§ 5. Joram in the Kingdom of Israel and in the Kingdom of Judah
Ahaziah, as we have already stated, was succeeded by his brother Jehoram, who reigned for twelve years. He renounced the service of idols; but calf-worship was so closely bound up with the national interests of Israel, that he had not courage to abolish it. While in the beginning he paid little heed to the prophets of the true God, they afterwards by their deeds, especially those of Elisha, acquired great authority over him,—without his experiencing a true change of heart, however. His first care was to regain his ascendency over the Moabites, who had revolted immediately after the death of Ahab, and had refused to pay the heavy tribute obtained from their large flocks, which found rich pasture partly on their own land, and partly in the neighbouring Waste and Stony Arabia. With this object in view, Jehoram besought King Jehoshaphat for his assistance, who promised it the more readily, since by this means he had an opportunity of punishing the Moabites for the invasion of his land which they had made shortly before, in conjunction with the tribes of the wilderness. Notwithstanding the great extremity in which the kings at first found themselves, the war came to a prosperous ending. There were two ways of invading the country of the Moabites,—either from the northern boundary, passing the Jordan in the neighbourhood of Jericho, and then crossing the Anion; or the allied army might advance to the southern end of the Dead Sea, and then reach the