Again we note that Elisha tends to operate with the woman through Gehazi. Perhaps this was to recall how he had asked Gehazi to call the woman, and she had likewise come to him, when he first told her she was to have a child. Elisha wanted her to perceive the similarities, and to realize that the power of God's word which had made her pregnant was no less active at this time also. We too find we are treated in such a way as to restimulate past experiences with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground; and she took up her son, and went out-</p><p>There are strong similarities with Elijah's curing of the child of the woman who had cared for him in <a href='B:110 17:24'>1Ki 17:24</a>. That woman's response was "Now I know that the word of Yahweh in your mouth is truth". The situation is so similar that we are invited to wonder whether this Shunamite said or felt the same. But we aren't told. And again, the narrative is left hanging, to encourage us to enter into it.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha came again to Gilgal. There was a famine in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him- </p><p>We have in this chapter a collection of cameos from Elisha's ministry. They may not be chronological, as this famine was surely that of <a href='B:120 8:1'>2Ki 8:1</a>.</p><p>He said to his servant, Set on the great pot, and boil stew for the sons of the prophets- </p><p>We have the picture here of the communal life amongst the "sons of the prophets", using a large cauldron in which to cook their collective food; although we know from :1 that some of them were married with homes and children. We get the impression that instead of the sons of the prophets giving a meal to their respected visitor, as was normal custom, he cooked for them. This could be a reflection of their total lack of food, but I noted throughout 2 Kings 2 that the sons of the prophets can be detected as not being hugely respectful towards Elijah and Elisha. Elijah went too far in considering they were all apostate, and he was the only true prophet of Yahweh; but clearly he considered they were majorly spiritually compromised, and their attitude to Elisha and Elijah gives reason to think that indeed all was not spiritually well amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>One went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered of it a lapful of wild gourds, and came and shred them into the pot of stew; for they didn’t recognize them- </p><p>The plant in view is hard to define, but "wild gourd" appears to refer to some kind of wild cucumber; or LXX "wild pumpkin". These plants were not necessarily poisonous, but would have given the stew a bitter and suspicious taste, leading them to fear that they were being poisoned.</p>


text:
<p>So they poured out for the men to eat. It happened, as they were eating of the stew, that they cried out, and said, Man of God, there is death in the pot! They could not eat of it- </p><p>Given the tense relationship between the sons of the prophets and Elisha (see on :38), they maybe interpreted the unusual and bitter taste of the stew which Elisha had cooked as being because he and Gehazi wanted to poison them to death.</p>


text:
<p>But he said, Bring meal, then. He cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. There was now no harm in the pot- </p><p>The word for 'pouring out' is used earlier in this chapter (:5), again in connection with a pot or container. The same spirit of faith in pouring out was being asked for, and the widow was the parade example to those men. Using a handful of meal / flour in a miraculous way recalled what Elijah had done likewise (s:w. <a href='B:110 17:12'>1Ki 17:12</a>).</p>&nbsp;<p></p><p></p>


text:
<p>A man from Baal Shalishah came, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits- </p><p>The first fruits were to be given to the priests, and there is no evidence that Elisha was a Levite. The faithful Levites had generally fled from the ten tribe kingdom to Judah. The "sons of the prophets" had effectively taken their place as the teachers of God's word to Israel.</p><p>Twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain in his sack. He said, Give to the people, that they may eat- </p><p>The Lord told the disciples to feed the crowd, when they had nothing to give them (<a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a>). He was actually quoting from <a href='B:120 4:42'>2Ki 4:42</a>, where the man of God told his servant to do the same. He gave what bread he had to the people, and miraculously it fed them. The disciples don't seem to have seen the point; otherwise, they would have realized that if they went ahead in faith, another such miracle would likely be wrought. But it seems that God almost over-ruled them to make the response of the faithless servant of <a href='B:120 4:43'>2Ki 4:43</a>: "Shall we::. give them to eat?" (<a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a>). They were almost 'made' to do this to make them later see the similarity with the 2 Kings 4 incident. If they had been more spiritually aware at the time, the Lord's quotation would have been a fillip for their faith.</p>


text:
<p>His servant said- </p><p>The reference may be to Elisha's servant, Gehazi, who lacked the faith to raise the widow's son; and we will again see in 2 Kings 5 had some serious spiritual problems. The word for "servant" used here specifically means 'minister' (s:w. <a href='B:20 24:13'>Exo 24:13</a>; <a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a>).</p><p>What, should I set this before a hundred men? But he said, Give the people, that they may eat; for thus says Yahweh, ‘They will eat, and will have some left over’- </p><p>See on :42. "A hundred men" may be a general number, but we recall the various mentions of "sons of the prophets" in groups of 50, and how Obadiah had hidden 100 of them by groups of 50 in a cave. It seems there are no more than four schools of the prophets mentioned at this time (Carmel, Gilgal, Bethel and Jericho), and possibly there were remnants of those at Ramah and Kirjath Jearim from the time of Samuel (<a href='B:90 10:5'>1Sa 10:5</a>). If there were 50-100 prophets in each, then along with their families this would have meant that there were likely several thousand people who were faithful to Yahweh in the ten tribe kingdom. It makes sense of God's comment that there were 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Although all of them were considered by Elijah as somehow astray on one point or another, as he felt he was the only true prophet of Yahweh who had not fallen away.</p>


text:
<p>So he set it before them, and they ate, and left some of it, according to the word of Yahweh- </p><p>This again was repeated by the Lord in His replication of this miracle in a far larger scale. There is always a generosity in God's dealings, an abundance of provision, which should be reflected in our attitudes too.</p>


text:
<p>Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him Yahweh had given victory to Syria- </p><p>It is unclear whether he was honourable to God because like Jehu, he as an unspiritual man had still done God's will against Israel. Or whether he was honourable to the Syrians because they realized God was working through Naaman. He was clearly a man whom Israel's God had an interest in, and this was recognized. The high value of the present taken to secure Naaman's healing from Yahweh would indicate that the Syrians had a real sense that Yahweh was very powerful, moreso than their own deities.</p><p>He was also a mighty man of valour- </p><p>Meaning he had slain many Israelites.</p><p>But he was a leper- </p><p>We note that lepers were openly present in society in Syria, even at senior levels, whereas in Israel the law of Moses required they were excluded from society.</p>


text:
<p>that Elisha had a house there. Hence Naaman's maid talks of Elisha as "the prophet that is in Samaria".</p>


text:
<p>The Syrians had gone out in companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maiden; and she waited on Naaman’s wife- </p><p>It was the law of the jungle then (as it is now in primitive societies) that the men were killed, and the women raped. And the prettier ones carried off for further abuse. This girl would have witnessed all that, perhaps being a victim of it, and had probably experienced the murder of her parents and family. She was a great example of faith, spirituality and forgiveness that she was minded to try to help her master, who was the ultimate leader of the Syrian armed forces. See on <a href='B:120 6:8'>2Ki 6:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She said to her mistress, I wish that my lord would visit the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would heal him of his leprosy-</p><p><a href='B:490 4:27'>Luk 4:27</a> states: "There were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian". So when Naaman's maid asserted that Elisha could cure him of his leprosy, this was not therefore based on experience. She had not even heard of Elisha curing any lepers in Israel. But she believed it was the kind of thing he could do. The word "heal" means ‘to assemble’ or ‘gather together’, and we can be sure this was just what the girl said. For in Israel (see on :1), lepers were separated from the people, and the healing of a leper was the gathering back in of the person to society (<a href='B:40 11:14-15'>Num 11:14-15</a>).</p><p>There is quite a theme of servants bringing blessings or good news (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 16:16'>1Sa 16:16</a>; <a href='B:90 25:4'>1Sa 25:4</a> cp. <a href='B:10 41:10'>Gen 41:10</a>; <a href='B:120 5:3'>2Ki 5:3</a>). This may be to reflect God's interest in the significance of the lowly.</p>


text:
<p>Someone went in, and told his lord, saying, The maiden who is from the land of Israel said this- </p><p>LXX "She went in and told her lord", suggesting the "someone" in view was Naaman's wife. She had to treat him with respect as he was one of the leaders of Syria, perhaps second only to the king.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Syria said, Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel- </p><p>Probably Jehoram, Ahab’s son.</p><p>He departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of clothing- </p><p>The high value of the present taken to secure Naaman's healing from Yahweh would indicate that the Syrians had a real sense that Yahweh was very powerful, moreso than their own deities. See on :1. Perhaps they had learned this from their historical defeats at the hands of Israel. And yet they seem to have believed more strongly in Yahweh than did the Israelites themselves.</p>


text:
<p>He brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter has come to you, behold, I have sent Naaman my servant to you, that you may heal him of his leprosy- </p><p>We wonder why the request was made of the king of Israel, rather than any mention being made of Elisha. Perhaps there had been a loss of information during transmission. For the Israelite girl had just passed a comment to her mistress, and then from her the message was passed to Naaman and thence to the king of Syria. Or maybe it was assumed that any prophet must be subject to the king of his country. The idea of personal faith was foreign to them, whereby a man like Elisha could have direct relationship with God regardless of his king.</p>


text:
<p>When the king of Israel had read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man sends to me to heal a man of his leprosy? Surely he is seeking a quarrel against me- </p><p>We know from <a href='B:490 4:27'>Luk 4:27</a> that nobody had been cured of leprosy in Israel at that time. The king of Israel lacked faith, but the Gentile Syrians believed Yahweh could do this. All because the still small voice of an abused Israelite girl had been believed. Indeed the king of Israel considered healing from leprosy to be so impossible, that he concluded this was just a provocation. For Syria and Israel had often been in conflict with each other. And it was a rather bizarre thing, for a neighbouring enemy who only recently had raided Israel and carried people off into captivity::. to then come to them offering lots of money so that their army general could be cured by them. The king of Israel saw it all in secular terms, he clearly had no real spiritual dimension in his thinking.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, that he sent to the king saying, Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel- </p><p>Elisha muscles in, as it were, because he sees that this situation is going to result in war unless he does. Elisha's motive for the healing was so that Naaman "shall know" that God's word was really spoken forth in Israel. And in the end, his desire was fulfilled in Naaman's conversion:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariots, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha- </p><p>Elisha sat in his house and messengers from a powerful man, Naaman the leper, came to him; and Elisha displayed an amazing calm before them. This situation repeated in <a href='B:120 6:32'>2Ki 6:32</a>, where Elisha again sits in his house and the messengers of an aggressive King came to him. The theme of lepers recurs in this latter context also (<a href='B:120 7:3'>2Ki 7:3</a>). And in <a href='B:120 5:18'>2Ki 5:18</a> we read of Naaman as a man upon whose arm a King (of Syria) leaned; and we find one of those sent to Elisha the second time was likewise "a lord upon whose hand the King (of Israel) leaned (<a href='B:120 7:2'>2Ki 7:2</a>). The connections show that God was working out His program in similar ways in widely differing situations.</p><p>In <a href='B:120 6:17'>2Ki 6:17</a>, Elisha prays that God will open the eyes of his frightened servant to behold the Angelic horses and chariots around him. And this may have happened before this present incident (<a href='B:120 6:8'>2Ki 6:8</a> note). Elisha was so confident they were there, that he didn't ask to see them himself. He knew they were there; he simply asked that his servant be enabled to see the unseen reality which he calmly knew was there. He of course had had first hand experience of the Angelic horses and chariots (a kind of cherubim) when he had been parted from Elijah in <a href='B:120 2:11'>2Ki 2:11</a>. This must have left an abiding impression upon him- he knew that those Angelic horses and chariots were in fact permanently encamped around him (cp. <a href='B:230 34:7'>Psa 34:7</a>). And so we are surely to see significance in the way that Naaman came to Elisha's house with his horses and chariot- for this is surely a development of a theme of connection between Elisha, horses and chariots (<a href='B:120 5:9'>2Ki 5:9</a>). Most other Israelites would've been petrified to have the horses and chariots of Naaman and a company of Syrians pull up at their door. But Elisha was quite unfazed. He didn't even bother coming out to meet Naaman, knowing this was an insult to Naaman's pride, and was humanly certain to result in Naaman simply killing him and burning his house. Surely the horses-chariot-Elisha connection taught Elisha that in fact there were Angelic horses and chariots around him- he need not fear any human horse and chariot. There is no hint that Angelic activity is any less, or operates in any different way, for us today.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha sent a messenger to him saying- </p><p>Elisha doesn't come out of his house and talk to him. He wanted the man to focus his faith in God's word, not in personalities. For his end aim was to help Naaman toward faith that there was a prophet in Israel (:8). But so often, faith is clouded by issues of personality. And Elisha didn't want that to happen. Elisha also may be insisting that Naaman was to be treated as an Israelite leper would be treated; which meant Elisha could not have contact with him, and therefore he didn't invite the leper into his home. This was because he wanted Naaman to realize that his cure was on account of having been treated as an Israelite; in the hope that he would become a proselyte.</p><p>Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored- </p><p>Although this was not Christian baptism, it is perhaps analogous. Because humility was elicited by this request to dip in Jordan, as it is by the ritual of baptism. Elisha was aiming to convert Naaman, not simply heal him, so that he could continue as general of the forces who were marauding Israel. The fact there were plenty of lepers in Israel (<a href='B:490 4:27'>Luk 4:27</a>) was evidence enough that the waters of Jordan contained no healing powers of themselves; Naaman was being taught faith in God's word, rather than supposed healing waters. The seven dippings recall the way Jericho was to be circled for six days before victory on the seventh (<a href='B:60 6:3-5'>Jos 6:3-5</a>), the child sneezed seven times before resurrection (<a href='B:120 4:35'>2Ki 4:35</a>) and the way Elijah was only answered at his seventh prayer (<a href='B:110 18:43'>1Ki 18:43</a>). The intention was that through the six times performing something which had no immediate answer, faith, hope and humility were elicited. <a href='B:30 14:8'>Lev 14:8</a>; <a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a> speak of the healed leper washing after the cure, in order to be then also ritually clean. And there were various sprinkling / cleansing rituals which had to be performed seven times upon the leper (<a href='B:30 14:7'>Lev 14:7</a>; <a href='B:30 14:16'>Lev 14:16</a>; <a href='B:30 14:27'>Lev 14:27</a>). So Naaman was potentially cured of his leprosy, but what was necessary was that he become ritually clean, and therefore he had to take the step of faith in washing. Had he not done that, the potential cure would have remained an unrealized potential. He was bidden grasp that he had been cured by Elisha; but now he had to wash in order to become spiritually clean and acceptable within Israelite, and not Syrian, society (see on <a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>). It could even be that the washing with water was to invite Naaman to see himself as a Jewish priest being prepared for service (<a href='B:20 29:4'>Exo 29:4</a> s:w:). We marvel at how God chooses people who may appear the most unlikely. The general of the Syrian army, the enemy of Israel, whose men had just destroyed the family of his wife's servant girl::. was the one chosen. And not just to be healed, but to be thereby prepared to work in essence as a priest for God, in the darkness of the high command of Gentile Syria. We learn at the very least never to consider anyone beyond the scope of God's purpose.</p><p>And you shall be clean- </p><p>This was in addition to having his flesh restored and being healed. As noted on :1, there was no sense amongst the Syrians of ritual uncleanness because of leprosy. Naaman was being bidden see his healing as also something spiritual, which would enable him to serve Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>But Naaman was angry, and went away, and said, I thought, ‘He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of Yahweh his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy’- </p><p>Clearly Naaman was not a personal believer in Yahweh at this stage. And yet contrary to Pentecostal teaching, true miracles don't always require the faith of the sick person. We also learn again that God is prepared to work powerfully in the life of a person for the sake of the prayers and faith of third parties (as in <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>). Naaman like many people had his preexisting religious ideas, and he expected the true God to conform to them. He was to be taught that man is made in God's image, and we are not to make God into our image and make Him act according to our expectations of religion, wherever we picked them up from. Elisha's refusal to come out and meet him clearly stuck in his gut. But the purpose for that, as explained above, was so that he realized that leprosy made a man unclean before the true people of God; and once he was cleansed, he would then be able to be part of God's people. Likewise he was placing his faith in religious ritual, rather than in the word of Yahweh. And he needed to be corrected in that perspective:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Aren’t Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage- </p><p>"Jordan" means literally 'the descender', 'that which brings down'. The intention of the command was to humble him, and initially he baulked at this. His rage was likewise related to the fact he had made so much effort to come deep into enemy territory, with a huge financial reward. And all that was being spurned. Because it was his faith in Yahweh's word which was required, and not external, human strength.</p>


text:
<p>His servants came near and spoke to him and said, My father, if the prophet had asked you do some great thing, wouldn’t you have done it? How much rather then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean?’- </p><p>We wonder if these servants were themselves Israelites, just as Naaman's wife had an Israelite servant. Perhaps he had thought it prudent to take them with him, seeing he was going into Israel, with many tensions between Syria and Israel at the time. Again Naaman, the mighty man of valour who had done many great things (:1), was being taught that the God of Israel is unimpressed by human works, and rather seeks humility and faithful obedience to His word. These were the 'great things' he was being asked to do, far more difficult and demanding more true bravery than all the mighty acts he had performed in his life. The fact he responds to his servants' suggestion shows that he did have some latent humility.</p>


text:
<p>Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean-</p><p>The same words for dipping in the Jordan are only used in describing the priests crossing Jordan to take possession of God's kingdom in Israel (<a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a>). Naaman was being invited to imagine himself now entering into the spirit of Israel and having their kingdom as his. We may note that he "dipped" in Jordan, when he was intended to "wash" in Jordan (:10). But despite this less than complete obedience, he was accepted. He was not only healed, but "was clean" in a religious, spiritual sense. His flesh being restored like a child looks ahead to being born again of water and spirit (<a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a>).</p><p>Naaman was a Gentile leper who sought to be healed by the God of Israel. As such he represents sin-stricken man, effectively going through a living death due to sin. His cure was by dipping in the River Jordan. Initially he found this simple act hard to accept, thinking that God would want him to do some dramatic act, or to dip himself in a large and well-known river, e:g. the Abana. Similarly, we may find it hard to believe that such a simple act as baptism can ultimately bring about our salvation. It is more attractive to think that our own works and public association with a large, well-known denomination (cf. the river Abana) can save us, rather than this simple act of association with the true hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>He returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and stood before him- </p><p>Elisha was accustomed to thinking of himself in terms of a man who stood before Yahweh, in His presence, before His face (Heb:- <a href='B:120 3:14'>2Ki 3:14</a>). Naaman and his "company" 'stood before' Elisha (<a href='B:120 5:15-16'>2Ki 5:15-16</a>). Remember that this was the Syrian army General, standing with a "company" in Israelite territory, at Elisha's house- at a time when 'companies' of Syrian soldiers carried out raids upon Israel (<a href='B:120 5:2'>2Ki 5:2</a>). Any Israelite would've been terrified. But Elisha responds that he 'stands before' Yahweh. Elisha was so aware of how we live in God's presence, before His very face, that he wasn't the least phased by this. If only we can share this sense, of standing in God's presence::. the most frightening of human situations will have little effective 'presence' because we know we are ultimately in God's presence, 24/7. See on <a href='B:120 6:17'>2Ki 6:17</a>.</p><p>And he said, See now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel. Now therefore, please take a gift from your servant- </p><p>Naaman still held the primitive idea that Yahweh as the God of Israel was only present in Israel, and this was why he wanted to take some Israelite soil home with him. But reflection upon the logic of his position would have led him to see wider than that. For if Yahweh was the only God, and His greatness made all other gods effectively non-existent::. then surely it made sense that the God who was "in Israel" was in fact the God of the whole planet. For otherwise, there was no God anywhere in the cosmos or on planet earth, only "in Israel". And sanctified common sense surely indicates that there is a God and creator. And yet God leaves Naaman to work this through without specifically correcting him, just as the Lord Jesus worked likewise with the wrong ideas about demons.</p>


text:
<p>But he said, As Yahweh lives, before whom I stand, I will receive none. He urged him to take it; but he refused- </p><p>We see here the natural reaction of man to Divine grace- to want to give something material to Him or His representative. But it is refused, because the response intended from Naaman was that he would trust in Yahweh and share this with others in his homeland- which as a high ranking commander in the Syrian leadership, was a very large ask.</p>


text:
<p>Naaman said, If not, then please let two mules’ burden of earth be given to your servant; for your servant will from now on offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice to other gods, but to Yahweh- </p><p>Naaman the Syrian accepted the faith of the God of Israel, knowing full well how difficult this was going to be back in his home environment. After his ‘conversion’ he asked for some Israelite soil to be given to him to take back to Syria (see on :15). This shows that Naaman was influenced by the surrounding superstition that one could only worship a god of another nation whilst on their soil. But this is not explicitly corrected by Elisha; he simply but powerfully comments: “Go in peace”. In other words, Elisha was saying that the peace experienced by Naaman in his daily life was so wondrous that it obviated the need for worshipping on Israeli soil.</p>


text:
<p>In this thing may Yahweh pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon. When I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, may Yahweh pardon your servant in this thing- </p><p>See on <a href='B:120 5:9'>2Ki 5:9</a>. Clearly there was no belief in any guilt by association, or this concession wouldn't have been given. The whole nature of being human means that we must live in&nbsp; this world, although we are not of it. Consider how Daniel’s friends wore turbans (<a href='B:340 3:21'>Dan 3:21</a> NIV), how Moses appeared externally to be an Egyptian (<a href='B:20 2:19'>Exo 2:19</a>), and how the Lord Himself had strongly Jewish characteristics (<a href='B:500 4:9'>Joh 4:9</a>). Imagine all the difficult situations Joseph must have been in, as Prime Minister of Egypt, married to the daughter of the pagan High Priest. Or John the Baptist’s soldier converts, told to do their jobs without using violence (<a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a>); or Cornelius returning to his post as Centurion. It seems almost certain that these men would all have tried to engineer their way out of their&nbsp; positions. Think of Daniel.</p><p>Naaman was allowed to bow himself before Rimmon for the sake of losing his position. Yet the higher level would surely have been, as Daniel’s friends, not to bow down to an idol. And when we ask what the rest of the Jews in Babylon did on that occasion, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that they took the lower level which Naaman did- and bowed down.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way-</p><p>The essence is to live in peace with God in covenant relationship. This is possible, even if like Naaman there are elements of misunderstanding of Him (:17), and dimensions of our lives where we are not serving God on the highest level we could (18).</p>


text:
<p>But Gehazi the servant of Elisha the man of God said, My master has spared this Naaman the Syrian, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought. As Yahweh lives, I will run after him, and take something from him- </p><p>‘Said in his heart’ is a common Biblical phrase (e:g. <a href='B:10 17:17'>Gen 17:17</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:110 12:26'>1Ki 12:26</a>; <a href='B:190 6:6'>Est 6:6</a>). There is a huge importance attached to self talk and spiritual mindedness. Further, there are many instances where we read that a person ‘said’ something; but it’s apparent that they said it to themselves, in their heart. Take Gehazi here. For sure, Gehazi said this to nobody but himself. Or Moses – he’s recorded as saying “People have found out what I have done!” – surely he said this within himself (<a href='B:20 2:14'>Exo 2:14</a> GNB). We note that in his heart, Gehazi swears to himself by Yahweh. He is not an unbeliever. But we have here an insight into the functioning of the heart within a believer in a moment of weakness. "This Naaman::." reflects how he failed to perceive the spiritual wonder of what had happened; that the general of a Gentile army had been converted to Israel's God. All he still saw was a wealthy Gentile whom he thought that he as an Israelite had the right to deceive. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>So Gehazi followed after Naaman. When Naaman saw one running after him, he came down from the chariot to meet him, and said, Is all well?- </p><p>The Divine cameraman zooms in fairly close on this scene. We see Gehazi running after the cavalcade, running faster than they were moving, and catching up with Naaman. The way Naaman himself got down from his chariot to personally greet Gehazi is a reflection of the humility he had now learned.</p>


text:
<p>He said, All is well. My master has sent me, saying, ‘Behold, even now two young men of the sons of the prophets have come to me from the hill country of Ephraim. Please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing’- </p><p>Gehazi was enough of an amateur psychologist to know that if this is what he asked for, Naaman was likely to multiply it several times. And as noted on :23, his mind was full of the things he could buy with that money.</p>


text:
<p>Naaman said, Please take two talents. He urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and laid them on two of his servants; and they carried them before him-</p><p>According to :26, Naaman pressed Gehazi to also take far more than this. Although the things he mentions there, olive yards and vineyards, could hardly have been given by Naaman. Elisha correctly and piercingly perceives that these were the things in Gehazi's mind which we coveted buying with the things he believed Naaman would give him. Again (see on :20), the Bible places such great value on the heart, the thoughts, the spirit of a person.</p>


text:
<p>When he came to the hill, he took them from their hand, and stored them in the house. Then he let the men go, and they departed- </p><p>Naaman had returned to Samaria from the Jordan river, at least 20 miles (:15) especially to thank Elisha. It was the opposite direction. And now he was going back eastwards to Syria. Elisha lived in Samaria, presumably not far from the palace of the king. So "the hill" would be "the hill of Samaria" which was bought for two talents of silver (<a href='B:110 16:24'>1Ki 16:24</a>). Exactly the amount of money given to Gehazi (:23). We may be able to deduce from this that it was Gehazi's intention to buy the hill for himself along with the olive groves and vineyards upon it (:26).</p>


text:
<p>But he went in, and stood before his master. Elisha said to him, Where did you come from, Gehazi? He said, Your servant went nowhere- </p><p>It's possible Elisha was now blind or of limited faculties. But even without the direct revelation of the Spirit, he likely guessed what Gehazi had been up to. By saying he had gone nowhere, he clearly lies to the Holy Spirit, as it were, as Ananias and Sapphira did. They were slain, again in a context of covetousness, whereas Gehazi was made a leper and allowed to apparently continue serving Elisha, even though (see on :1) he was supposed to be quarantined away from society. His ministry was allowed to continue, but every moment of his subsequent life he would have been aware that he was only allowed to continue in the ministry by God's grace. Which should always be our view anyway.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Didn’t my heart go with you, when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to receive money, to receive garments and olive groves and vineyards, sheep and cattle, and male servants and female servants?- </p><p>The way the Lord Jesus 'knew' things because of His extreme sensitivity, rather than necessarily by some flash of Holy Spirit insight, isn't unparalleled amongst other men. Elisha knew what Gehazi had done when Gehazi went back to ask Naaman for a reward- Elisha's heart or thoughts went with Gehazi. Elisha imagined Naaman dismounting from his chariot, etc. And he could guess that the request had involved "money::. garments" etc. That the Lord's knowledge wasn't necessarily automatic is reflected in the way we read things like "When He saw their faith::. when Jesus heard it::." (<a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>; <a href='B:480 2:17'>Mar 2:17</a>). But the Spirit confirmed this spiritual sensitivity, as it can do today; for [the blind?] Elisha 'saw' Naaman turning from his chariot to meet Gehazi, and Elisha read the motives of Naaman in imagining the servants and vineyards on the hill of Samaria which he could buy with his two talents. However it is possible that Elisha wasn't given any specific revelation from the Spirit, and correctly perceived all this himself, due to his own great sensitivity as a person.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the leprosy of Naaman will cling to you and to your seed forever. He went out from his presence a leper, as white as snow- </p><p>This is not medically what actually happened. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it’s an idea used by God. And thus God went along with the peoples' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons [which was how they understood illness] going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi. God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (<a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a>; <a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a>). Here too, as with Legion, there is Divine accommodation to the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of the prophets said to Elisha, See now, the place where we dwell before you is too small for us- </p><p>This continues the impression that the sons of the prophets lived poorly. The Mosaic idea was that Israel paid tithes to the Levites, out of whom the priests were to be the teachers of the people (<a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). But this wasn't functioning, and so men of all tribes had come with their families to form these schools of the prophets, where God's word was studied and taught.</p>


text:
<p>Please let us go to the Jordan, and every man take a beam from there, and let us make us a place there, where we may dwell. He answered, Go!- </p><p>This school of the prophets was near the Jordan, so it must have been that at Jericho. And I noted on <a href='B:120 2:5'>2Ki 2:5</a> that by no means all of them there had been supportive of Elisha. But they felt they needed Elisha's blessing to remove their camp from one place to another. They presumably had grown in size as there was more response to Elisha's ministry and disillusion with the apostacy in the nation. The idea of "every man" taking a beam was that all were to share in the work. The priests were served by the Levites, and if this had been a priestly group, then we would have expected the Levites to do this work. See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>One said, Please go with your servants. He answered, I will go- </p><p>The idea was that Elisha himself would be involved with the work. True leadership will always involve this kind of manual work together with those being led.</p>


text:
<p>So he went with them. When they came to the Jordan, they cut down wood- </p><p>Josephus records the presence of good timber growing alongside the Jordan river.</p>


text:
<p>But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water. Then he cried and said, Alas, my master! For it was borrowed- </p><p>We have a window here onto the poverty of these communities of prophets. He had needed to borrow [Heb. 'begged'] an axe head, and also had no means of buying another one to replace it. It was a major tragedy that blew up suddenly out of left field. And his cry from the heart implies he was asking Elisha to try to find the means to replace it with. Another rendering is "It has been sought. It has fallen in, and I have sought it in vain".</p>


text:
<p>The man of God asked, Where did it fall? He showed him the place. He cut down a stick, threw it in there, and made the iron float- </p><p>Elisha was surely not wealthy, and yet had been asked to effectively buy a new axe head. The method for the miracle was significant. Elisha himself cut down some wood; it was more than a stick because he had to cut it down. He showed his solidarity with the man, in that he himself cut down wood from a tree. The question "Where did it fall?" was to make the man relive the tragic moment, for his eyes would have seen the axe head go "splash" at a certain point in the river, and it was engrained in his memory. Elisha wanted the man to relive what had happened, and to realize that through his identity with him, as a fellow cutter of wood, God would do a miracle. This in essence was the spirit of the Lord Jesus in so many miracles. Thus He asked the blind man what he wanted; He was, like Elisha, making the man realize his desperation, and to focus upon what he so wanted. And it is how He works today too, piquing our desperation and realization of our need. Our understanding of Him as having had our nature, our representative and fellow, greatly enhances our appreciation of this. And it is on the basis of our shared humanity that we likewise are to work with people.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Take it. So he put out his hand and took it-</p><p>Elisha seeks the maximum involvement of the man in the miracle. The axe head 'swum' (AV) toward him, so that from the bank he could take it. It was clearly a miracle, and yet it involved the man's full engagement and openness to it. The spirit of the miracle was repeated by the Lord (<a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the king of Syria was warring against Israel; and he took counsel with his servants, saying, My camp will be in such and such a place- </p><p>Presumably the Benhadad of :24. Perhaps the following larger scale and more public miracle is intentionally juxtaposed against that of making the axe head swim. The idea therefore would be that God works in small private matters and also on the scale of the nations. We wonder where Naaman was in all this. He was commander of the Syrian military, and yet an avowed proselyte to Israel's God. Like Daniel, he was in a situation where loyalty to Yahweh was very difficult, and so he may well have resigned or purposefully slipped out of the limelight of senior leadership. However, the record is not all chronological. We have here a list of Elisha's various miracles, beginning with private ones and now more public ones. The Syrians were invading Israel with bands of marauders (:23), and it could have been from these raids that Naaman's wife got her Israelite maid. For she was taken captive by these "bands" of marauders (<a href='B:120 5:2'>2Ki 5:2</a>). The record is really giving us cameos from the ministry of Elisha arranged according to theme and not chronology. See on <a href='B:120 8:1'>2Ki 8:1</a> for another example of where the cameos are definitely not chronological.</p>


text:
<p>The man of God sent to the king of Israel saying, Beware that you not pass such a place; for the Syrians are coming that way- </p><p>The king of Israel would then have been Joram. If as noted on :8 this incident took place before that of 2 Kings 5, then we recall how in 2 Kings 5, Elisha was living in a house in Samaria very near to the palace. I suggested on :8 that this incident may have been before the events of 2 Kings 5. Elisha's knowledge was clearly by direct revelation from God. And yet Yahweh had also blessed the Syrian bands with success (<a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>). But He also gives warnings to the Israelites to help them avoid the Syrians defeating them. The fact "Yahweh had given victory to Syria" at this time means therefore that Elisha's warnings were not always accepted and obeyed. We have a similar situation here to that on Passover night. Yahweh's destroyer Angel went out to slay all the firstborn in Egypt, including the Israelites. But for those obedient to God's word, another Angel hovered over the homes of the obedient Israelites and preserved them from the destroying Angel. God's workings are so complex, and they likewise go on all around us, even if mostly unperceived by us. To accuse Him of injustice is to fail to humbly appreciate this. For all these actions were orchestrated by Him, articulating His ultimate justice and desire to save. This we must take on faith, but this kind of incident shows that there is every reason to believe that His actions are to this day likewise carefully balanced and just.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God told him and warned him of; and he saved himself there, not once nor twice- </p><p>I suggested on :9 that the Israelites didn't always obey Elisha's warnings and suffered because of it. But it seems the king did, and saved himself personally from capture several times. Yet he was a murderer (:32) and God's summary of his life is that he did evil. But he was preserved, because God sought his repentance. Even if that never happened ultimately.</p>


text:
<p>The heart of the king of Syria was very troubled about this. He called his servants, and said to them, Won’t you show me which of us is for the king of Israel?-</p><p>Naaman wanted to be a secret believer, even bowing down to Rimmon to keep his boss happy. God seems to have allowed this, but He worked in Naaman’s life, I suggest, so that his faith was no longer secret. For soon after his conversion, his master got the hunch that one of his courtiers was “for the king of Israel” (<a href='B:120 6:11'>2Ki 6:11</a>). And Naaman would have been the obvious suspect, as he had gone to Israel and been cured of his leprosy by an Israeli prophet. We then read that the army of Syria came against Elisha the prophet and sought to surround him in order to capture him. They were then judged by God. Could it really be so that Naaman would have led that army? Surely the situation arose so as to force Naaman to resign the job. Thus God worked to stop him being a secret believer, and to remove him from a position where he could not live with a free conscience before the Father. And so God will do in our lives- if we respond.</p><p>But another reading is possible, if we accept the suggestion on :8 that this happened before the events of 2 Kings 5. Naaman as commander of the army would have been aware of this strange action of Israel's God, whilst being also aware that Yahweh was giving him victory against Israel on the occasions when they did engage with and defeat them (<a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>). It was all setting him up for faith in Yahweh, even though His first introduction to Him was through beholding His apparently contradictory behaviour. And there are many former atheists, agnostics and skeptics who have a similar testimony.</p>


text:
<p>One of his servants said, No, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom- </p><p>If as suggested on :8, this happened before the events of 2 Kings 5::. then we see a theme being set up, of senior leadership humbling themselves to listen to their servants. The king of Syria listened to his servant and sent horses and chariots to Dothan (:13) because he believed the servant. And because Naaman believed his wife's servant girl, he also came to Samaria to Elisha with horses and chariots. And because he finally listened to his servants, he dipped in Jordan and was cured. And he also believed Elisha's servant Gehazi, with his story about needing clothes. God works like this, giving us examples in observed experience of others (in this case, the king believing his servant) in order to prepare us personally for similar challenges. We wonder too whether this servant of Benhadad was also an Israelite, just as Naaman's wife's servant was.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go and see where he is, that I may send and get him. It was told him saying, Behold, he is in Dothan- </p><p>Dothan was near Shechem, and yet it seems from 2 Kings 5 that Elisha also had a home in Samaria near to the king's palace. This knowledge that he was at that point in Dothan would suggest that the Syrian's servant of :12 was an Israelite with connections in Israel. And so the theme continues, of listening to and believing Israelite servants.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore he sent horses, chariots and a great army there. They came by night, and surrounded the city- </p><p>This was tacit reflection of the belief in the words of the Israelite servant, and was to be repeated when again Naaman came with horses and chariots to the home of Elisha in Samaria (assuming as suggested on :8 that these events happened before those of 2 Kings 5). Step by step, God was setting Naaman up to believe in Him. He responded, although his pride nearly got in the way. But God works likewise in so many lives, in such detail, and yet their pride stops them being led to the intended outcome, of faith and conversion.</p>


text:
<p>When the servant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was around the city. His servant said to him, Alas, my master! What shall we do?- </p><p>This servant was presumably Gehazi. If this is chronological [and the records often aren't], then this would have been at a point after Gehazi had been made a leper (<a href='B:120 5:27'>2Ki 5:27</a>). By saying he had gone nowhere (<a href='B:120 5:25'>2Ki 5:25</a>), he clearly lied to the Holy Spirit, as it were, as Ananias and Sapphira did. They were slain, again in a context of covetousness, whereas Gehazi was made a leper but was allowed to apparently continue serving Elisha, even though (see on <a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>) he was supposed to be quarantined away from society. His ministry was allowed to continue, but every moment of his subsequent life he would have been aware that he was only allowed to continue in the ministry by God's grace. Which should always be our view anyway. But this issue evaporates if as suggested on :8 these events happened before those of 2 Kings 5</p>


text:
<p>He answered, Don’t be afraid; for those who are with us are more than those who are with them- </p><p>The surrounding of Elisha's home in Samaria with the same horses and chariots in 2 Kings 5 would have been a scary experience. But Elisha doesn't even come out (remember as suggested on :8 that these events happened before those of 2 Kings 5). For he had learned from this experience that they were of no ultimate power. He was surrounded by the heavenly armies and chariots of Angels.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha prayed and said, Yahweh, please open his eyes, that he may see. Yahweh opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw that the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire around Elisha- </p><p>Elisha was so confident they were there, that he didn't ask to see them himself. He knew they were there; he simply asked that his servant be enabled to see the unseen reality which he calmly knew was there. He of course had had first hand experience of the Angelic horses and chariots (a kind of cherubim) when he had been parted from Elijah in <a href='B:120 2:11'>2Ki 2:11</a>. This must have left an abiding impression upon him- he knew that those Angelic horses and chariots were in fact permanently encamped around him (cp. <a href='B:230 34:7'>Psa 34:7</a>). And so we are surely to see significance in the way that Naaman came to Elisha's house with his horses and chariot- for this is surely a development of a theme of connection between Elisha, horses and chariots (<a href='B:120 5:9'>2Ki 5:9</a>). Most other Israelites would've been petrified to have the horses and chariots of Naaman and a company of Syrians pull up at their door. But Elisha was quite unfazed. He didn't even bother coming out to meet Naaman, knowing this was an insult to Naaman's pride, and was humanly certain to result in Naaman simply killing him and burning his house. Surely the horses-chariot-Elisha connection taught Elisha that in fact there were Angelic horses and chariots around him- he need not fear any human horse and chariot. There is no hint that Angelic activity is any less, or operates in any different way, for us today.</p>


text:
<p>When they came down to him, Elisha prayed to Yahweh, and said, Please strike this people with blindness. He struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha- </p><p>Elisha's game plan was that the Syrians be converted to Yahweh. Presumably (if as suggested on :8 these events happened before those of 2 Kings 5) Naaman was present at this time, and was also struck with blindness and then healed of it. This would have been another step along the way of being set up for faith that he could be healed of leprosy. "They", the Syrian troops including Naaman, came down to Elisha, who had presumably gone out of the city gate to meet them. It would have been Naaman's first meeting with Elisha. And no sooner had he seen him, he and his men were smitten with blindness. Naaman may have perceived the similarity with the smiting of the Sodomites with blindness as they stood before the door of God's prophet Lot (<a href='B:10 19:11'>Gen 19:11</a>). He would then have realized that he was being treated as a sinner.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to them, This is not the way, neither is this the city- </p><p>The idea was 'I am Elisha, but I usually live in Samaria, not here in Dothan. If you want to go to Elisha's house, I'll lead you there'.</p><p>Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek. He led them to Samaria- </p><p>This was to set up Naaman for again coming to Elisha's house in Samaria with his horses and chariots, to see Elisha (if as suggested on :8 these events happened before those of 2 Kings 5). Clearly this was all intended to create patterns in life which Naaman was to perceive by as it were joining the dots and seeing the picture.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when they had come into Samaria, that Elisha said, Yahweh, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. Yahweh opened their eyes, and they perceived that they were in the midst of Samaria- </p><p>They "perceived" this because many of them would never have been there before. The opening of eyes by Yahweh is often associated with spiritual vision, and this was the hope of Elisha. And it eventually worked for Naaman at least.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I strike them? Shall I strike them?- </p><p>Naaman would have realized that he was now without his horses and chariots of human strength, surrounded by Israelite soldiers eager to kill him. His only hope was salvation by the grace of Israel's God, and His prophet Elisha. And he was not disappointed. Slaying captives was permitted under the law (<a href='B:50 20:13'>Deu 20:13</a>), but Elisha is showing that the spirit of the law was actually far above and in contradiction to the letter of it in many places.</p>


text:
<p>He answered, You shall not strike them. Would you strike those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master- </p><p>"Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>; <a href='B:120 6:22'>2Ki 6:22</a>; <a href='B:130 5:18'>1Ch 5:18</a>; <a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>). The giving of food to captives and sending them back is exactly what was commanded later in <a href='B:140 28:15'>2Ch 28:15</a>. The Israelites were intended to learn from the grace which had been shown to the Syrian captives. This is a great theme of the historical books; that situations in essence repeated, because God's people are expected to learn from Biblical history. And that is the relevance of these records for us today. The Syrians, Naaman especially, were likewise to learn about the grace of Israel's God and His prophet Elisha. For not only were their lives spared but they were given every courtesy, and a feast which was counter instinctive to all their culture understood- whereby you killed your enemies and invaders. And this was all to climax in Naaman's cure of leprosy and conversion to Yahweh (if as suggested on :8 these events happened before those of 2 Kings 5).</p>


text:
<p>He prepared a great feast for them. When they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. The bands of Syria stopped raiding the land of Israel-</p><p>The way the King of Syria found his servants returning to him their master with stories of the amazing grace of the God of their enemy Israel was surely to try to bring him to conversion too (<a href='B:120 6:23'>2Ki 6:23</a>; <a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>). Israel were to be the light to the Gentile world around them, the righteous servant who showed light to the Gentiles. But they sadly failed. This is all a great example of grace turning away aggression. But although the bands stopped marauding Israel, the Syrians were to return "after this" (:24) not with marauding bands but with a great army. If as suggested on :8 the events of <a href='B:120 6:1-22'>2Ki 6:1-22</a> happened before those of 2 Kings 5, then perhaps we are to insert 2 Kings 5 at this point. But Israel didn't remain committed to Yahweh's grace, and the Syrians refused to live under the impression of it.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that Ben Hadad king of Syria gathered all his army, and went up and besieged Samaria- </p><p>For the chronology, see on :23. We have to assume that Naaman either died, lost his faith or resigned his position. The Biblical record leaves many such questions intentionally hanging open (such as did Jephthah kill his daughter), so that we might reflect and enter more fully into the narrative and explore the possibilities. This is now the third time we read of the Syrians coming into Israel with their armies; to Dothan, then to Samaria for Naaman to meet Elisha, and now they come to invade and take Samaria. They ought to have learned from their previous two experiences, as the king of Israel likewise should have learned faith in Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>There was a great famine in Samaria. Behold they besieged it, until a donkey’s head was sold for eighty pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver- </p><p>Famine was typically a punishment for apostacy. If Joram had gone out in faith and fought with Benhadad, then this situation need not have arisen. For there had been ample evidence in the besieging of Dothan that there were armies of Angelic help available. History repeated itself, in the hope that Israel would learn faith. And it does likewise in our lives. It was perhaps this same Benhadad who had been subjected by Ahab in 1 Kings 20. He was trying to get even with Israel, rather than humbly accept how he was being led like Naaman toward acceptance of Israel's God. Dove's dung was tiny, so this may have been a name for a very cheap kind of pulse, similar to how such food is called in German 'devil's dung', teufelsdreck.</p>


text:
<p>As the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried to him saying, Help, my lord, O king!- </p><p>Presumably houses were joined to the wall of the city, and therefore this woman was in close range of the king.</p>


text:
<p>He said, If Yahweh doesn’t help you, how could I help you? From the threshing floor, or from the winepress?- </p><p>The king states that he has no personal stocks of food for himself even, and so she needs to address herself to God and not himself. He was driven to faith in Yahweh in his extremity, and yet the summary of Joram's life is that he did evil before Yahweh. The faith of a moment is not the same as living by faith all life long.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to her, What ails you? She answered, This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow’- </p><p>This kind of argument about dead children, between two women apparently living in one house, recalls the case which was put to Solomon by the two prostitutes. But this king has no good answer, for he has no wisdom. His response is simply to kill Elisha, whom he blames for the overall situation.</p>


text:
<p>So we boiled my son, and ate him. I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him;’ and she has hidden her son- </p><p>This was in direct fulfilment of the curses for breaking the covenant (<a href='B:50 28:56-57'>Deu 28:56-57</a>). The answer to it was repentance and reaffirmation of the covenant. But instead the king seeks to kill Elisha. Had he repented and not been so proud as to prolong the siege, then this tragic situation would not have arisen. He personally was solely responsible for it, but he seeks to put the blame solely upon another individual, Elisha, who was totally innocent. It is a classic case of psychological transference of guilt. And it confirms the absolute psychological credibility of the Biblical records, in contrast to the uninspired histories of other nations, full as they are of exaggeration, lack of credibility and bias.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes (now he was passing by on the wall); and the people looked, and behold, he had sackcloth underneath on his flesh- </p><p>Such sackcloth was a symbol of both mourning and repentance. If he had repented, then the curses of the covenant would not have come upon the people (see on :29). But his sackcloth was not visible openly. Perhaps he did in a way privately want to repent, but not far enough. A vague personal whim that we need to repent is not enough.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stay on him this day- </p><p>Blaming Elisha, transferring his personal guilt onto him (see on :28) was exactly what the king of Syria had done, and had made his ill fated attack upon Dothan because of it. The king ought to have learned from this. But the whole account here is a parade example of men refusing to learn from Biblical history.</p>


text:
<p>But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him. Then the king sent a man from before him; but before the messenger came to him, he said to the elders- </p><p>Elisha's house had been visited before, both in Dothan and twice in Samaria, by the armies of Syria. The king ought to have perceived this parallel. In <a href='B:120 5:9'>2Ki 5:9</a>, Elisha sat in his house and messengers from a powerful man, Naaman the leper, came to him; and displayed an amazing calm before them. This situation repeated in <a href='B:120 6:32'>2Ki 6:32</a>, where Elisha again sits in his house and the messengers of an aggressive King came to him. The theme of lepers recurs in this latter context also (<a href='B:120 7:3'>2Ki 7:3</a>). And in <a href='B:120 5:18'>2Ki 5:18</a> we read of Naaman as a man upon whose arm a King (of Syria) leaned; and we find one of those sent to Elisha the second time was likewise "a lord upon whose hand the King (of Israel) leaned (<a href='B:120 7:2'>2Ki 7:2</a>).</p><p>Do you see how this son of a murderer has sent to take away my head? When the messenger comes, shut the door, and hold it shut against him. Isn’t the sound of his master’s feet behind him?- </p><p>The statement that the king and his father were murderers shows how sinful he was, and what grace God had shown him by saving his life (:10). This shows His long term patience and desire this man would come to repentance, even though he ultimately didn't. And He works likewise with men today.</p>


text:
<p>While he was still talking with them, the messenger came down to him. Then he said, This evil is from Yahweh. Why should I wait for Yahweh any longer?- </p><p>Elisha has an apparent roughness with the Almighty that could only surely come from his knowing that God fully viewed and knew his inner feelings. “Why should I wait for the Lord any longer?” (<a href='B:120 6:33'>2Ki 6:33</a> RV) expresses his exasperation, in words which are quite shocking to read- until we realize that our own hearts have probably harboured such basic feelings, even though never verbalized. The intimacy of other prophets with God is reflected in the roughness and familiarity which they sometimes use- take <a href='B:230 44:23-24'>Psa 44:23-24</a>: "Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, Lord? Awake! Do not cast us off for ever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression?".</p><p>Or we could assume that the king followed the messenger, running after him and only shortly behind him (:32) and therefore these words are the king's. <a href='B:120 7:17'>2Ki 7:17</a> makes it clear that the king himself came to Elisha at this time. He recognizes that evil is from Yahweh (not any cosmic satan figure, <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>). But that he is tired of following Elisha's constant message to "wait for Yahweh", in the spirit of many such statements in the Psalms.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said, Hear the word of Yahweh. Thus says Yahweh, ‘Tomorrow about this time a measure of fine flour will be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria’- </p><p>This follows straight on from the enigmatic <a href='B:120 6:33'>2Ki 6:33</a>, where either the king of Elisha have expressed frustration with waiting for Yahweh any longer. We would have expected God to consider that such an effective throwing off of patient waiting for Him meant that He would in turn give up with them. But instead, He gives His word of promise that six times as much food would be soon sold for a fifth of the price. This is typical of His grace, meeting human faithlessness with His response. Just as He had commanded Israel to not slay the Syrian captives but instead to give them a feast and let them return home. There is something senseless about grace, to the secular mind. And it is with that awareness that we are to live in this present world. Grace therefore makes us radically out of step with the world.</p>


text:
<p>Then the captain on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God and said, Behold, if Yahweh made windows in heaven, could this thing be? He said, You shall see it with your eyes, but shall not eat of it-</p><p>Clearly the king relied upon a faithless man as his second in command, and not upon Elisha. We note that the same term is used of faithful Naaman, a Syrian (<a href='B:120 5:18'>2Ki 5:18</a>). See on <a href='B:120 5:9'>2Ki 5:9</a>. It can be that we accept God's existence without really believing that He is, therefore, all powerful, and that all His attributes which the Bible reveals are actually functional and real for us today. The unfaithful captain forgot that there are windows in Heaven (<a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>; <a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a>) through which blessing can be given. He believed in God's existence. But he didn't think this God could do much, and he doubted whether He would ever practically intervene in human affairs. We must be aware of this same tendency. The man is punished as Moses was, able to see the promised land with his eyes but not experience it. And this will be the same kind of judgment given to all the condemned at the last day. They will see the Kingdom of God established, but be unable to enter it. This will be the reason for their gnashing of teeth.</p>


text:
<p>Now there were four leprous men at the entrance of the gate. They said one to another, Why do we sit here until we die?- </p><p>In <a href='B:120 5:9'>2Ki 5:9</a>, Elisha sat in his house and messengers from a powerful man, Naaman the leper, came to him; and displayed an amazing calm before them. This situation repeated in <a href='B:120 6:32'>2Ki 6:32</a>, where Elisha again sits in his house and the messengers of an aggressive King came to him. The theme of lepers recurs in this latter context also (<a href='B:120 7:3'>2Ki 7:3</a>). And in <a href='B:120 5:18'>2Ki 5:18</a> we read of Naaman as a man upon whose arm a King (of Syria) leaned; and we find one of those sent to Elisha the second time was likewise "a lord upon whose hand the King (of Israel) leaned (<a href='B:120 7:2'>2Ki 7:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>If we say, ‘We will enter into the city’, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there. If we sit still here, we also die. Now therefore come, and let us surrender to the army of the Syrians. If they save us alive, we will live; and if they kill us, we will only die- </p><p>I suggested on <a href='B:120 6:8'>2Ki 6:8</a> that the events of <a href='B:120 6:1-23'>2Ki 6:1-23</a> may have happened before those of 2 Kings 5, which concludes with Gehazi becoming a leper. We are tempted to imagine that one of these lepers was Gehazi. And yet God was not done with him, despite his conscienceless behaviour with Naaman. He was still able to have a ministry of sorts, to be used by God significantly. But he had to be brought to this point of desperation and death in order for that to happen.</p>


text:
<p>They rose up in the twilight, to go to the camp of the Syrians. When they had come to the outermost part of the camp of the Syrians, behold, there was no man there- </p><p>As lepers, they had to dwell outside the gates (<a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a>; <a href='B:40 5:2-3'>Num 5:2-3</a>). They must have longed for the Mosaic restrictions upon them to be lifted, recalling how Naaman the leper was allowed a prominent place in Syrian society despite being a leper. But it was thanks to obedience to those regulations that they actually saved Israel. For nobody else ventured outside the city gates to apparent certain death at the hands of the Syrians.</p>


text:
<p>For the Lord had made the army of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great army. They said one to another, Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come on us- </p><p>Elisha had been full of faith in the presence of the Angelic horses and chariots when the Syrians surrounded Dothan. And he was not lacking in such faith now, although one could read <a href='B:120 6:33'>2Ki 6:33</a> as meaning that in fact his faith was at a very low ebb indeed. Yet despite that low level of faith, God still came through for him. The same horses and chariots of Angels which he had seen in the removal of Elijah, and which he had believed in during the siege of Dothan::. were still present. The ears of the Syrians were opened to hear their noise, as Gehazi's eyes had been opened to see them.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their donkeys, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life- </p><p>This irrational flight of armies, or fighting amongst themselves because of some irrational fear, is typical of how God destroys His enemies. He prefers to work by His Spirit acting directly upon the minds of men, rather than by the swords of His people. For it seems therefore not His preferred will that His people should take the sword themselves, even though He does work through that sometimes. The Syrians had been made to believe such haste was required that they hadn't even fled upon horses, but had left the animals still tethered. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>When these lepers came to the outermost part of the camp, they went into one tent, and ate and drank, and carried from there silver, and gold, and clothing, and went and hid it. Then they came back and entered into another tent, and carried from there also, and went and hid it-</p><p>The desperate, starving lepers found great treasure and went and hid it. The Lord used this as the basis for His parable about the man who finds the Gospel, as the treasure in a field, and hides it. But surely He intended us to think of what those men did afterwards. “They said one to another, We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace”. They even felt that woe would be unto them if they did not share the good news of what they had found. The same joyful urgency must be ours.</p>


text:
<p>Then they said one to another, We aren’t doing the right thing. This day is a day of good news, and we keep silent. If we wait until the morning light, punishment will overtake us. Now therefore come, let us go and tell the king’s household- </p><p>We see here the sin of failing to share the Gospel. For those men were types of us (<a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a>). Their position is so imaginable, and the Divine cameraman is focused in close up upon them. Their recorded conversation is absolutely credible and imaginable.</p>


text:
<p>So they came and called to the porter of the city and said, We came to the camp of the Syrians, and, behold, there was no man there, neither voice of man, but the horses tied, and the donkeys tied, and the tents as they were- </p><p>The animals being still tied indicates the absolute sense of urgency which fell upon them, fleeing on foot because they had no time to untether their horses. This was the extent of the Divine hand upon their minds.</p>


text:
<p>He called the porters; and they told it to the king’s household within- </p><p>As lepers they were not allowed inside the city gates. The Israelites were forced to believe good news, the Gospel, from the mouths of the most wretched and desperate people on planet earth at that time. This clearly looks forward to our witness, for the Lord's parable of treasure hid in a field (<a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a>) makes those men types of us.</p>


text:
<p>The king arose in the night and said to his servants, I‘ll tell you what the Syrians are doing to us. They know that we are hungry. Therefore are they gone out of the camp to hide themselves in the field saying, ‘When they come out of the city, we shall take them alive, and get into the city’- </p><p>Despite Elisha's prophetic word to him about a dramatic change in situation (:1), the king was not open to the possibility of it having any fulfilment. He wasn't looking for a fulfilment, and was skeptical of any hint that it might be forthcoming. And yet the word still came true, and the blessing of God's grace was given to the undeserving. Perhaps the whole incident was for the sake of the salvation of Elisha, Gehazi and the other three lepers. For God can involve huge numbers of people in situations which finally work out in the salvation of a minority.</p>


text:
<p>One of his servants answered, Please let some men take five of the horses that remain in the city. Behold, they are like all the multitude of Israel who are left in it. They would perish anyway, like all the many Israelites who have already died. Let us send and see- </p><p>This servant has the same mentality as the lepers- that death is now near, and so there is no harm in risking further loss or death, because it will come anyway. The lepers are thereby connected with those whom they were separated from. They had the same mentality.</p>


text:
<p>They took therefore two chariots with horses; and the king sent after the army of the Syrians saying, Go and see- </p><p>We recall that the king of Israel was not to have chariots and horses (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a>), and here we see how in any case, such human strength could not save them.</p>


text:
<p>They went after them to the Jordan; and behold, all the way was full of garments and vessels, which the Syrians had cast away in their haste. The messengers returned and told the king- </p><p>They had been so affected by the Spirit of God working directly upon their hearts that they had fled on foot, and not even untied their horses to flee upon them (:7). It seems the panic got even stronger, for they threw away even their own clothes and armour in order to run faster.</p>


text:
<p>The people went out, and plundered the camp of the Syrians. So a measure of fine flour was sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, according to the word of Yahweh- </p><p>The besieging army had their own supplies, which were now pillaged. In their desperation they would have not minded mixing with the four lepers who had saved them.</p>


text:
<p>The king appointed the captain on whose hand he leaned to be in charge of the gate; and the people trod on him in the gate, and he died as the man of God had said when the king came down to him- </p><p>This means that in <a href='B:120 6:33'>2Ki 6:33</a>, the king himself and not just his messenger went down to Elisha's house, perhaps intending himself to have Elisha slain before his eyes.</p>


text:
<p>(It happened, as the man of God had spoken to the king saying, Two measures of barley for a shekel, and a measure of fine flour for a shekel, shall be tomorrow about this time in the gate of Samaria- </p><p>Perhaps this was the same open space where the false prophets had gathered and mocked Yahweh's words (<a href='B:110 22:10'>1Ki 22:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and that captain answered the man of God and said, Now, behold, if Yahweh should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, you shall see it with your eyes, but shall not eat of it- </p><p>The fulfilment of the prophecy over the mocking of the captain is laboriously stressed. The implication is that there was such an urgent stampede that the man literally didn't have time to eat of the food. Although he was apparently the second in command (:2), he had not himself gone out to the camp of the Syrians. He remained inside the city until the food and spoil had been brought into it. He just didn't want to see God's word come true, even though it meant blessing for starving people. This was all due to pride, and the related fear of being proven wrong before God.</p>


text:
<p>It happened like that to him; for the people trod on him in the gate, and he died- </p><p>Death by trampling underfoot was seen as seen as a death of shame. Perhaps the people intentionally did this to him because he was trying to limit their access to the food, desperate by all means to stop the fulfilment of the prophecies which he had mocked. He may well have been the same officer as in <a href='B:120 8:6'>2Ki 8:6</a> (see note there and on <a href='B:120 8:1'>2Ki 8:1</a>), who had previously witnessed the accounts of the power of Elisha. He was therefore the more reprehensible and accountable for his mockery of Elisha's words.</p>


text:
<p>Now Elisha had spoken to the woman whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise and go, you and your household, and stay for a while wherever you can; for Yahweh has called for a famine. It shall also come on the land seven years- </p><p>The famine of <a href='B:120 6:25'>2Ki 6:25</a> was because of the siege by the Syrians, but it seems the people didn't learn from the events of 2 Kings 7. The king and his captain had been in denial of the fulfilment of God's word right to the end. They were not reformed by the famine caused by siege, and so now a major famine is called for. We notice the contrast with how Elijah himself called for a famine (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>), "according to my word". Elisha seems to have reflected upon Elijah's arrogance which had led to his dismissal as the lead prophet. And he expresses the call for a famine in far more humble, God-centred words.</p><p>However, the record in Kings isn't chronological. We are given cameos from the ministry of Elisha arranged according to theme and not chronology:&nbsp; These seven years famine may be the famine of <a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>, which was at the very time that Elisha had restored this woman's son to life. This would explain why Gehazi was not yet a leper, and could freely talk with the king:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The woman arose, and did according to the word of the man of God. She went with her household, and lived in the land of the Philistines seven years- </p><p>This was a major act of obedience, especially as it resulted in living amongst the Philistines. Although she herself was likely&nbsp; Gentile, perhaps a Philistine. It is typical of God's grace that He would work with a Philistine, and a female- despised generally within Israelite society. The intention of the famine was to elicit repentance, and perhaps she was one of the few who had already repented and so didn't need the famine experience. "Seven years" may be an idiom or symbolic period and not literal.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after the seven years, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines. Then she went forth to plead to the king for her house and for her land- </p><p>It appears someone else had taken her land and house whilst she was away, and as a Philistine and a female head of house, apparently with no man around to plead for her, she was in a very weak position. It must have been through the good offices of Elisha that she even got a hearing with the king.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God saying, Please tell me all the great things that Elisha has done- </p><p>I noted on :1 that the events in the record of Elisha's life aren't in chronological order. So if this happened at the time of <a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>, Gehazi was not yet a leper. However it could be that he repented and was healed of his leprosy, or that laws about lepers were not strictly enforced; we recall that Naaman as a leper had free access to his king and a place in Syrian society. And Gehazi would now be conducting his ministry with an appropriate sense of humility. King Jehoram is summarized overall as a wicked king, but perhaps he had some sense of conscience, and just as Herod was desirous to hear from John the Baptist, so he wished to learn more about Elisha's ministry.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him who was dead, that the woman whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son whom Elisha restored to life- </p><p>It was perhaps orchestrated by Elisha that the woman approached the king whilst Gehazi was before him. Otherwise we can see this as a typical outcome of the hand of providence. The restoration of dead man to life was clearly the most gripping of all the Elisha stories, and then the mother of the man appears on the scene. God was really trying to persuade the king of the power of His word. And yet ultimately he refused to accept it in his own life.</p>


text:
<p>When the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed to her a certain officer saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now-</p><p>This latter provision was effectively a punishment for the person who had taken her land. Or it could be that the king himself had taken possession of the land, and now repents. This would explain the ease with which he rectifies the situation and can give the woman all the harvest she would otherwise have had in those seven years, which an ordinary farmer would not have been able to do. We wonder if this was the same officer of 2 Kings 7, seeing that the events are not arranged chronologically. In this case he was the more reprehensible for his mockery of Elisha's prophecy that food would be made instantly available during the siege of Samaria.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha came to Damascus; and Ben Hadad the king of Syria was sick. It was told him saying, The man of God has come here- </p><p>Ben Hadad is a generic term for the Syrian kings, like Pharaoh for the Egyptian rulers. As noted on :1, it is hard to work out exactly where this fits in to the chronological sequence. It could well have been after the events of Naaman in 2 Kings 5, seeing that the seven years famine began it seems at the time of <a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>. Elisha may well have also intended making a pastoral visit to his convert Naaman.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Hazael, Take a present in your hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of Yahweh by him, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’- </p><p>Hazael appears to have been the army commander. Depending upon the chronology (see on :1), he may have replaced Naaman, who as a convert to Yahweh wished to resign from his position or just fade out of the limelight of senior leadership. If this was after the events of 2 Kings 5, then he would have recalled how Naaman had been healed by Elisha. He lacks the faith to ask Elisha to heal him, although that may be implicit in his request. He took a present for Elisha as Naaman had done; and thanks to the deception of Gehazi, he would have been under the impression that Elisha had accepted a present for healing Naaman.</p>


text:
<p>So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him and said, Your son Ben Hadad king of Syria has sent me to you, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’-</p><p>The language of good things, presents, camels and coming and standing before Elisha recalls how Naaman came with similar things and stood before Elisha's house, seeking healing. It seems almost certain that these things happened after the time of 2 Kings 5.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to him, Go, tell him, ‘You shall surely recover;’ however Yahweh has shown me that he shall surely die- </p><p>The word / Gospel will inevitably have a result, and yet it is also limited by the attitudes of men. The widow woman was told to borrow pots in which to place the oil which would be miraculously provided. The extent of the miracle was limited by the number and size of the pots she borrowed in faith. Or take <a href='B:120 8:10'>2Ki 8:10</a> AV: “Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely die”. Ben-Hadad could recover, it was possible in prospect, but God knew he would not fulfil certain preconditions, and therefore he would not. Or the idea may be that Hazael is told to tell the dying king that he would recover, as a courtier was supposed to bring only good news; although in fact, he was going to die.</p>


text:
<p>He settled his gaze steadfastly on him, until he was ashamed. Then the man of God wept- </p><p>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>). Yet significantly, 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. Elisha was effectively doing what Elijah ought to have done- anointing Hazael as king over Syria.</p>


text:
<p>Hazael said, Why do you weep, my lord? He answered, Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child- </p><p>The command to Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Syria (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>) was therefore part of God's intended judgments upon Israel for their sins. There is no specific record of Hazael doing this, but in the records of his attacks upon Israel we are therefore to assume that he did so at those times (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>; <a href='B:120 13:3'>2Ki 13:3</a>; <a href='B:120 13:22'>2Ki 13:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hazael said, But what is your servant, is he a dog, that he should do this awful thing? Elisha answered, Yahweh has shown me that you will be king over Syria- </p><p>This may have been mere politeness to Elisha. He was indeed what Israel would call a "dog", a Gentile. His denial of this may mean that he wanted to give the impression that like Naaman whom he had replaced, he was a proselyte.</p>


text:
<p>Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him, What did Elisha say to you? He answered, He told me that you would surely recover- </p><p>This may have been a polite lie sanctioned by Elisha, or perhaps a literal repeat of Elisha's message, but only part of it. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>It happened on the next day, that he took a thick cloth, dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died. Then Hazael reigned in his place-</p><p>If he had had true faith in the prophetic word, he would have surely waited for Hazael to die and then taken over from him. But on the other hand, he did believe what Elisha had said, and was impatient to get on and be the king Elisha said he would be. And so he forced the fulfilment of the prophecy by murdering Benhadad. LXX "coverlet" may mean he did it in such a way that it was not perceived as murder. For the body would have shown no signs of violence. We see here how a man can have both faith and unbelief within him at the same time. We are all the same, like the man who said he believed but asked for help with his unbelief (<a href='B:480 9:24'>Mar 9:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being king of Judah then, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign- </p><p><a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a> says Joram son of Ahab began reigning in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat of Judah. It seems that Jehoram reigned alongside his father Jehoshaphat:&nbsp; Putting together <a href='B:110 22:42'>1Ki 22:42</a>; <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>; <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>; <a href='B:120 8:16'>2Ki 8:16</a>, Jehoram began reigning as regent in around the 17th year of Jehoshaphat, and yet he was reaffirmed as king two years before Jehoshaphat died (:17).</p>


text:
<p>He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign. He reigned eight years in Jerusalem- </p><p>Putting together <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>; <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>; <a href='B:120 8:3'>2Ki 8:3</a>; <a href='B:120 8:16'>2Ki 8:16</a>; <a href='B:140 21:5'>2Ch 21:5</a>; <a href='B:140 21:20'>2Ch 21:20</a>, it seems Jehoram became king as regent about two years before Jehoshaphat died.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab as wife. He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>His wife was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri (<a href='B:140 22:2'>2Ch 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>). "Athaliah", 'Yah has constrained', may mean that she was bitter that Yahweh had as it were limited her; the same groundless complaint as in <a href='B:540 6:12'>2Co 6:12</a>.</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>


text:
<p>However, Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David His servant’s sake, as He promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always- </p><p>That promise was understood by God at this stage as meaning that a descendant of David would continue to reign on David's throne "always", and therefore He did not destroy Judah. However, He did eventually. He reinterpreted and reapplied His words of promise. And He does this often with the various possible futures prophesied. His word is not proven false but He reapplies it, as He continues His purpose with respect for the freewill decisions of man.</p>


text:
<p>In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves- </p><p>A sad decline from the situation in his father's time (<a href='B:140 17:10'>2Ch 17:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Joram passed over to Zair, and all his chariots with him. He rose up by night, and struck the Edomites who surrounded him, and the captains of the chariots; and the people fled to their tents- </p><p>We note that horses and chariots were forbidden to Israel's king (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a>). Yet it seems that his chariots and captains prevailed against those of Edom, even when he was surrounded and about to be defeated. Perhaps this was a repeat of the situations of <a href='B:140 13:15'>2Ch 13:15</a>; <a href='B:140 18:31'>2Ch 18:31</a>, where weak believers in their time of need called to God when surrounded by enemies, and were heard. This reflects God's deep sensitivity to faith in Him, even in time of desperation. And yet His final judgment is of the state of a person's heart.</p>


text:
<p>So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time- </p><p>Libnah was a priestly city (<a href='B:130 6:47'>1Ch 6:47</a>), but the tribes seem to have given the Levites towns which were not particularly valuable to them, or which were exposed to attack. Contrary to the spirit of David, they offered to God that which cost them nothing. And we must take a lesson from that. Some manuscripts read “Then did the Edomites who dwelt in Libnah revolt”. So Libnah had been taken over by Edomites and was formerly only technically under Israelite control.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not necessarily the same books we have in our Bibles known as 1 and 2 Chronicles.</p>


text:
<p>Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:1'>2Ch 22:1</a> adds: "The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his place; for the band of men who came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the older ones". It could be that this band of men had preserved Ahaziah and were seeking for him to be a puppet king for them. And the fact his mother immediately took the throne after his death hints again at this.</p>


text:
<p>Twenty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel- </p><p>In fact the granddaughter of Omri. "Athaliah", 'Yah has constrained', may mean that she was bitter that Yahweh had as it were limited her; the same groundless complaint as in <a href='B:540 6:12'>2Co 6:12</a>. Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign (<a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>), but 42 in <a href='B:140 22:2'>2Ch 22:2</a>. LXX has 20. But in Biblical Hebrew, numbers were expressed by single letters, and mem, forty, is very similar in orthography to caph, twenty. And that difference is even more probable in ancient Hebrew or 'Samaritan'. So this appears to be a case of where there were indeed slight errors in copying the Divinely inspired text.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as did the house of Ahab; for he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:3'>2Ch 22:3</a> adds: "He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab; for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly". </p><p>His father had done the same (<a href='B:140 21:6'>2Ch 21:6</a>). So much sin and spiritual failure is due to a refusal to individuate from parental influence and be an independent person before God. "Counsellor" suggests she specifically instructed him in the ways of idolatry; and it was by listening to the wrong counsel that Rehoboam went wrong when the kingdom of Judah first began (s:w. <a href='B:140 10:8-9'>2Ch 10:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He went with Joram the son of Ahab to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth Gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram- </p><p>Ahaziah was clearly intended to have learned from the experience of Jehoshaphat, who also went to war with Syria at Ramoth Gilead and was nearly slain there. He was only saved by grace, and afterwards experienced God's wrath for going there (<a href='B:140 16:2'>2Ch 16:2</a>). Circumstances and similarities repeat within our lives, and between our lives and those of people in the Biblical histories, in order that we might learn. Jehoram is called "Joram" within this same verse, perhaps because the name of God was no longer part of his name in practice.</p>


text:
<p>King Joram returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick- </p><p>As noted on :28, Ahaziah failed to perceive the similarities with the situation of Jehoshaphat. And this was to lead to his death (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets and said to him, Put your belt on your waist, take this vial of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead- </p><p>King Joram had gone away from the fighting to Jezreel, having been lightly wounded (so :15,21 imply- he was able to ride his chariot quite fine). This would not have sat well with the soldiers under Jehu who remained defending Ramoth Gilead, and so Jehu as the army commander was going to be a popular choice as next leader. Elijah had been told to anoint Jehu and Hazael, but it seems he did neither of those things, and Elisha is now doing it.</p>


text:
<p>When you come there, find Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in, and make him arise up from among his brothers, and carry him to an inner room- </p><p>Jehu was exalted from amongst his brethren as was the Lord Jesus Christ (<a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a>; <a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a>) and taken up into a chamber within a chamber (AVmg), cp. the most holy place / Heaven itself. There Jehu was anointed, made Lord and Christ, and then the people placed their garments underneath him (:13) and proclaimed him to the world as King of Israel. This symbolic incident teaches a clear lesson- the exaltation of Jesus should lead us to be witnesses for Him. The wonder and joy of it alone, that one of us, one of our boys, a man like us::. should be so exalted.</p>


text:
<p>Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I have anointed you king over Israel’. Then open the door, flee, and don’t wait- </p><p>Elijah doesn't actually do what he was told; he didn't personally anoint Jehu nor Hazael to destroy Israel (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</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 judgment to come upon Israel, and didn't want it to come. The prophet was maybe told to leave immediately because Jehu was to be left to use his own initiative in how to take things forward now.</p>


text:
<p>So the young man, even the young man the prophet, went to Ramoth Gilead- </p><p>His being a "prophet" is stressed, because it was through the prophetic word that Jehu was to become king.</p>


text:
<p>When he came, behold, the captains of the army were sitting. Then he said, I have a message for you, captain. Jehu said, To which of us all here? He said, To you, O captain- </p><p>Jehu takes the initiative in asking the messenger to whom he is sent. This suggests he was already the de facto leader of the army captains now that the king had left the front and returned to Jezreel under the pretext of having had a slight wound:&nbsp; They were apparently sitting in a courtyard, perhaps having been discussing battle plans; for the prophet and Jehu now go "into the house" (:6).</p>


text:
<p>He arose, and went into the house. Then he poured the oil on his head and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘I have anointed you king over the people of Yahweh, even over Israel- </p><p>There is the reminder that God didn't really want human kings, and He was their real king. We also note that God considered Himself the king of the apostate ten tribes, just as much as over Judah through the Davidic line. All such divisions within God's people are not visible from God's perspective.</p>


text:
<p>You shall strike the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yahweh, at the hand of Jezebel- </p><p>Ahab had apparently repented in humility and had been accepted. But this didn't mean that his family were not going to be punished for his sins; there were still consequences for his sins, not least because it seems they continued in his sins.</p>


text:
<p>For the whole house of Ahab shall perish. I will cut off from Ahab every male, both him who is shut up and him who is left at large in Israel- </p><p>"He who is shut up and he who is left free" is apparently an idiom referring to children still shut up at home, and those who are free to move about independently. The meaning would then be "young and old".</p>


text:
<p>I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah- </p><p>The extreme judgment pronounced was because of the great potentials God had enabled for Jeroboam (see <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>; <a href='B:110 14:10'>1Ki 14:10</a>). But he refused to realize them. We live in an age of great potentials. We are generally literate, mobile, with easy access to God's word; and many members of the body of Christ live in relative ease and luxury, free from persecution. The potentials for service are far higher for the average believer today than they were centuries ago. So this issue of judgment according to wasted potentials is so relevant to our age. Baasha had failed to learn the lessons of Jeroboam and so he was judged in the same way (<a href='B:110 16:3-4'>1Ki 16:3-4</a>). And the house of Ahab had likewise not learned these lessons.</p>


text:
<p>The dogs will eat Jezebel on the plot of ground of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her’. He opened the door, and fled- </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>Then Jehu came forth to the servants of his lord; and one said to him, Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you? He said to them, You know the man and what his talk was- </p><p>"You know the man", because he was dressed in the distinctive clothing of the prophets. Jehu tries to initially pass him off as a typical mad prophet, reflecting his disrespect of the prophetic word. See on :22,26,35,37. The prophets were often perceived as mad. And indeed the pressure upon them was great indeed. The psychological strengthening of the prophets (see on <a href='B:330 2:4-6'>Eze 2:4-6</a>) was absolutely necessary- for no human being can live in a constant state of inspiration without breaking. The composer Tchaikovsky commented: “If that condition of mind and soul, which we call inspiration, lasted long without intermission, no artist could survive it. The strings would break and the instruments be shattered into fragments” (Rosa Newmarch, The Life And Letters Of Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky (New York: Vienna House, 1973 ed:) pp. 274,275). The whole tremendous experience of having God’s mind in them, sharing His perspective, seeing the world through His eyes, made the prophets appear crazy to others. There’s a marked emphasis upon the fact that they were perceived as madmen (e:g. <a href='B:300 29:24'>Jer 29:24</a>; <a href='B:300 29:26'>Jer 29:26</a>; <a href='B:350 9:7'>Hos 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 9:11'>2Ki 9:11</a>). For us to walk down a street for even ten minutes, feeling and perceiving and knowing the sin of every person in those rooms and houses and yards, feeling the weeping of God over each of them… would send us crazy. And yet God strengthened the prophets, and there’s no reason to think that He will not as it were strengthen us in our sensitivity too.</p>


text:
<p>They said, That is a lie. Tell us now. He said, He told me, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I have anointed you king over Israel’- </p><p>Although he appeared mad, they correctly perceived that he was not and that likely he was a prophet with a message. People have a way of perceiving Divine truth when they encounter it. What they later do with it, or whether they then deny it, is another question. We get the impression Jehu rather blurts out the absolute truth. The record has every ring of psychological credibility.</p>


text:
<p>Then they hurried, and took every man his garment, and put it under him on the top of the stairs and blew the trumpet, saying, Jehu is king-</p><p>As noted on :1, they were army captains who were disillusioned with Joram and were psychologically open to this prophetic message at this time- although not from spiritual motives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi conspired against Joram. (Now Joram was keeping Ramoth Gilead, he and all Israel, because of Hazael king of Syria- </p><p>As noted on :1, Joram as king was commander in chief of the army, and was defending Ramoth Gilead against the Syrians under Hazael, whom God had anointed to judge Israel. Yet He was also working through Jehu to judge Joram and the house of Ahab.</p>


text:
<p>but king Joram had returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria). Jehu said, If this is your thinking, then let no one escape and go out of the city to go to tell it in Jezreel-</p><p>See on :1. Jehu clearly intended to kill Joram and so he didn't want him to have advanced warning. For he was in Jezreel. LXX "If your mind be with me" begins the theme we will see developed in :18, that Jehu was on an ego trip, and demanded people follow him personally (:18 etc:).</p>


text:
<p>So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. Ahaziah king of Judah had come down to see Joram- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a> comments: "Now the destruction of Ahaziah was of God, in that he went to Joram". This is not guilt by association, but rather a case of bad company resulting in sharing in the judgments of those we prefer to company with. </p><p>There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>Now the watchman was standing on the tower in Jezreel, and he spied the company of Jehu as he came, and said, I see a company. Joram said, Take a horseman, and send to meet them, and let him say, ‘Is it peace?’- </p><p>The zoom of the Divine cameraman is close in on the scene. Jehu was clearly not alone and had taken some of the army with him from Ramoth Gilead. The one horseman is seen by us from the tower on the wall, drawing closer to the larger group racing toward him. We feel the atmosphere of foreboding and imminent tragedy.</p>


text:
<p>So there went one on horseback to meet him and said, Thus says the king, ‘Is it peace?’ Jehu said, What do you have to do with peace? Fall in behind me! The watchman said, The messenger came to them, but he isn’t coming back- </p><p>As noted on :15, there is a theme here of Jehu wanting people to follow him personally. He comes over as being on an ego trip, using the apparent service of God and judgment of apostacy as an opportunity to flaunt his own ego. And that is not unheard of today.</p>


text:
<p>Then he sent out a second on horseback, who came to them, and said, Thus says the king, ‘Is it peace?’ Jehu answered, What do you have to do with peace? Fall in behind me!- </p><p>Again "fall in behind me" suggests a man on an ego trip. See on :18; <a href='B:120 10:15'>2Ki 10:15</a>. Jehu was using the old argument 'We cannot have peace until we judge apostacy'. But like many who use that argument, they despise the concept of peace, when this is one of the fruits of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The watchman said, He came to them, and isn’t coming back. The driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he drives angrily- </p><p>We sense the native anger of Jehu reflected in the style of driving and lack of care for his horses which was well know; but it was now apparently channeled into serving God by judging others. Again, this ancient character speaks to so many of our age, who use the judgment of apostacy as a mere vehicle for their own anger, rather than genuinely serving God to His glory.</p>


text:
<p>Joram said, Get ready! They got his chariot ready. Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out to meet Jehu, and found him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a> says that Ahaziah "went out with Jehoram against Jehu"; perhaps not merely to meet him; although "against" can simply mean that they faced off against each other. See on :23. They met with Jehu almost as soon as leaving the palace, for they met at the vineyard of Naboth, which was next to Ahab's palace (<a href='B:110 21:1'>1Ki 21:1</a>). It was Divinely overruled that the meeting was at the vineyard of Naboth which Ahab had wrongfully stolen from him, as Joram had apparently not returned the land to Naboth's family. He was not penitent for the sins of his father but continued in them.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? He answered, What peace, so long as the prostitution of your mother Jezebel and her witchcraft abound?- </p><p>The last time Joram had seen Jehu was at Ramoth Gilead, when they had been fighting against the Syrians together. Jehu realized that his Divine remit was to judge the family of Ahab and Jezebel for her Baal worship, and especially her encouragement of others to do it [her "prostitution"]. And yet Jehu as a typical member of the ten tribe kingdom was likely also an idolater, and had spoken most disparagingly of Yahweh's prophet in :22.</p>


text:
<p>Joram turned around to flee- </p><p>Just as Ahab his father did before being slain (<a href='B:110 22:34'>1Ki 22:34</a>).</p><p>And said to Ahaziah, There is treason, Ahaziah!- </p><p>This was the first Joram had sensed, it seems, of the putsch. He had presumably assumed that Jehu was racing towards Jezreel with news of events from the conflict with the Syrians at Ramoth Gilead. He may have been giving Ahaziah a chance to get away, as Ahaziah did manage to flee (:27) and managed to hide in Samaria before being found (<a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehu drew his bow with his full strength, and struck Joram between his arms; and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot- </p><p>LXX "Sunk down upon his knees". He was finally humbled, all too late. We sense Jehu's great physical strength, and his dependence upon that rather than God's strength. He comes over as strong, angry (see on :20), judgmental and on a massive ego trip (see on :18,19).</p>


text:
<p>Then Jehu said to Bidkar his captain, Pick him up, and throw him in the plot of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite; for remember how, when you and I rode together after Ahab his father, Yahweh laid this burden on him- </p><p>Jehu and Bidkar had been with Ahab when he went to take possession of Naboth's vineyard, and would have heard Elijah's words to Ahab.</p>


text:
<p>‘Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons’, says Yahweh; ‘and I will repay you in this plot of ground’, says Yahweh. Now therefore take and cast him onto the plot of ground, according to the word of Yahweh- </p><p>This reported speech is not actually a quotation but rather an interpretation of <a href='B:110 21:19'>1Ki 21:19</a>. Again we see Jehu not really respecting the word of Yahweh which he claimed to be so obedient to. See on :11,22. The taking possession of the vineyard by Ahab 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 (as we learn only here) so that they would not have any argument for inheriting it later. Ahab reasoned 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.</p>


text:
<p>But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. Jehu followed after him, and said, Strike him also in the chariot!- </p><p>It seems however that he escaped from his chariot. <a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a> says that Jehu "Sought Ahaziah, and they caught him (now he was hiding in Samaria), and they brought him to Jehu, and killed him". Putting the records together, it seems that Ahaziah fled in his chariot through the garden house road (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), avoiding Jehu's call to slay him in his chariot. He got to Samaria and hid somewhere, Jehu's men searched for him and found him (<a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a>), brought him to Jehu who was then "by Ibleam" (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), who struck him so hard that he eventually died of it, but he managed to again escape in his chariot to Megiddo, where he died of the wounds inflicted by Jehu.</p><p>They struck him at the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleam. He fled to Megiddo, and died there- </p><p>In the list of cities given to the Levites, this is called "Bileam". "Bileam" means 'not of the people', called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>His servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his tomb with his fathers in the city of David- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a> adds: "They buried him, for they said, He is the descendant of Jehoshaphat, who sought Yahweh with all his heart".</p>


text:
<p>In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah-</p><p>Ahaziah was Ahab's grandson because of the intermarriage between the rulers of Israel and Judah. So Jehu did have a commission to kill him. But it would seem from <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a> that Ahaziah could have avoided this had he not shown unity with Joram by visiting him when he was sick. Such is the flexibility of God's purpose, with so many potentials built into it, ever respecting the possibility of human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>When Jehu had come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her eyes, and attired her head, and looked out at the window- </p><p>Presumably this means she placed the crown upon her head. It seems the royal palace was on the wall of the city by the gate (:31), with Naboth's vineyard just next to it but outside the city limits (<a href='B:110 21:1'>1Ki 21:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As Jehu entered in at the gate she said, Do you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?- </p><p>Zimri had slain his master some time before and was famed for it (<a href='B:110 16:9-20'>1Ki 16:9-20</a>). So she is effectively calling Jehu "You Zimri!", pointing out that servants who slay their masters never have peace. Zimri slew all the male descendants of Baasha in fulfilment of God's word, and Jezebel was surely aware that Ahab was under the same judgment. She is arrogant to the end, saying that the man who fulfilled Yahweh's word (as Jehu was about to) had no peace. For he committed suicide after reigning only seven days.</p>


text:
<p>He lifted up his face to the window and said, Who is on my side? Who? Two or three eunuchs looked out at him-</p><p>Again, Jehu expresses things in terms of people being on his side and following him personally; see on :18,19. The reference to "two or three" may allude to how two or three witnesses were required to condemn (<a href='B:50 17:6'>Deu 17:6</a>; <a href='B:50 19:15'>Deu 19:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He said, Throw her down! So they threw her down; and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses. Then he trampled her under foot- </p><p>The blood on the wall suggests she may have put up a struggle and the eunuchs had attacked her, leaving her bleeding. To trample under foot was to despise.</p>


text:
<p>When he had come in, he ate and drank; and he said, See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter- </p><p>The eating and drinking was a sign of having taken power, and was likely a small feast to celebrate himself as king. Clearly Jezebel had no supporters amongst her retainers. She was daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon. By wanting to bury her, Jehu showed his lack of knowledge or respect of the word of Divine judgment against her, which said she would not be buried (:37). And yet he claimed to be so zealous in fulfilling it. Clearly he was grabbing hold of bits and pieces of God's word, and seeking to fulfil them as an excuse for giving his own ego and blood lust full reign. He is so similar to over zealous 'defenders of the faith' of our age.</p>


text:
<p>They went to bury her; but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands- </p><p>Nobody was concerned with her corpse, showing how unpopular she was. Nobody chased the wild dogs away from eating her. She is set up as representative of all whom God will finally reject, cast out of the city to the wild dogs in the rubbish tip in the small valley beneath the city walls (:36). And nobody will feel sorry for them. In the last day, we will see things differently, and from God's perspective. All questions about God's justice will evaporate.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they came back, and told him. He said, This is the word of Yahweh which He spoke by His servant Elijah the Tishbite saying, ‘The dogs will eat the flesh of Jezebel on the plot 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>and the body of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel, so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel’- </p><p>Jehu clearly intended to give her some kind of burial (see on :35), but this was not according to the very prophetic word which Jehu claimed to be so zealous to fulfil. He comes over as consistently insincere and not truly respectful of God's word. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>Now Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. Jehu wrote letters and sent to Samaria, to the rulers of Jezreel, even the elders, and to those who brought up the sons of Ahab, saying- </p><p>As noted throughout 2 Kings 9, Jehu now had blood lust, and his huge ego sought to fulfil it through the excuse that he was obeying God's word against Ahab. He was indeed fulfilling that word, but he didn't respect Yahweh's word in his heart (see on <a href='B:120 9:11'>2Ki 9:11</a>; <a href='B:120 9:35'>2Ki 9:35</a>; <a href='B:120 9:37'>2Ki 9:37</a>). "Samaria" is used for the region, as some were killed in Jezreel (:11). Although the rulers of Jezreel were apparently in Samaria at the time, unless we read with LXX "the rulers of Samaria":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now as soon as this letter comes to you, since your master’s sons are with you, and there are with you chariots and horses, a fortified city also, and armour- </p><p>This confirms that despite the unclarity of :1, the city of Samaria is in view. For at this time, Jehu was in Jezreel, and also needing to take care of the war in Ramoth Gilead.</p>


text:
<p>Select the best and fittest of your master’s sons, set him on his father’s throne, and fight for your master’s house- </p><p>This shows again Jehu's self confidence and trust in human strength. He was challenging any who supported the house of Ahab to set a descendant of Ahab on the throne, and enter into a civil war with him and the Israelite military, who were all under his control at Ramoth Gilead. We note that he was thereby prepared to surrender control of Ramoth Gilead, to cease fighting the Syrians, in order that he might fight his own brethren in order to establish his own personal power base.</p>


text:
<p>But they were exceedingly afraid and said, Behold, the two kings didn’t stand before him! How then shall we stand?- </p><p>It was known that he had recently murdered Ahaziah of Judah as well as Joram of Israel. He had done this almost singlehanded. But see on :7.</p>


text:
<p>He who was over the household, and he who was over the city, the elders also, and those who raised the children, sent to Jehu saying, We are your servants, and will do all that you ask us. We will not make any man king. You do that which is good in your eyes- </p><p>It was typical after a power grab to slay the entire family of the ousted king. These men knew well enough what was required of them, and they agree.</p>


text:
<p>Then he wrote a letter the second time to them saying, If you are on my side, and if you will listen to my voice, take the heads of the men your master’s sons, and come to me to Jezreel by tomorrow this time. Now the king’s sons, being seventy persons, were with the great men of the city who brought them up- </p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the letter came to them, that they took the king’s sons and killed them, all seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him to Jezreel- </p><p>It was only a few hours journey from Samaria to Jezreel. They did this all on the basis of the fact he had killed two kings (:4). But they likely imagined that had been on the basis of a battle, when in fact Jehu had effectively assassinated unsuspecting men. The two kings had rushed out to meet him without their body guards, assuming that he as their inferior and army general was bringing news from the battle front. So all on the basis of rumour and exaggerated impressions, the elders of Samaria killed 70 children of Ahab. This is the kind of thing which goes on all the time- people taking major decisions on the basis of fake news and exaggerated impressions and fears.</p>


text:
<p>A messenger came and told him, They have brought the heads of the king’s sons. He said, Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning- </p><p>This was to display them openly, in order to make openly clear his hold on power.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the morning, that he went out and stood and said to all the people, You are righteous. Behold, I conspired against my master, and killed him; but who struck all these?-</p><p>Jehu consistently appears out of step with God's principles. It is for God and not men like Jehu to pronounce His people as just / righteous. The heaps of young heads would have been grotesque. Jehu's argument is that he indeed has killed his master, but who killed these 70 young men and boys? Not him, but the elders of Samaria who had raised them and now supported him over Ahab. It was clever enough as a political statement, but is very spiritually deficient. For the grosser sin of others doesn't remove nor justify our sins. And Jehu ought to have reasoned that in humility he had fulfilled God's word about Ahab's family, rather than seeking to justify it by such mind games.</p>


text:
<p>Know now that nothing shall fall to the earth of the word of Yahweh, which Yahweh spoke concerning the house of Ahab. For Yahweh has done that which He spoke by His servant Elijah- </p><p>Time and again we are brought to realize that the same external action can be judged by God quite differently, according to our motives. Uzziah was condemned for acting as a priest; when David did the same, he was reflecting his spirituality. God commanded Jehu to perform the massacre of Ahab's family at Jezreel, and blessed him for it (<a href='B:120 10:10'>2Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:120 10:29-30'>2Ki 10:29-30</a>); and yet <a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a> condemns the house of Jehu for doing that. Why? Presumably because their later attitude to that act of obedience was wrong, and the act therefore became judged as God as something which brought just punishment on the house of Jehu many years later. Why? Because even an outward act of obedience, when perceived through wrong motives and feelings, becomes an act of sin and a basis even for condemnation. All our works need careful analysis once we grasp this point.</p>


text:
<p>So Jehu struck all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, with all his great men, his familiar friends, and his priests, until he left him none remaining- </p><p>The Divine commission was to destroy the male descendants of Ahab, but Jehu excuses his blood lust in the name of serving God. And right wing Christian extremists have and still do the same. Even though there is actually a lack of understanding and respect for the Divine word they claim to be fulfilling (see on <a href='B:120 9:11'>2Ki 9:11</a>; <a href='B:120 9:35'>2Ki 9:35</a>; <a href='B:120 9:37'>2Ki 9:37</a>). We note Jehu killed Ahab's personal priests, which suggests Ahab's repentance was not very thorough.</p>


text:
<p>He arose and departed, and went to Samaria. As he was at the shearing house of the shepherds on the way- </p><p>This probably referred to some inn where the brothers of Ahaziah were staying for the night:&nbsp; RV margin "‘house of gathering", where the sheep were gathered before slaughter, and so Jehu likes to imagine this is a providential hint that he should kill these people there. Such imagination of 'the hand of providence' is common amongst those who set themselves on a supposed path of fulfilling God's word, without really doing so from the heart and with full understanding.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu met with the brothers of Ahaziah king of Judah and said, Who are you? They answered, We are the brothers of Ahaziah. We are going down to greet the children of the king and the children of the queen- </p><p>Ahaziah was grandson of Ahab, so they were relatives of Ahab. But the Divine commission had been to destroy his male descendants. Jehu is seeking to justify his own blood lust by apparently generously interpreting that commission. These men were obviously ignorant of the putsch, and we have to remember that they were living in an age where communication was difficult. The "queen" is better 'the queen mother' (as <a href='B:110 15:13'>1Ki 15:13</a>), referring to Jezebel.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Take them alive! They took them alive, and killed them at the pit of the shearing house, even forty-two men. He didn’t leave any of them- </p><p>This seems to suggest Jehu originally thought of taking them captives, but then killed them in the cistern (RVmg:) where the sheep were washed before shearing or slaughter. His change of plan shows that he was far from clear in his understanding of the Divine commission.</p>


text:
<p>When he had departed from there, he met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him. He greeted him and said to him, Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart? Jehonadab answered, It is. If it is, give me your hand. He gave him his hand; and he took him up to him into the chariot- </p><p>The Rechabites were part of the Kenites (<a href='B:130 2:55'>1Ch 2:55</a>), from where Moses' wife came (<a href='B:70 1:16'>Jdg 1:16</a>). Jael was married to a Kenite (<a href='B:70 4:17'>Jdg 4:17</a>), and they were not slain along with the Amalekites (<a href='B:90 15:6'>1Sa 15:6</a>). They were clearly a nomadic, spiritually minded family (<a href='B:300 35:6-7'>Jer 35:6-7</a>). It seems there is a purposeful juxtaposition here, between the truly spiritual person and Jehu, whose zeal for Yahweh was clearly only superficial, and was a justification of his own pride and ego. Jehu asks Jehonadab to be of his own "heart", because his heart is "right". Again we see the same spirit as in <a href='B:120 9:18-19'>2Ki 9:18-19</a>. To follow God meant following Jehu personally, and we sense his desire for power and leadership everywhere in this.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Come with me, and see my zeal for Yahweh. So they made him ride in his chariot- </p><p>This so obviously smacks of pride, and exhibiting human pride and strength under the cover of 'I am doing this for Yahweh'. And this is to be seen so often in misguided religious attempts to serve self in the name of serving God. I noted on :15 the intended contrast between Jehonadab and Jehu; and Jehu makes him ride in his chariot, as if this was agreed to reluctantly by Jehonadab.</p>


text:
<p>When he came to Samaria, he struck all who remained to Ahab in Samaria, until he had destroyed him, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke to Elijah-</p><p>If he had been truly zealous for Yahweh, he would have removed the calves in Dan and Bethel. But instead he seemed interested in murdering people, on the mistaken basis of some kind of guilt by association ethic. It could be that we are intended to read this as meaning 'according to his interpretation of the word of Yahweh', because his massacre of anyone remotely associated with Ahab was not what the Divine command had stated. He was using God's word, as many do, to justify his own native desire for power and abuse of others.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu gathered all the people together and said to them, Ahab served Baal a little; but Jehu will serve him much- </p><p>The gathering of all the Baal worshippers together was meant to imitate Elijah on Carmel, whose words Jehu claimed to be fulfilling. But Elijah was clear that he was not a Baal worshipper, and would never have used this kind of deceit which Jehu did. His claim that he personally wanted to hold a feast to Baal had credibility and people attended because of it- because he was well known himself as a Baal worshipper. His hypocrisy was awful.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore call to me all the prophets of Baal, all of his worshippers, and all of his priests. Let none be absent; for I have a great sacrifice to Baal. Whoever is absent, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtlety, intending that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal- </p><p>As noted on :19, he had clearly been a Baal worshipper because his invitation had credibility and was responded to. Threatening to murder any who didn't attend again reflects the bloodlust with which Jehu appears to now be drunk with. The word "subtlety" suggests he was as the serpent in Eden and not acting as he ought to have done. LXX "Now, O ye prophets of Baal, call ye unto me all his servants" would further underline that he had absolutely solid credibility with them as a Baal worshipper, who had only slain Ahab's personal prophets because he was destroying Ahab's inner circle. We note that he proclaims he is doing this in accord with Yahweh's word to Elijah (:17). And yet he can also credibly announce that he is a Baal worshipper. This again shows how Baal worship was practiced as a form of Yahweh worship. This has been the perennial problem for God's people; to claim to serve God through serving the flesh, to mix Divine truth with pagan error. See on :20,21.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu said, Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal! They proclaimed it- </p><p>This is the very word used of proclaiming feasts and assemblies of Yahweh (<a href='B:360 1:14'>Joe 1:14</a>; <a href='B:30 23:36'>Lev 23:36</a>; <a href='B:40 29:35'>Num 29:35</a>; <a href='B:50 16:8'>Deu 16:8</a>; <a href='B:160 8:18'>Neh 8:18</a>). As noted on :19, he was mixing paganism with Yahweh worship. Feasts to Baal were seen as fulfilling the commands to hold feasts to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu sent through all Israel; and all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that didn’t come. They came into the house of Baal; and the house of Baal was filled from one end to the other- </p><p>Again we note that the credibility of Jehu's appeal was only because he must have been a known worshipper of Baal. This "house of Baal" must have been huge, and was likely an imitation of the Jerusalem temple. For the nature of Baal worship was that it was understood as a form of Yahweh worship; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him who was over the vestry, Bring out robes for all the worshippers of Baal! He brought robes out to them- </p><p>As noted on :21, this house of Baal was an imitation of the Jerusalem temple, which also had rooms where the priestly robes were kept (see on <a href='B:120 22:14'>2Ki 22:14</a>). See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu went with Jehonadab the son of Rechab into the house of Baal. Then he said to the worshippers of Baal, Search, and look that there are here with you none of the servants of Yahweh, but the worshippers of Baal only- </p><p>We get the impression that the humble, spiritually minded Jehonadab would not have approved of this deceit, and just as he had been "made" to ride in Jehu's chariot, so he was being used here. The demand that any worshipper of Yahweh should leave would mean that really Jehonadab and Jehu ought to have themselves exited. The whole situation was unethical, and Jehonadab, like many good men, was railroaded into it. I have shown on :19-22 that Baal worship was seen as a form of Yahweh worship. So "the servants of Yahweh" would be a technical term here for those known to insist upon only worshipping Yahweh and who rejected Baal worship.</p>


text:
<p>They went in to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. Now Jehu had appointed him eighty men outside and said, If any of the men whom I bring into your hands escape, he who lets him go, his life shall be for the life of him- </p><p>If the house of Baal was so packed, we wonder whether 80 men were really enough to kill all the hundreds or thousands of Baal worshippers inside it. But numbers in the Hebrew Bible are often not to be read literally, especially when used in connection with numbers of soldiers. This could refer to a group or division of soldiers called 'an eighty'.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in, and kill them! Let none escape- </p><p>It seems Jehu himself offered the offering, as if he were the high priest of Baal. As noted above, he could only have done this if he were well known as a senior Baal worshipper.</p><p>They struck them with the edge of the sword; and the guard and the captains cast them out, and went into the inner room of the house of Baal- </p><p>The house of Baal appears to have been an imitation of the house of Yahweh in Jerusalem. It also had an "inner room", corresponding to the most holy place. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>They brought out the pillars that were in the house of Baal, and burned them- </p><p>As there were "pillars" associated with the Jerusalem temple, so there were with this house of Baal. See on :19. However these pillars were burned, meaning they were made of wood, which as a fertility symbol would have been associated with the worship of the likes of Astarte and Baal.</p>


text:
<p>They broke down the pillar of Baal, and broke down the house of Baal and made it a latrine, to this day-</p><p>The house of Baal was broken down, but soon afterwards, it was rebuilt and had to be destroyed yet again (<a href='B:120 11:18'>2Ki 11:18</a>). There are examples galore of purges and re-purges in the record of the Kings. This was an apparent obedience to <a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a>; <a href='B:50 7:25'>Deu 7:25</a>; <a href='B:50 12:2-3'>Deu 12:2-3</a> - but the real idols were the pride and ego in Jehu's heart. That is the fairly clear implication of the narrative. External obedience didn't deal with those idols.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel-</p><p>The next verse shows the hollowness of this. For other idols were allowed to continue, such as the calves (:29) and Asherah (<a href='B:120 13:6'>2Ki 13:6</a>), and it is clear that Baal was replaced with Moloch worship (<a href='B:120 17:17'>2Ki 17:17</a>). It's rather like the addict who quits one drug for another. Destruction of one form of idolatry is in no way any guarantee that our heart is therefore given over to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>However Jehu didn’t depart from following the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin: the golden calves that were in Bethel, and in Dan- </p><p>See on :28. The political motive for retaining them was so that Israel would not reunite with Judah (<a href='B:110 12:26-30'>1Ki 12:26-30</a>); and for Jehu, his hold on personal power was of paramount importance to him, far more than instituting worship of Yahweh and seeking His glory.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Jehu, Because you have done well in executing that which is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel- </p><p>Hosea’s prophesied that the blood of Jezreel would be visited upon the house of Jehu (<a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>). At Jezreel, Jehu had killed Ahab’s family in a quite literal bloodbath. And God had commented that because Jehu had done this and thus fulfilled His word, Jehu’s family would reign for the next four generations. So why, then, does Hosea start talking about punishing the house of Jehu for what they did to the house of Ahab? Jehu became proud about the manner in which he had been the channel for God’s purpose to be fulfilled, inviting others to come and behold his “zeal for the Lord” (<a href='B:120 10:16'>2Ki 10:16</a>). Jehu and his children showed themselves to not really be spiritually minded, and yet they prided themselves in having physically done God’s will. And because of this, Hosea talks in such angry terms about retribution for what they had done; the house of Jehu’s act of obedience to God actually became something his family had to be punished for, because they had done it in a proud spirit. We see this all the time around us. Men and women who clearly are instruments in God’s hand, like the Assyrians were, doing His will… but being proud about it and becoming exalted in their own eyes because of it. And Hosea is so sensitive to the awfulness of this, he goes ballistic about it.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of Yahweh, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He didn’t depart from the sins of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>Jeroboam was apparently a believer. He had his eyes open. He was an apparent enthusiast in doing God's work, and working for the good of His people Israel in strengthening their cities, fighting their enemies etc:. He had some faith, for example that God would heal him. He knew the real date of the feast of tabernacles; he knew his Bible, he had an enthusiasm for studying the genealogies and some aspects of the Mosaic Law. He seems to have taught the truth to his son. He understood a little about the symbology of the ark and the cherubim. But he shut his eyes to the real spirit of God's word. Now we can't say we have no similarity with that man. <a href='B:120 10:31'>2Ki 10:31</a> sums up his real failures. Jehu "took no heed to walk in the law with all his heart, for (because)" he followed the sins of Jeroboam. So this was his specific sin; not walking in God's law with all his heart&nbsp; . It is stressed in the records that he was "the son of Nebat". 'Nebat' means 'one who pays careful attention'; as if to emphasize that Jeroboam was not that person; he was the son of that person. Israel , Malachi says, were "partial" in God's law. Are we partial? Are we just focusing on those parts of spiritual life which we don't find difficult? Are we avoiding the real pain of spiritual growth? See on <a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In those days Yahweh began to weaken Israel; and Hazael struck them in all the borders of Israel- </p><p>This was the fulfilment of Elisha's words to Hazael in <a href='B:120 8:12'>2Ki 8:12</a>: "I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child". The command to Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Syria (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>), which Elisha fulfilled, was therefore part of God's intended judgments upon Israel for their sins. There is no specific record of Hazael doing this, but in the records of his attacks upon Israel we are therefore to assume that he did so at those times (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>; <a href='B:120 13:3'>2Ki 13:3</a>; <a href='B:120 13:22'>2Ki 13:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan- </p><p>This meant that about 25% of Israelite territory was taken from them, and these areas were famed as good pasture land. Bashan was famed for the "fat bulls of Bashan" and for "the oaks of Bashan".</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, 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>Jehu slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria. Jehoahaz his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty-eight years- </p><p>This was the second longest reign of an Israelite king. The kings of Israel lived and reigned far shorter than those of Judah. And yet in the final analysis, Ezekiel says that Judah sinned more than Israel. But their kings had greater signs of external blessing, and perhaps overall they were generally more righteous than their people. Whereas the kings of Israel were as wicked as their people.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal- </p><p>So obsessed was she with personal power that she killed her own relatives, perhaps her own children, in order to establish herself as the only living heir to David's throne. The royal family had already been depleted because of the murders of <a href='B:120 10:14'>2Ki 10:14</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>; <a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>. She saw the significance of the promises to David, but twisted them into mere religion. For she was an idolater, Jezebel's daughter:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were slain, even him and his nurse, and put them in the bedroom. They hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not slain- </p><p>In a sense, God's entire purpose through the line and seed of David depended upon the quick thinking of a young woman, and was concentrated in this small baby. For "all the royal seed" had been slain (:1). Her name means 'sworn to Jehovah', and this likely represents her later character rather than her birth name. She came from a bad background, but was married to the high priest (although we note Jehoiada is not listed in the list of high priests in 1 Chronicles 6). "The bedroom" is better "the chamber of the beds", perhaps a room in the temple (:1) used for the storage of old beds and furniture. Or maybe this was where he was temporarily hidden, before being moved to somewhere in the temple (:2). We marvel at how Jehoiada kept his own faith in Yahweh strong (<a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>), although surely he must have been somewhat of an underground believer at this time.</p>


text:
<p>he was with her hidden in the house of Yahweh six years. Athaliah reigned over the land-</p><p>The temple was likely relatively disused, as Athaliah was such a strong worshipper of Baal. Therefore Joash later had to majorly repair it. However in <a href='B:140 23:1-8'>2Ch 23:1-8</a> we do read of its usage, but perhaps not as it was before. It could be inferred from <a href='B:140 23:18'>2Ch 23:18</a> that the burnt offerings were not offered during Athaliah's dictatorship. And <a href='B:140 24:7'>2Ch 24:7</a> is clear: "For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up God’s house". See on <a href='B:140 24:13'>2Ch 24:13</a> for the extent of the damage done. So they hid the child in one of the disused chambers for the priests of Yahweh, who likely were not regularly officiating any more at that time. We note how Jehoshabeath and her husband Jehoiada the priest (<a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>) would have had access to both the palace and the temple because of their positions. And although they must have been underground believers to some extent, they used their connections well, to keep alive the line of David. Joash became king at seven, so he was a one year old baby when saved from Athaliah.</p>


text:
<p>In the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the captains over hundreds of the Carites and of the guard, and brought them to him into the house of Yahweh. He made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of Yahweh, and showed them the king’s son- </p><p>The Carites were the Cherethites of <a href='B:100 20:23'>2Sa 20:23</a>. More information is given in <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>: "In the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, Azariah the son of Obed, Maaseiah the son of Adaiah and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him". The five men and their followers of <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a> match the description of three "third parts" and another "two parts" in <a href='B:120 11:5-7'>2Ki 11:5-7</a>. The corroboration between the records, clearly written by different hands, reflects the Divine inspiration of the record. The names of all these men include the name of God. To overthrow Athaliah was a risky undertaking and their faith and commitment to the Davidic line was very strong.</p>


text:
<p>He commanded them saying, This is the thing that you shall do: a third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, shall be keepers of the watch of the king’s house- </p><p>This is fleshed out by <a href='B:140 23:4'>2Ch 23:4</a>: "This is the thing that you shall do. A third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, shall be porters at the thresholds". Chronicles stresses the role of the Levites (<a href='B:140 23:2'>2Ch 23:2</a>; <a href='B:140 23:4'>2Ch 23:4</a>) whereas Kings hardly mentions them in the record. Clearly Chronicles is largely a history of the priesthood and Levites, written up in captivity to encourage the Levites to return to Judah and revive Yahweh worship there. Comparing with <a href='B:140 23:8'>2Ch 23:8</a>, the idea is that the Levites had a changeover of shifts that Sabbath. Those who were going off shift were to remain, so that there would be a larger number of them present. It seems that the Kings records speaks of three battalions of royal guards, one of which was on duty, and the others later brought into the temple by Jehoiada (<a href='B:140 23:7'>2Ch 23:7</a>). Whereas Chronicles has three battalions of Levitical temple guards / doorkeepers. They could be the same groups, but it seems easier to read them as separate. This would mean that somehow Jehoiada had persuaded even Athaliah's own bodyguards to betray her.</p>


text:
<p>a third part shall be at the gate Sur; and a third part at the gate behind the guard. So you shall keep the watch of the house, and be a barrier- </p><p>We must compare this with <a href='B:140 23:5'>2Ch 23:5</a> "A third part shall be at the king’s house; and a third part at the gate of the foundation. All the people shall be in the courts of Yahweh’s house". "The king's house" isn't the royal palace; for in any case, Athaliah was a queen and not a king. It refers to the place where the king Joash was hiding. The Gate of the Foundation was apparently near the valley separating Moriah from the hill opposite it, literally "the gate of Sur", mentioned in <a href='B:120 11:6'>2Ki 11:6</a>. But "Svr" may be "Svs", the horse gate, which is that of <a href='B:140 23:15'>2Ch 23:15</a>; <a href='B:120 11:16'>2Ki 11:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The two companies of you, even all who go out on the Sabbath, shall keep the watch of the house of Yahweh around the king- </p><p>Those whose period of service ended that Sabbath were to remain present. We again note how even under Athaliah's idolatrous rule, the temple services continued. Baal worship was thought to be a form of Yahweh worship. See on <a href='B:120 10:19'>2Ki 10:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>You shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand; and he who comes within the ranks, let him be slain. Be with the king when he goes out, and when he comes in- </p><p>The reference is specifically to the Levites: "The Levites shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand. Whoever comes into the house, let him be slain. Be with the king when he comes in, and when he goes out" (<a href='B:140 23:7'>2Ch 23:7</a>). The whole putsch was a risky undertaking, and Jehoiada was aware of the possibility of armed opposition from Athaliah's loyalists. The Levites were armed, presumably with weapons like knives or whatever they could get hold of. Perhaps this command foresaw how Athaliah would come running into the temple (:13) and should therefore be slain.</p>


text:
<p>The captains over hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded; and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the Sabbath, with those who were to go out on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest- </p><p>The idea is that the Levites had a changeover of shifts that Sabbath. Those who were going off shift were to remain, so that there would be a larger number of them present. "All Judah" being present in <a href='B:140 23:8'>2Ch 23:8</a> refers to the representatives of all Judah who were present. "All" in the Bible often refers not to literally everybody but to representatives of the "all". The taking of the Gospel to "all the world" must surely be understood in that way. "The Levites and all Judah" is therefore matched here by “the captains over the hundreds".</p>


text:
<p>The priest delivered to the captains over hundreds the spears and shields that had been king David’s, which were in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>Possibly the shields of gold David had taken and dedicated at the time of <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:100 8:11'>2Sa 8:11</a>. Gold represents faith, and they were probably not very functional for combat. But this whole putsch was on the basis of faith and not secular strength and wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>The guard stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the house, along by the altar and the house, around the king- </p><p><a href='B:140 23:10'>2Ch 23:10</a> "He set all the people::.". The altar would be the altar of burnt offering in the outer court. "All the people" refers to those other than the priests and Levites who had agreed to help in the putsch.</p>


text:
<p>Then he brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him, and gave him the testimony. They made him king and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, Long live the king!- </p><p>"The testimony" was a copy of the law the king was supposed to write out when he became king, but it had presumably been written out for him (<a href='B:50 17:18-20'>Deu 17:18-20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she came to the people into the house of Yahweh-</p><p>See on :8. Any who came into the temple were to be slain, and it seems Jehoiada set her up to do just what she did. That this was all pulled off right under her nose was quite an achievement.</p>


text:
<p>She looked, and behold, the king stood by the pillar, as the tradition was- </p><p>Heb. 'pedestal', a kind of podium, considering he was only seven years old and small.</p><p>And the captains and the trumpets near the king; and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew trumpets. Then Athaliah tore her clothes and cried, Treason! Treason!-</p><p>"Treason" is literally "conspiracy". She realized all too late that a huge conspiracy had been going on under her nose.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of hundreds who were set over the army, and said to them, Bring her out between the ranks. Kill him who follows her with the sword. For the priest said, Don’t let her be slain in the house of Yahweh-</p><p>This confirms the suggestion that the command in :8 to slay whoever entered Yahweh's house was planned with Athaliah in view. "The ranks" would likely refer to the ranks of soldiers; or possibly to the temple precincts.</p>


text:
<p>So they made way for her; and she went by the way of the horses’ entry to the king’s house. She was slain there-</p><p>Making way for her suggests they all restrained themselves from touching her, the unclean, until she was outside the temple. It would have been an awful last walk to her death. I suggested on <a href='B:140 23:5'>2Ch 23:5</a> that "the horse gate" is the same as the "gate of the foundation".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada made a covenant between Yahweh and the king and the people, that they should be Yahweh’s people; also between the king and the people-</p><p>"Between himself and the people" (<a href='B:140 23:16'>2Ch 23:16</a>) suggests Jehoiada was absolutely representing Yahweh; 2 Kings says the covenant was between Yahweh and the people. The Bible is full of examples of where men function as God and functionally represent Him to man. But this didn't make them God Himself in person. And it is within this context that we must read the passages which likewise speak of the Lord Jesus as functioning as God- without being God Himself.</p>


text:
<p>All the people of the land went to the house of Baal, and broke it down. They broke his altars and his images in pieces thoroughly, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. The priest appointed officers over the house of Yahweh-</p><p>The allusion is to how "all the people" were to put to death those who incited others to idolatry (<a href='B:50 13:9'>Deu 13:9</a>). It seems that the temple of Baal had been built near the temple, just as Solomon had built such idol temples near to the temple:&nbsp;The house of Baal was broken down in <a href='B:120 10:27'>2Ki 10:27</a>. But now, soon afterwards, it was rebuilt and had to be destroyed yet again. There are examples galore of purges and re-purges in the record of the Kings.</p>


text:
<p>He took the captains over hundreds, and the Carites, and the guard, and all the people of the land; and they brought down the king from the house of Yahweh, and came by the way of the gate of the guard to the king’s house. He sat on the throne of the kings-</p><p>"The upper gate" of <a href='B:140 23:20'>2Ch 23:20</a> is here "the gate of the guard".</p>


text:
<p>So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet. Athaliah they had slain with the sword at the king’s house-</p><p>Quietness or peace is often associated with obedience. We read of this at least twice during Jehoshaphat's reign. Going God's way is the only way to true peace; although that peace is juxtaposed against the violent slaying of Athaliah which had been necessary to bring it about.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash was seven years old when he began to reign- </p><p>He had been hidden six years in the temple (<a href='B:140 22:12'>2Ch 22:12</a>), and so it follows that he was grabbed to safety when he was a one year old baby. That was how frail was the line of descent from David, for the rest of the male line had been slain by Athaliah (<a href='B:140 22:10'>2Ch 22:10</a>). The royal family had already been depleted because of the murders of <a href='B:120 10:14'>2Ki 10:14</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>; <a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the seventh year of Jehu began Jehoash to reign; and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba- </p><p>Beersheba was famed for idolatry at this time (<a href='B:370 5:5'>Amo 5:5</a>; <a href='B:370 8:14'>Amo 8:14</a>), and the mother's name, meaning 'gazelle', has no mention of God's Name in it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him- </p><p>Joash did right before God whilst the priest Jehoiada was alive, and then apostatized; Uzziah did likewise, with Zechariah the priest (<a href='B:140 24:2'>2Ch 24:2</a>; <a href='B:140 26:5'>2Ch 26:5</a>). He didn’t reflect upon the personal implications of Divine history. And we too must appreciate that there are Bible characters whose experiences are framed in terms directly relevant to us- for our learning. Interestingly, straight after Jehoiada died, the princes of the land came to Joash with a request, which he wrongly listened to. This has great similarities with the tragic mistake made by Rehoboam after Solomon died (<a href='B:140 10:3-4'>2Ch 10:3-4</a> cp. 24:17). So Joash was given chance after chance to be directed back to previous examples and be instructed by them- but he went on in his own way.</p><p>But when Jehoiada died, Joash listened to, and was influenced by, the wicked princes of Judah (<a href='B:140 23:17'>2Ch 23:17</a>). It is clear that for all his apparent strength of character and zeal for God, Joash was simply a product of those he was with. And so it can be that our generation especially, can tend to be people with no real character, their very personalities influenced by others rather than being real, credible people. Insofar as we can break free from all these moulding influences, we will be real, credible persons. And our independence, our realness, is what will attract others to the message of Divine influence which we preach. Those raised in Christian homes need to pay especial attention to the possibility that they are where they are spiritually because of the good influence of others upon them. There is no harm in this; but we need to strive to have a faith that is not merely the faith of our fathers, but a real and personal response to the love of God which we have for ourselves perceived in the man Christ.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-</p><p>From this we get the hint that despite all this initial zeal, things were not spiritually solid with Joash even from the start. Likewise from <a href='B:140 24:3'>2Ch 24:3</a> we learn that Joash was a polygamist from the start, for "Jehoiada took for him two wives".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the holy things that is brought into the house of Yahweh, in current money, the money of the persons at which each man is rated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to bring into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This presumably meant that the half shekel temple tax had not been paid for some time. So Joash urged that it be paid, although unsurprisingly there was reluctance. Plague was threatened for not paying it, but there is no record that this happened.</p>


text:
<p>let the priests take it to them, every man from his acquaintance; and they shall repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach shall be found- </p><p>These breaches in the temple had presumably been caused not only by assault, but more likely by the various apostate kings taking the valuable building materials (timber, cut stone etc:) in order to build pagan temples. He had a personal emotional attachment to the temple, seeing that he had grown up hiding in one of its disused side rooms (<a href='B:140 22:12'>2Ch 22:12</a>). The temple was in a serious state of disrepair at Athaliah's time; she was an idolater, and the daily sacrifices weren't offered (<a href='B:140 23:18'>2Ch 23:18</a>). The way Joash later desecrates the temple with idolatry is therefore a tragic example of turning away from the faith. No amount of devotion to the things of God's house, or emotional, sentimental feelings towards them, is a guarantee that true faith will be retained in the long term. This restoration of the temple would have been programmatic for the exiles, for whose benefits these historical records were originally written.</p>


text:
<p>But, in the twenty third year of king Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house- </p><p>We have the abiding impression that the priesthood was never completely dedicated solely to Yahweh. Although it was through the temple being in such a state of disrepair, that Joash could be hidden in it for six years, living as if the child of some homeless woman squatting in one of the disused side rooms (see on <a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and for the other priests, and said to them, Why don’t you repair the breaches of the house? Now therefore take no more money from your treasurers, but deliver it for the breaches of the house- </p><p>The collection ordered in:5 was abandonned. Instead of going around Judah trying to get donations, those who came to offer were to be encouraged to donate. Trying to force money out of God's people is never a good idea; it must be offered freely by those who already understand the concept of sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>The priests agreed that they should take no more money from the people, neither repair the breaches of the house themselves- </p><p>The priests had not done these repairs, and so the responsibility for them was removed from the priests. And they accepted that (:11).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one comes into the house of Yahweh. The priests who kept the threshold put therein all the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>"Chest" is the Hebrew word usually used for "ark". I suggested on <a href='B:140 24:6'>2Ch 24:6</a> that the ark may have gone missing or even been destroyed by Athaliah, resulting in the rather strange term "tent of the testimony" [the tables of stone] being used for the most holy place. Kings says it was in the court opposite the porch, by the side of the altar of burnt offering. But "outside" in <a href='B:140 24:6'>2Ch 24:6</a> may also mean outside of the most holy place. It could be that the chest was stored by the altar, but in the day time was taken to the gate of the temple to receive contributions (see on <a href='B:140 24:11'>2Ch 24:11</a>). <a href='B:140 24:9'>2Ch 24:9</a> GNB says this was for "the tax which Moses, God's servant, had first collected in the wilderness". The idea may be that that was the only time they ever really obeyed the law of giving the half shekel. Israel's collective disobedience to the law is quite stunning.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags and counted the money that was found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This was done "day by day" (<a href='B:140 24:11'>2Ch 24:11</a>), which can mean 'from time to time', suggesting it was done whenever the chest was full. We note that the counting and management of the money was done not by the priests and Levites, another hint (as in :15) that they had embezzled it before.</p>


text:
<p>They gave the money that was weighed out into the hands of those who did the work, who had the oversight of the house of Yahweh. They paid it out to the carpenters and the builders, who worked on the house of Yahweh- </p><p>Those who had the oversight of the repair work were not the priests, who had failed to do this previously (:8). We sense the priesthood were very weak at this time, and Jehoiada was almost alone in his dedication to the work. So when he died, things immediately reverted to the previous apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>and to the masons and the stone cutters, and for buying timber and cut stone to repair the breaches of the house of Yahweh, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it- </p><p>The language is rather similar to that used of building the temple, as if this rebuilding was really major, seeing Athaliah had consciously "broken up" the temple (<a href='B:140 24:7'>2Ch 24:7</a>). We have the repeated impression that the overseers were the ones who "laid out" the money for workers and materials, suggesting again that the Levites and priests had not been honest with this (see on :10).</p>


text:
<p>But there were not made for the house of Yahweh cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The idea seems to be, comparing with <a href='B:140 24:14'>2Ch 24:14</a>, that these vessels were made only after the house was completed. The focus was to be upon repairing the house first, and the vessels were seen as of secondary importance. We wonder whether this is also a hint at spiritual weakness and wrong priorities; for surely the house was not of the essence. God had said He didn't in fact want a physical house built. Surely the vessels which enabled the rituals to be performed ought to have been made first, so that Divine worship could continue, even within a ruined building.</p>


text:
<p>for they gave that to those who did the work, and repaired therewith the house of Yahweh- </p><p>As discussed on :13, it seems that all the funds were given solely to the builders, because of a wrong perception that the building of a physical temple was more important than what went on within it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover they didn’t demand an accounting from the men into whose hand they delivered the money to give to those who did the work; for they dealt faithfully- </p><p>This may be in implied contrast to the priests and Levites who had not done the work, perhaps because of embezzlement of the funds. See on :10. The money was delivered to these overseers directly from the king (:11), and not via the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>The money for the trespass offerings, and the money for the sin offerings, were not brought into the house of Yahweh: it was the priests’-</p><p>It seems there had begun the practice of buying sacrificial animals in Jerusalem, at the temple, and this in turn degraded to giving money to the priests in lieu of sin offerings. The Mosaic commands said nothing about this; the sinner was to bring an animal and make personal identification with it (<a href='B:30 5:1-12'>Lev 5:1-12</a>; <a href='B:30 14:13'>Lev 14:13</a>). And we see here the easy slide away from personal repentance and dedication to Yahweh, to merely giving some money.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hazael king of Syria went up and fought against Gath, and took it; and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem-</p><p>2 Chronicles 24 adds the account of Joash's apostacy and murder of Jehoiada's son after Jehoiada dies. <a href='B:140 24:23'>2Ch 24:23</a> adds: "It happened at the end of the year, that the army of the Syrians came up against him. They came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus":&nbsp; </p><p>The princes were those who had encouraged Joash to idolatry after Jehoiada died (<a href='B:140 24:17'>2Ch 24:17</a>). We wonder why they spared Joash. Perhaps his extra bit of life was in order to give him the chance of repentance. But he turned it down.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash king of Judah took all the holy things that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own holy things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria; and he went away from Jerusalem-</p><p>It could be that this effectively means that he saved his life by paying them off, after they had already entered Jerusalem and slain the princes (<a href='B:140 24:23'>2Ch 24:23</a>).</p>


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


text:
<p>His servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and struck Joash at the house of Millo, on the way that goes down to Silla-</p><p>We wonder whether his servants were so loyal to Yahweh that they killed him for what he had done to the sons of Jehoiada:&nbsp; Although these servants were apparently secular Gentiles (<a href='B:140 24:25'>2Ch 24:25</a>), perhaps even they were disgusted at his deep ingratitude. Or it could mean that their conspiracy against Joash was meant by God as punishment for his conspiracy against Zechariah (<a href='B:140 24:21'>2Ch 24:21</a>). Joash was killed on his bed, probably his sick bed (<a href='B:140 24:25'>2Ch 24:25</a>), "at the house of Millo, on the way that goes down to Silla”. This may have been the equivalent of a hospital.</p>


text:
<p>For Jozacar the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, struck him, and he died; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Amaziah his son reigned in his place- </p><p><a href='B:140 24:26'>2Ch 24:26</a> "Shimeath the Ammonitess and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess". We wonder whether these servants were in fact his sons by Gentile wives. If so, then even before the death of Jehoiada he had shown his unspirituality by marrying Gentiles, for all his avowed devotion to the rebuilding of the temple. This is why there was specific commentary written about "his sons" (<a href='B:140 24:27'>2Ch 24:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel in Samaria for seventeen years- </p><p>This appears to be a slight contradiction with :10, but it is not so in the LXX- which is the version the New Testament prefers to quote over the Hebrew Masoretic text.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, in which he made Israel to sin. He didn’t depart from it- </p><p>At the end of Jehu's reign, God had removed 25% of Israel's territory (<a href='B:120 10:33'>2Ki 10:33</a>). But Jehoahaz didn't repent, he refused to learn any lesson from his father's sins. We note that although Jehu had no real spirituality, he inserted the name of God in his son's name. The usage of the Divine Name in the names of the kings of Israel was the same mere tokenism with which the Name is used by effective unbelievers today:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and He delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Ben Hadad the son of Hazael, continually- </p><p>He had already done this in Jehu's time (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>), but as Israel had failed to learn the lesson, His anger was the more kindled. We note that Ben Hadad is a generic term for a leader of Syria, like "Pharaoh". For Hazael had murdered the Ben Hadad before him, and yet has a son who was also a Ben Hadad.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoahaz begged Yahweh, and Yahweh listened to him; for He saw the oppression of Israel, how that the king of Syria oppressed them- </p><p>This was the fulfilment of Elisha's words to Hazael in <a href='B:120 8:12'>2Ki 8:12</a>: "I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child". The command to Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Syria (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>), which Elisha fulfilled, was therefore part of God's intended judgments upon Israel for their sins. There is no specific record of Hazael doing this, but in the records of his attacks upon Israel we are therefore to assume that he did so at those times (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>; <a href='B:120 13:3'>2Ki 13:3</a>; <a href='B:120 13:22'>2Ki 13:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel lived in their tents as before- </p><p>We note the simple love and pity of God for His children, responding to their suffering which He Himself had brought upon them in anger (:3)- even though they were impenitent (:6). We see the two conflicting aspects of God's character, His justice and His grace, His anger and His pity. They were reflected in Hosea's conflicting feelings for his sexually addicted, unfaithful wife Gomer (<a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a>). The saviour was Jeroboam (<a href='B:120 14:27'>2Ki 14:27</a>), although he was a wicked man.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless they didn’t depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel to sin, but walked therein. There remained the Asherah also in Samaria- </p><p>Jehu's apparent zeal to destroy Baal worship was just an excuse for the flaunting of his own power and blood lust. It was not real "zeal for Yahweh" as he proclaimed; for he destroyed Baal, but the Asherah remained. See on <a href='B:120 10:28'>2Ki 10:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>For the king of Syria didn’t leave to Jehoahaz of the people any more than fifty horsemen, ten chariots and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria destroyed them, and made them like the dust in threshing-</p><p>The king of Israel was not supposed to have horses and chariots anyway (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>). So this could be read as God still seeking the repentance of Jehoahaz, trying to elicit from him true trust in Him.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, 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>Jehoahaz slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria: and Joash his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign over Israel in Samaria for sixteen years- </p><p>This appears to be a slight contradiction with :1, but it is not so in the LXX- which is the version the New Testament prefers to quote over the Hebrew Masoretic text.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh; he didn’t depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin; but he walked therein- </p><p>The note that he did not depart from those sins would reflect how the prophets had appealed to him to depart from them; but he didn't. Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might with which he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>See on :8. The account occurs in <a href='B:120 14:8-14'>2Ki 14:8-14</a> and 2 Chronicles 25, but this may not be the same books of Chronicles in view which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>Joash slept with his fathers; and Jeroboam sat on his throne. Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel-</p><p>We note the use of "his throne" rather than "the throne of Yahweh". They had no sense of being kings on God's behalf. Samaria had only recently been built by Omri, Ahab’s father, so we should not imagine that there was a long line of kings already buried there.</p>


text:
<p>Now Elisha contracted a sickness of which he would die- </p><p>Evidence enough that Pentecostalism is wrong in claiming that the righteous don't due of illness and always recover.</p><p>Joash the king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said- </p><p>Joash was not a spiritual person, but he wept over Elisha as a prophet of Yahweh. For Israel had mixed Baal worship with that of Yahweh, and never rejected Yahweh totally.</p><p>My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!- </p><p>Elijah’s example clearly influenced Elisha, both in the nature of the miracles which he performed, and in how when Elisha died, he was likewise seen as “My father, the chariot of Israel, and its horsemen”, the same words used at Elijah's departure from ministry. How Elisha related to Elijah, was how people came to relate to Elisha. This is not only a neat cameo of the immense personal influence which we have upon each other; it reflects how Elisha learnt the lesson from Elijah, which we too must learn, of freely and totally absorbing ourselves in the progress of God’s Angelic, cherubic work to bring about His glory and not our own. Elisha had related to Elijah as his spiritual father, so now others were relating to Elisha in just the same way- as their spiritual father. The child had become the father, in spiritual terms. He had brought forth a spiritual child in his own image and likeness.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to him, Take bow and arrows; and he took to him bow and arrows- </p><p>The victory was to be through bow and arrows, not horses and chariots, which were forbidden to Israel's kings (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>), nor through swords. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the king of Israel, Put your hand on the bow; and he put his hand on it. Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands- </p><p>Joash was intended to understand that this was a symbolic act, and that what he now did had God's prophetic blessing upon it through the hands of Elisha. But he failed to perceive that, and so the extent of blessing was far less than potentially it could have been. The story of wasted potentials is so frequent in the Bible, and in the lives of God's people to this day. Joash would have felt how feeble were Elisha's hands, for he was on his death bed. But those apparently feeble hands were those of God.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Open the window eastward; and he opened them. Then Elisha said, Shoot! And he shot. He said, Yahweh’s arrow of victory, even the arrow of victory over Syria; for you shall strike the Syrians in Aphek- </p><p>We might think that Elisha was being rather unreasonable with Joash; how was he to know what was in Elisha's mind? But the point is, Elisha expected the king to be more spiritually perceptive, to understand that they were enacting a parable of deliverance, to have grasped that those arrows were symbolic of victory over Syria. And so the lesson comes to us: we may be expected to have a greater understanding than we think reasonable of God to expect of us:&nbsp;"Aphek" means 'strength', so the idea was that Divine strength was to triumph over human strength. Hence the use of bows and arrows (see on&nbsp; :15). This was to repeat the defeat at Aphek (<a href='B:110 20:26'>1Ki 20:26</a>), a victory also given by faith to an unspiritual Ahab. Yahweh had earlier given victory to Syria (s:w. <a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>), but this was now to be reversed. Victory against Syria was to be given to Israel. Both sides were probably about equally unspiritual, but by grace God had finished trying to educate Israel through defeat at the hands of the Syrians. Now He wanted to educate them by giving the grace of undeserved victory, in the hope that would elicit their repentance. The arrow was shot eastwards toward Gilead which was then under the control of Syria, from the hands of Joash. The idea was that the victories depended upon his personal faith, and putting his hand in God's hand, represented by Elisha's hands.</p><p>Until you have consumed them- </p><p>But :19 states clearly that Joash would not consume them (s:w:). He lacked the spiritual vision to enable this potential to come true. No specific conditions are mentioned at this point, and neither are they in many prophecies. Yet that is not to say that they are not in fact only conditionally true, and may not come true unless certain unstated conditions are fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Take the arrows; and he took them. He said to the king of Israel, Strike the ground; and he struck three times, and stopped- </p><p>"Ground" is the word for "land"; if 'earth' was solely meant, then another word would have been used. The same phrase is used five or six times in Exodus of the smiting of the land of Egypt with plagues. Perhaps that is the significance of the complaint that Joash ought to have struck the land five or six times (:19). The intention was that these victories would have led to not only the salvation of Israel, but their rebirth as a nation. Even at this late stage in their history, God was looking and hoping for their rebirth. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>The man of God was angry with him and said, You should have struck five or six times. Then you would have struck Syria until you had consumed it, whereas now you shall strike Syria just three times-</p><p>See on :17,18. Elisha tells Joash to smite upon the ground with arrows; if Joash had perceived deeper what Elisha meant, he would have smitten many times and the Syrian threat would have been eliminated entirely. But he didn’t, and therefore Elijah was frustrated with him; the great potential victory was limited by a man’s lack of spiritual perception.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha died, and they buried him. Now the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year- </p><p>We assume Elisha died at his home in Samaria. In this case, the Moabite bands had crossed the Jordan from Gilead, which was in Syrian hands, and had boldly entered this far into Israel. The promised victory against enemies didn't seem to happen. Because Joash simply respected Elisha as a great person and liked the culture of Yahweh worship, and yet failed to live up to the huge potentials:&nbsp; See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as they were burying a man, that behold, they spied a band; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha. As soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet- </p><p>The band is one of the Moabite bands of :20. We see how weak Israel were at this time, for Elisha had lived in Samaria. Even near their capital, Israel were prone to such fear at the appearance of just one band of marauders. The idea of course was that there was power and potential of new life in the word of the prophets. I noted on :18 the potential for a rebirth of the people at this time. The language is later applied to the exiles in Ezekiel 39, who likewise could have been revived by the Spirit to stand upon their feet as a great army. But that potential was likewise wasted.</p>


text:
<p>Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz- </p><p>See on :4 for the extent of the evil done to Israel at this time. This statement seems to exemplify how the promise of potential victory against Syria wasn't realized in practice because of Israel's lack of spiritual vision.</p>


text:
<p>But Yahweh was gracious to them and had compassion on them, and had respect to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither did He cast them out from His presence at that time- </p><p>The implication is that a time did come when even their connection with the fathers didn't save them. The covenant which led to so much grace was broken by Israel, and God eventually accepted that. He broke the covenant with them in response to how they had themselves broken it (<a href='B:450 11:7-14'>Zec 11:7-14</a>). Covenant relationship meant salvation and blessing by grace alone; for Israel were impenitent at this time. And yet they broke it and spurned it as mere history irrelevant to them, as many do today.</p><p>The presence of God may have been articulated at that time through the Angels. Angels being physically with us in our lives means that we are always in the presence of God, as they represent Him. The fact that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face" through an Angel shows that they represent God's face, and they are also likened to the eyes of God. Even when a man is wicked in some ways , he may still have presence of the Angels in his life. Thus although Israel were wicked in the time of Jehoahaz and were therefore punished by Hazael of Syria, because of the covenant with Abraham "neither cast He them from His presence (Heb. face) as yet" (<a href='B:120 13:23'>2Ki 13:23</a>). And therefore Jehoahaz is described as doing what was right in the sight (the eyes) of the Lord (i:e. the Angels with him), although he did not take away the high places (<a href='B:120 14:3-5'>2Ki 14:3-5</a>). It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Hazael king of Syria died; and Ben Hadad his son reigned in his place- </p><p>We note that Ben Hadad is a generic term for a leader of Syria, like "Pharaoh". For Hazael had murdered the Ben Hadad before him, and yet has a son who was also a Ben Hadad.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Ben Hadad the son of Hazael the cities which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father by war. Joash struck him three times, and recovered the cities of Israel- </p><p>We must compare this with the statement in :22 that there was constantly oppression from Syria. The three victories were not enough to stop this, and we conclude that the huge potential available to Israel, as demonstrated by Elisha, wasn't realized. The history of God's people is such a tragic list of wasted potentials.</p>


text:
<p>&nbsp; In the second year of Joash son of Joahaz king of Israel began Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah to reign- </p><p>Amaziah's father Joash died at 47, so Joash would have been 22 when Amaziah was born. He would have lived under the Godly influence of Jehoiada for some time, and witnessed his father's apostacy and gross ingratitude to Jehoiada shown by murdering his sons.</p>


text:
<p>He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem- </p><p>His mother, 'pleasing to Jehovah', was one of the wives chosen for Joash by his Godly uncle Jehoiada.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, yet not like David his father- Chronicles says, "not with a perfect heart", Kings says "yet not like David". David was far from perfect, but he had a heart wholly ['perfectly'] devoted to God.</p><p>He did according to all that Joash his father had done- Repeatedly, the New Testament speaks of converting others as a bringing forth of children. This means that our level and style of spirituality is likely to be replicated in those we convert. Thus Amaziah “did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord… according to all things as Joash his father had done” (<a href='B:120 14:3'>2Ki 14:3</a>). What spirituality he had was according to that which his father had displayed.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places- </p><p>"Taken away" is the same word as 'depart from' in :24. The way of Jeroboam was not departed from, and so the high places were not departed from. The suggestion is that they were associated with the calf worship.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, he killed his servants who had slain the king his father- </p><p>This continues a theme, of the kings of Judah strengthening or establishing themselves, often when they first became king; but then having that human strength tested by God or removed. The same word is used repeatedly (<a href='B:130 11:10'>1Ch 11:10</a>; <a href='B:140 11:11'>2Ch 11:11</a>; <a href='B:140 11:17'>2Ch 11:17</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a>; <a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>; <a href='B:140 25:3'>2Ch 25:3</a>; <a href='B:140 25:11'>2Ch 25:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:8'>2Ch 26:8</a>; <a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>). The lesson of course was that it is God's Angelic eyes who run to and fro in the land promised to Abraham, "to shew Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him" (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But the children of the murderers he didn’t put to death; as written in the book of the law of Moses, that Yahweh commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin- </p><p>Overall this man appears to have spiritually failed. But he as it were grabs hold of one commandment and religiously obeys it. We see this kind of thing all the time in 'religious' approaches to Christianity. But it is the heart which God is looking at, and it was in this that Amaziah failed, ultimately. Chronicles was written for the exiles, and perhaps they needed reminding of this principle (as in <a href='B:330 18:20'>Eze 18:20</a>) because of their wrong idea that they were being unjustly punished for the sins of their fathers.</p>


text:
<p>He killed of Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand and took Sela by war, and called its name Joktheel to this day- </p><p>Far more details are given in <a href='B:140 25:5-10'>2Ch 25:5-10</a>. This was where David had won a great victory (<a href='B:130 18:12'>1Ch 18:12</a>). Amaziah was being guided to follow in David's footsteps. This, as noted on <a href='B:140 25:7'>2Ch 25:7</a>, was another baby step taken to try to reform him.</p>


text:
<p>Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face- </p><p>The soldiers he had hired were apparently mercenaries. They had apparently been paid, but not used in the battle. And so they had gotten offended and sacked cities of Judah (<a href='B:140 25:13'>2Ch 25:13</a>). And Amaziah was demanding compensation for this from the king of Israel. By so doing he demonstrated that his apparent willingness to lose the money paid for them was not a decision taken from the heart. He was still after compensation for his losses, rather than believing that God could give him all riches (see on <a href='B:140 25:9'>2Ch 25:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son as wife. Then a wild animal that was in Lebanon passed by, and trampled down the thistle- </p><p>This is similar to the parable of the trees in <a href='B:70 9:7-15'>Jdg 9:7-15</a>, which also talks of the land of Israel as "Lebanon" (<a href='B:70 9:15'>Jdg 9:15</a>). The king of Israel presents himself and Amaziah as both living in the same land, and considered himself to be the glorious cedar and Amaziah merely a thistle. It was quite inappropriate, he felt, for Amaziah to provoke him over the fact mercenaries from his country had ransacked towns in Judah over an argument about money and payment. He is saying that it as inappropriate as a poor man asking a wealthy man to give him his daughter to marry the poor man's son. And he threatens to act not just as an elegant cedar, but to morph into a wild beast who would trample down Amaziah. Perhaps Amaziah had indeed provoked Joash by making a marriage proposal which he knew Joash would turn down.</p>


text:
<p>You have indeed struck Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Enjoy the glory of it, and stay at home; for why should you meddle to your harm, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?’- </p><p>The victory against Edom was from God, but by accepting the vanquished gods of Edom, Amaziah shows that he trusted in his own strength rather than that of Yahweh. So often the victories God gives, be it passing an exam or military victory, lead to pride and boasting.</p>


text:
<p>But Amaziah would not listen. So Jehoash king of Israel went up- </p><p><a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a> says this was "of the Lord". There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p><p>And he and Amaziah king of Judah faced each other at Beth Shemesh, which belongs to Judah- </p><p>This was on the border of Judah and Dan, the frontier of Judah. The pagan name, "house of the sun", had not been changed; and reflects Judah's abiding penchant for idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>Judah was defeated by Israel; and they fled each man to his tent- </p><p>This was not because Israel were more spiritual or faithful, but because God has a special interest in judging pride. Victories of secular people must be understood in this context. The giving of victory by God (in whatever context) is multi factorial and is not simply a reflection of His pleasure with the victor.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth Shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits-</p><p>This is s:w. <a href='B:160 1:3'>Neh 1:3</a>; <a href='B:160 4:7'>Neh 4:7</a>, and would have helped remind the exiles how the walls of Jerusalem had come to be so broken down. It would seem by the implication of <a href='B:300 31:38'>Jer 31:38</a>; <a href='B:450 14:10'>Zec 14:10</a> that this gate was on the north of Jerusalem. Depending how we define a cubit, this would have been between 600 and 700 feet.</p>


text:
<p>He took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of Yahweh and in the treasures of the king’s house, with hostages also, and returned to Samaria- </p><p>This faithful family who had cared for the ark had been entrusted with caring for the gold and silver in the temple. But Joash had given much of this to the Syrians previously.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, 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>Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years- </p><p>The implication may be that he was given ample opportunity to repent; and we have noticed that in the lives of other kings.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not necessarily be the same books of Chronicles which we have in our Bible.</p>


text:
<p>They made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and killed him there- </p><p>Perhaps he was trying to flee to Egypt, ever representative of human strength which fails. For Lachish was on the road there. Athaliah, Joash and Amaziah each died due to a conspiracy. Surely Amaziah was intended to learn from the deaths of his predecessors, but the great theme of Biblical history is that so few learn from it. And that is the challenge to us. The planning of the conspiracy apparently took at least 15 years (<a href='B:140 25:25'>2Ch 25:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They brought him on horses; and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David- </p><p>Horses were forbidden to the kings of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>) so this is an appropriate end for an unfaithful man who trusted in human strength.</p>


text:
<p>All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah- </p><p>Called Uzziah in <a href='B:140 26:1'>2Ch 26:1</a>. Those who conspired against Amaziah were apparently stopped by the people from taking power. And they insisted upon the line of David continuing, through Uzziah. Despite their general unspirituality. "Uzziah", 'strength of Jehovah', has a very similar meaning to the name of his father Amaziah, 'power of Jehovah'. Yet Amaziah had not lived up to that (see on <a href='B:140 25:15'>2Ch 25:15</a>. He may have named his son similarly in a hope that he would succeed where he failed.</p>


text:
<p>He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers-</p><p>Amaziah his father had defeated Edom, and Eloth was in Edom. This explains the comment that Uzziah did this after his father died. But in doing so he was really living out the ghost of his father and fulfilling parental expectation; for he repeated the works for Yahweh which his father had done (<a href='B:140 26:4'>2Ch 26:4</a>). Those raised in believing families must ever probe the degree to which their faith and works are possibly just living out parental expectation.</p>


text:
<p>In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria for forty-one years-</p><p>This was the longest reign of an Israelite king. The kings of Israel lived and reigned far shorter than those of Judah. And yet in the final analysis, Ezekiel says that Judah sinned more than Israel. But their kings had greater signs of external blessing, and perhaps overall they were generally more righteous than their people. Whereas the kings of Israel were as wicked as their people.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh: he didn’t depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>See on :4. Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of Yahweh, the God of Israel, which He spoke by His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet who was of Gath Hepher- </p><p>Jeroboam was a wicked man, but God reversed Israel's fortunes through him, by grace alone (:26). The entrance of Hamath generally means the northern border of Israel (<a href='B:40 13:21'>Num 13:21</a>; <a href='B:40 34:8'>Num 34:8</a>); the sea of the Arabah is the Dead Sea. The Jonah of the book of Jonah was also the son of Amittai, so we conclude this was the same prophet:&nbsp; Hosea and Amos also prophesied at this time. This prophecy of restoration of territory was fulfilled by grace alone (:26), and would have been an encouragement to the exiles at the time of the restoration, who would have feared that the exiles were generally so unspiritual that the restoration could not happen. "Restored" is the usual word used for the "return" of the exiles. Gath Hepher was near Nazareth in the tribe of Zebulon. According to Jewish tradition, he was the son of the widow of Zarephath.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter; for there was none shut up nor left at large, neither was there any helper for Israel- </p><p>As noted on :25, the restoration of :25 was therefore an example of God's fulfilment of His prophetic word by grace alone, rather than in response to the righteousness of His people.</p><p>We must watch out for the tendency to think that because a man has dug a hole and then fallen into it, well, that’s his problem. But we have all done this, hopelessly so. We only have ourselves to blame. And yet God has rushed to us in Christ. He was grieved for the affliction of Israel, even though it was purely due to their own sin and wilful rebellion. If a man has fallen into his own hole, well he is still there and needs help, however he got there.</p><p>Scripture repeatedly speaks as if God notices things and is then hurt by what He sees (<a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a>; <a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a>; <a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a>; <a href='B:120 14:26'>2Ki 14:26</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:330 23:13'>Eze 23:13</a>; <a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a> cp. <a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a>). If He knew in advance what they were going to do, this language is hard for me to understand. But God is therefore hurt and 'surprised' at sin- He saw Israel as the firstripe grapes, but they were worshipping Baal even then (<a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a>). Thus God can allow Himself to feel an element of surprise- and this was a shock to Jeremiah, who queried: "Why are You like a man who is caught by surprise:::?" (<a href='B:300 14:9'>Jer 14:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh didn’t say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under the sky; but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash- </p><p>And this Jeroboam was a wicked man, although the appointed saviour (<a href='B:120 13:5'>2Ki 13:5</a>). The idea may be that He did not say at that time that He would blot out the name of Israel. Or perhaps the message is that for all their sins, God did not blot out the name of Israel, for it continued, as in a sense He never cast away His people (<a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>See on :15. This may not be the same books of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles. David had put garrisons in Damascus (<a href='B:100 8:6'>2Sa 8:6</a>) and had made Hamath's king a tributary to him (<a href='B:100 8:9-11'>2Sa 8:9-11</a>). So we are reading here of how Jeroboam restored to some extent the Davidic kingdom and situation- but by grace alone (:26), seeing he was wicked. This was all encouragement to the exiles, that God's word of restoration had come true earlier, by grace alone, despite His people's weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zechariah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>This was now the fourth generation from Jehu who were to reign on the throne before being cut off (<a href='B:120 10:30'>2Ki 10:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign- </p><p>Azariah is called Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. The margin of the earlier versions of the AV states: "This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam’s partnership in the kingdom with his father, who made him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is the sixteenth year of Jeroboam’s monarchy”. Lightfoot tries to reconcile with <a href='B:120 14:16-17'>2Ki 14:16-17</a> by claiming that “At the death of Amaziah, his son and heir Uzziah was but four years old, for he was about sixteen in Jeroboam’s twenty-seventh year; therefore, the throne must have been empty eleven years, and the government administered by protectors while Uzziah was in his minority”. These explanations rather founder when compared with <a href='B:140 26:1'>2Ch 26:1</a>; <a href='B:120 14:20-21'>2Ki 14:20-21</a>. Probably the better resolution is to just accept that the numerals טו 15 and כז 27 have been confused by copying error. The difference between them is not that great, just a few tiny stems on letters.</p><p>"Uzziah", 'strength of Jehovah', has a very similar meaning to the name of his father Amaziah, 'power of Jehovah'. Yet Amaziah had not lived up to that (see on <a href='B:140 25:15'>2Ch 25:15</a>. He may have named his son similarly in a hope that he would succeed where he failed.</p>


text:
<p>Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecoliah of Jerusalem- </p><p>This means that he was born about the time that his father Amaziah turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:140 25:25-27'>2Ch 25:25-27</a>). His spirituality may therefore have been due to his mother, 'Yah will enable'.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, according to all that his father Amaziah had done- </p><p>God's judgment of Amaziah was that he did what was right, but his heart was not consistently with God. So the meaning of this may be that Uzziah likewise did what was right, he did something which were right, as Amaziah did. But there is no comment at this point about the all important judgment of God about his state of heart. And I suggested on <a href='B:140 26:2'>2Ch 26:2</a> that be began by simply living out parental expectation. See on <a href='B:140 26:16'>2Ch 26:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places- </p><p>"Taken away" is the same word as 'depart from' in :9. The way of Jeroboam was not departed from, and so the high places were not departed from. The suggestion is that they were associated with the calf worship.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh struck the king, so that he was a leper to the day of his death, and lived in a separate house. Jotham the king’s son was over the household, judging the people of the land- </p><p>There is far more background in the record in 2 Chronicles 26. This living in a separate house indicates obedience to God's law. For Naaman was a leper and yet had an active place in Syrian society, and Uzziah and Judah might have adopted their attitude to leprosy. The fact Uzziah didn't seek to get around this could perhaps indicate that he accepted his judgment and may have repented. But see on <a href='B:140 26:23'>2Ch 26:23</a>.</p>


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


text:
<p>Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Jotham his son reigned in his place-</p><p><a href='B:140 26:23'>2Ch 26:23</a> is more detailed: "So Uzziah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the field of burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper". They were hyper sensitive to the Mosaic legislation about leprosy (see on :5), and yet Isaiah says that Judah at that time were spiritually so leprous, and they didn't even realize it. They focused upon external obedience to the law when it concerned others, but failed to see that they in essence were just as bad as those whom they were carefully separate from. And this again is an abiding lesson for us. We note that sleeping with fathers doesn't have to mean being buried next to them.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months-</p><p>Some wicked kings reigned just six months, others decades. We cannot immediately explain this, although it seems some showed signs of repentance whereas others didn't, and God patiently worked with them- even if in the end He didn't persuade them of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as his fathers had done: he didn’t depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>See on :4. Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and struck him before the people, and killed him, and reigned in his place- </p><p>Amos was a prophet contemporary with this situation and he had prophesied in <a href='B:370 7:9'>Amo 7:9</a> that God "will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword". Hence the murder was committed "before the people", in some kind of public execution.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Zechariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-</p><p>Not necessarily the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>This was the word of Yahweh which He spoke to Jehu, saying, Your sons to the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. So it came to pass-</p><p>We must read in an ellipsis; "this was the [fulfilment of] the word of Yahweh". His word is so sure of fulfilment that His word is the fulfilment of it. We are to grasp this perspective by living as if the word of promise has been fulfilled in essence.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah; and he reigned for a month in Samaria- </p><p>Amos describes the situation at this time as being of very deep moral failure.</p>


text:
<p>Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and struck Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and killed him, and reigned in his place-</p><p>Tirzah may have been the home town of Menahem. Or it could be that he was at Tirzah on the way to a campaign in Tiphsah (:16); Menahem appears to have been the commander of the army.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel- </p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles; see on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Then Menahem struck Tiphsah, and all who were therein, and its borders, from Tirzah, because they didn’t open to him. Therefore he struck it; and all the women therein who were with child he ripped up-</p><p>Tiphsah was on the Euphrates (<a href='B:110 4:24'>1Ki 4:24</a>). But this was very far away, and maybe the reference is to some other town; the name means "passage" or "ford". Perhaps Zachariah had sought to continue on his father’s policy of restoring Israel's border, and had gathered an army to do this which was at the royal city of Tirzah, with Menahem as general. But before they marched "from [i:e. starting from] Tirzah", they heard that Shallum had murdered Zachariah and taken the throne. Menahem therefore marched from Tirzah to Samaria, destroyed Shallum, returning to his military base as Tirzah, and then continued the eastern campaign.</p><p>Slaying the pregnant women was surely not in accord with the spirit of the Mosaic laws of engagement. And yet he conducted his campaign under the excuse he was zealously restoring Israel's borders in accordance with the covenant.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem the son of Gadi began to reign over Israel for ten years in Samaria- </p><p>"Gadi" means "fortune" and is a term associated with idolatry. He doesn't have even God's name in his name nor did his son Menahem, and Amos describes the spiritual situation in Israel as utterly dire at this time.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh. He didn’t depart all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>For "depart", see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>There came against the land Pul the king of Assyria; and Menahem gave Pul one thousand talents of silver, that he might help him to confirm the kingdom in his hand-</p><p>Menahem clearly didn't have a strong hold on power within Israel nor amongst the surrounding nations, and sought strength from Pul rather than God. "Pul" does not appear in the Assyrian Canon, but Babylonian documents seem claim Pul (Pulu) was the Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser, who reigned under that name in Babylon during his last two years. It was the same power which was to desolate Israel; and yet they invited them to come into their land, in their faithfulness.</p><p>The 1000 talents was maybe a punishment for taking Tiphsah.</p>


text:
<p>Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and didn’t stay there in the land:-</p><p>Fifty shekels was a heavy tax, and to get 1000 talents, it would have had to be taken from 60,000 people. This confirms the impression we get from the prophecies of Amos at this time; that there was wealth in Israel, although in the hands of the ruling elite. And it was this wealth which led to their apostacy.</p>&nbsp;<p></p><p></p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, which says nothing about Menahem.</p>


text:
<p>Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria for two years- </p><p>We note the contrast in the general lengths of reign; the kings of Judah reigned far longer on average that those of Israel. Although Menahem was far from God, he inserted the name Yah in his son's name. Typically Israel sinned not by totally rejecting Yahweh, but as we are tempted to, mixing His religion with our own idolatry and agendas.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh. He didn’t depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>For "depart", see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>Pekah the son of Remaliah, his captain, conspired against him and struck him in Samaria, in the castle of the king’s house, with Argob and Arieh; and with him were fifty men of the Gileadites. He killed him, and reigned in his place- </p><p>The men of Gilead were those whom a few years ago Menahem had sought to restore to Israel through his campaign at Tiphsah on the Euphrates (see on :16). But the people were disloyal and ever seeking for petty advantage and settling old scores, so they helped to murder his son. "With Argob and Arieh" suggests they were with him at the time and not part of the conspiracy against him. Perhaps they were his deputies, but we note neither of them have the name of God in their names.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-</p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, see on :21.</p>


text:
<p>In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria for twenty years- </p><p>Isaiah mentions Pekah as ‘the son of Remaliah’ only, without mention of his name, perhaps because his life was a denial of his name, 'Yah is watching'.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria- </p><p>Yet despite this loss of his northern borderlands, he planned on restoring the size of his territory by attacking Judah, as explained in Isaiah 7-9.</p>


text:
<p>Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck him, and killed him, and reigned in his place, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah- </p><p>The end of Israel is associated with conspiracies and brother murdering brother. This is why division and aggression between brethren is associated with condemnation, and by behaving like this, we herald not only the destruction of our own community of believers but are living out our own condemnation (see on <a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a>).</p><p><a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> says that Hoshea began to reign in the twentieth year of Jotham; but Jotham only reigned 16 years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). But <a href='B:120 17:1'>2Ki 17:1</a> says that Hoshea became king of Israel in the 12th year of Ahaz. There are various possibilities here. One is that if <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> "in the twentieth year of Jotham" means "in the twentieth year from the accession of Jotham" i:e. in the fourth year of Ahaz, as Jotham reigned sixteen years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). There may have been some overlap in the reigns, whereby two kings rule at the same time, an "interregnum". Although we must then somehow factor in <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>. Another possibility is that although Hoshea killed Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz (<a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>), he didn't fully become king until eight years later. Eight years of anarchy between the death of Pekah and establishment of Hoshea as king would not be unimaginable, given the terribly divided state of Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-</p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, see on :21.</p>


text:
<p>In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign-</p><p>Verse 33 notes that "He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem". &nbsp;</p><p>He died at 41, which is a number which repeats at least three other times in the history of the kings (<a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>; <a href='B:110 15:10'>1Ki 15:10</a>; <a href='B:120 14:23'>2Ki 14:23</a>). We can only ponder whether this is all some kind of Divinely arranged program, the exact function of which we cannot understand although we perceive it as existent.</p>


text:
<p>He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok- </p><p>Zadok, righteousness, is a typical priestly name; so we wonder whether this was another example of the kingly and priestly lines uniting.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh; he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done- </p><p>So often kings who were not very faithful or spiritual are described with a rubric like: "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according to all that his father::. had done". This may not mean that he totally did what was right in God's sight. He did what was right only insofar as his father had done. And this is why over time, the spirituality of the kings of Judah decreased.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burned incense in the high places. He built the upper gate of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This was the gate which led from the king's palace to the temple. The fact the king rebuilt it would reflect his desire for access to the temple and a wish to show solidarity with the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>Bearing in mind the note on :21, it is so that 2 Chronicles 27 records in great detail Jotham's mighty works.</p>


text:
<p>In those days Yahweh began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah- </p><p>God had condemned and forbidden any fighting between His people. But He sent Pekah of Israel against Judah. He confirms division and conflict between brethren if that is what they wish, just as He confirms the unity of the Spirit through His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Ahaz his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p><p></p>


text:
<p>In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign-</p><p>Ahaz means 'taker hold of', and Isaiah [who prophesied at his time] seems to make a play on his name when he uses the word about the judgment which was to come upon or 'take hold of' him (<a href='B:290 5:29'>Isa 5:29</a>; <a href='B:290 13:8'>Isa 13:8</a>; <a href='B:290 21:3'>Isa 21:3</a>; <a href='B:290 33:14'>Isa 33:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign; and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. He didn’t do that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh his God, like David his father- </p><p>Isaiah, Hosea and Micah all prophesied during his evil reign and provide more details about the awful nature of his sins.</p>


text:
<p>But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel- </p><p>Although Israel is often described as the source of Judah's apostacy, we must give due weight to Ezekiel's word that Judah was in fact more wicked than Israel. This could have been because Judah fell further, from greater spiritual potential. Or maybe because sinners can provoke people to sin worse than they do.</p><p>Yes, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel- </p><p>Hezekiah his son somehow survived this, but may have reacted to his father's murder of his brothers by turning right against such idolatry. This means that his apparent zeal for Yahweh [remembering that he turned away from Him in the end and raised Manasseh] was partly due to a psychological reaction against his father and traumatic childhood experiences. For he would have lived in constant fear that he would also be offered, at the whim of the gods of his father. It was common to make children pass through fire as a kind of dedication ceremony; but he actually burnt his children in the fire, such was his obsession.</p><p>The valley of Hinnom, Ge Hinnom, was to later be known as Gehenna, and became a symbol used by the Lord for complete destruction (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a>). As they burnt their children there, to destruction, so sinners would be burnt to destruction in that same place. Joachim Jeremias explains how the literal valley of Gehenna came to be misinterpreted as a symbol of a ‘hell’ that is supposed to be a place of fire: “[Gehenna]…since ancient times has been the name of the valley west and south of Jerusalem…from the woes pronounced by the prophets on the valley (<a href='B:300 7:32'>Jer 7:32</a> = <a href='B:120 19:6'>2Ki 19:6</a>; cf. <a href='B:290 31:9'>Isa 31:9</a>; <a href='B:290 66:24'>Isa 66:24</a>) because sacrifices to Moloch took place there (<a href='B:120 16:3'>2Ki 16:3</a>; <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a>), there developed in the second century BC the idea that the valley of Hinnom would be the place of a fiery hell (Eth. Enoch 26; 90:26)… it is distinguished from sheol” (New Testament Theology, London: SCM, 1972 p. 129).</p>


text:
<p>He sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places and on the hills, and under every green tree- </p><p>Large, flourishing green trees weren't so common in the landscape, and they therefore came to be seen as the presence of fertility gods. This is the huge significance of the old covenant promising fertility from Yahweh- for most of the pagan gods were seen as fertility gods, and this is why they were worshipped by largely agricultural people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him- </p><p>2 Chronicles 28 records their massive military victories against Ahaz. But Kings wishes to stress that despite these, they could not overcome him in order to take Jerusalem. He outlived their siege. It seems he lost nearly all of Judah apart from Jerusalem. This focus upon the fact Jerusalem was retained is perhaps to show how it was preserved by grace, because of God's special grace toward the throne of David there. But that grace was not limitless, and the situation was to repeat in Hezekiah's time, until finally Jerusalem did fall, because of the persistent evil of the people.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Syrians came to Elath, and lived there, to this day- </p><p>Elath was Judah's eastern port, and yet it was surrounded by Edom. "The Syrians" could be as LXX "the Idumeans", i:e. the Edomites.</p>


text:
<p>So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria saying, I am your servant and your son. Come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who are rising up against me- </p><p><a href='B:120 16:7'>2Ki 16:7</a> "Syria" is LXX "Edom". Although Kings then records the Assyrian attack upon Syria (:17). So perhaps the idea is that the Edomites of <a href='B:140 28:17'>2Ch 28:17</a> were in fact under the control of Syria: "For again the Edomites had come and struck Judah, and carried away captives". It seems Edom was under the control of Syria. And so Ahaz paid Assyria to attack Syria. Or it could be [putting the Kings record together with this] that Ahaz paid Assyria to help him against Edom, but Assyria instead attacked Syria, claiming that was good enough work done for the money. Even though Assyria had their own agenda for attacking Syria (Aram).</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of Yahweh, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria- </p><p>Chronicles says that he "gathered together the vessels of the house of God and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God", as if he melted them down to send to Assyria. He showed thereby how little respect he had for the things of Yahweh worship. Gold is a symbol of faith (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>), and his faith was clearly not in God but in the might of Assyria- which was to later almost destroy Judah in Hezekiah's time.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Assyria listened to him. The king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried its people captive to Kir, and killed Rezin- </p><p><a href='B:140 28:20'>2Ch 28:20</a> comments that "Tilgath Pilneser king of Assyria came to him and distressed him, but didn’t strengthen him". Giving God's money to Gentile powers never achieved anything but only ever made matters worse (<a href='B:140 16:2'>2Ch 16:2</a>; <a href='B:120 12:18'>2Ki 12:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:15'>2Ki 18:15</a>). But even Hezekiah refused to learn this clearly taught theme in the history of God's people. "It didn't help him" was to be Judah's later experience in seeking help from Egypt against Babylon (s:w. <a href='B:290 31:1'>Isa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:310 4:17'>Lam 4:17</a>). Again, they failed to learn the lessons from history, unwilling to see that these historical situations spoke directly to their own situations and lives. We too can fail to perceive this. In fact the choice of histories and biographies we have in the Bible have been carefully selected in order that man need never feel alone; in essence, every life situation has been met at some point and time in the past.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria, and saw the altar that was at Damascus- </p><p>This was surely one of the mobile altars which the Assyrians took with them. Assyria had conquered Damascus and so were enthroning their gods there. Tiglath Pileser was known for holding regional courts for his vassals as he travelled around on his campaigns.</p><p>And king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and its pattern, according to all its workmanship- </p><p>However, Ahaz also tried worshipping the gods of Syria (Aram) whom he had asked Assyria to attack: "For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which struck him. He said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, so I will sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel" (<a href='B:140 28:23'>2Ch 28:23</a>). The increasing distress upon Ahaz was intended to elicit his repentance and turning to Yahweh. But instead he turned even more to idolatry. This mad obsession with idolatry is described in Ezekiel and Hosea as like a kind of sexual addiction, whereby the more partners a sex addict has, the more they require. Most nations had a set of national gods, and they only changed them if they were conquered by other nations and forced to accept their gods. But God's people had an obsession with every kind of god, until the Jerusalem temple was filled with all manner of shrines to various gods at the time of its destruction. And the bizarre thing was that Syria was to fall at this time to Assyria (<a href='B:120 16:9'>2Ki 16:9</a>); their gods didn't ultimately help them, and in fact Ahaz had paid money to Assyria to attack the Syrians.</p><p>"Fashion::. pattern" is a similar phrase to that in <a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a>, where God made man in His image and likeness. Here, Ahaz creates after another image and likeness. Just as man has in a sense created gods after his own image and likeness, and not in God's.</p>


text:
<p>Urijah the priest built an altar: according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus, so Urijah the priest made it for the coming of king Ahaz from Damascus- </p><p>If Urijah the priest is the one of <a href='B:290 8:2'>Isa 8:2</a>, we see how even Isaiah's inner circle had fallen away. Assyrian altars were small and mobile (see on :10), built on a triangular base with very specific Assyrian inscriptions. We note the pagan associations of the triangle have a long history, which continues in the false doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p>When the king had come from Damascus, the king saw the altar, and the king drew near to the altar, and offered on it- </p><p>He acted as a priest within the temple. Uzziah did this and was struck with leprosy. Ahaz apparently 'got away with it'. But this connects with the question as to why such a sinful man had such a long reign. We can only assume that this was because God kept trying with him, in the hope of repentance. But God responds differently to sin in every life; and therein lies the fallacy of churches seeking to have a standard policy on how to respond to sin and failure. Each case is different, even if the external sin is apparently the same. Seeing and then worshipping recalls the sin of Adam and Eve, seeing the fruit and then eating it. Their sin was indeed the essence of every sin which was to follow.</p>


text:
<p>He burnt his burnt offering and his meal offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings on the altar- </p><p>Again we see Ahaz acting as a priest (see on :12), although with no faithful priest like Azariah to step in and stop him (<a href='B:140 26:17'>2Ch 26:17</a>). We note he offered peace offerings, something only possible through having persuaded himself that he could worship idols as a form of Yahweh worship. Are we going to be like Israel, who offered peace offerings, and then rose up from their tables to worship idols and indulge their flesh (<a href='B:20 32:5-6'>Exo 32:5-6</a>)? Are we going to be like those Israelites who offered a peace offering, when actually they were not at peace with God at all (<a href='B:90 13:9'>1Sa 13:9</a>; <a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:370 5:22'>Amo 5:22</a>)? These are challenges especially appropriate to the breaking of bread meeting, which is a kind of new covenant equivalent for the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p>The bronze altar, which was before Yahweh, he brought from the forefront of the house, from between his altar and the house of Yahweh, and put it on the north side of his altar- </p><p>We note he didn't destroy Yahweh's altar nor melt it down as he did other things in the temple (<a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a>). He saw himself as reinterpreting Yahweh worship, rather than destroying it.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest saying, On the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meal offering, and the king’s burnt offering, and his meal offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meal offering and their drink offerings; and sprinkle on it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice; but the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by- </p><p>Again we see Ahaz continuing to worship Yahweh, but claiming to do so through worshipping idols. This has been the perennial temptation for God's people, to mix flesh and spirit, to go the way of the flesh in the name of the Spirit. The king continued to have "his" special offerings. He did not turn away from Yahweh officially, but rather sought to show that he was continuing faithful to the tradition of the king leading the way in offering sacrifice (<a href='B:110 8:62'>1Ki 8:62</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Urijah the priest did so, according to all that king Ahaz commanded-</p><p>We must compare the scene with the reminiscence of <a href='B:140 29:7'>2Ch 29:7</a>: "Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel". </p><p>I suggest that offerings were offered there, but to Yahweh through the pagan gods. But this was not therefore offering to the God of Israel, who demands totally devotion to Himself as the only true God. For the temple services continued on some level (<a href='B:120 16:14-16'>2Ki 16:14-16</a>), although Ahaz had brought idols into the holy place of the temple (<a href='B:140 29:5'>2Ch 29:5</a>).</p><p>Ahaz didn't totally reject Yahweh worship (see on <a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a>). He had mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry, which in essence is the temptation we all have. Scientific atheism, a total rejection of our God, is likely not our biggest temptation; rather is it to mix His ways with those of the flesh and the secular world.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahaz cut off the panels of the bases, and removed the basins from off them, and took down the sea from off the bronze oxen that were under it, and put it on a pavement of stone- </p><p>Ahaz saw no need for cleansing within the rituals of worship. He had no conscience of personal sin. And so his desecration of the laver is particularly recorded. The 'gathering together' of the temple vessels (<a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a>) may mean he melted them down. However <a href='B:120 16:17'>2Ki 16:17</a> implies this was only done to the huge supports of the laver. I suggest Ahaz retained some level of belief in Yahweh, for the temple services continued on some level (<a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a>), although Ahaz had brought idols into the holy place of the temple (<a href='B:140 29:5'>2Ch 29:5</a>). He had mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry, which in essence is the temptation we all have. Scientific atheism, a total rejection of our God, is likely not our biggest temptation; rather is it to mix His ways with those of the flesh and the secular world.</p>


text:
<p>The covered way for the Sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry outside the house of Yahweh, he changed because of the king of Assyria- </p><p><a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a> says that "Ahaz gathered together the vessels of God’s house, cut in pieces the vessels of God’s house, and shut up the doors of the house of Yahweh; and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem". But perhaps <a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a> helps understand this as meaning that he shut up one door or gate of the temple and devoted it to the idols of Assyria; without meaning that all the doors or gates of the temple were closed. It's doubtful Ahaz resigned all belief in Yahweh, but rather wanted to treat all his gods equally. Lest he offend any of them. The fundamental teaching that Yahweh is one, the one and only God, was ignored. This particular "way" was the passage between the king's house and the temple which he used every Sabbath. He "changed" it, or perhaps named it in honour of the king of Assyria.</p><p>These changes to the temple and its equipment in :17,18 are similar to how the Egyptian kings are recorded as mutilating their gods and temples when the gods fell out of favour with them. However we noted on :15 that Ahaz continued the semblance of worship of Yahweh, but dedicated it instead to his new gods. It is too simplistic to think that he totally rejected Yahweh for other gods. Our temptations likewise are not a case of becoming atheists.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not be the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles. See on <a href='B:120 15:21'>2Ki 15:21</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Hezekiah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah, Hoshea the son of Elah began to reign in Samaria over Israel for nine years- </p><p><a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> says that Hoshea began to reign in the twentieth year of Jotham; but Jotham only reigned 16 years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). But <a href='B:120 17:1'>2Ki 17:1</a> says that Hoshea became king of Israel in the 12th year of Ahaz. There are various possibilities here. One is that if <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> "in the twentieth year of Jotham" means "in the twentieth year from the accession of Jotham" i:e. in the fourth year of Ahaz, as Jotham reigned sixteen years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). There may have been some overlap in the reigns, whereby two kings rule at the same time, an "interregnum". Although we must then somehow factor in <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>. Another possibility is that although Hoshea killed Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz (<a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>), he didn't fully become king until eight years later. Eight years of anarchy between the death of Pekah and establishment of Hoshea as king would not be unimaginable, given the terribly divided state of Israel at the time.</p>


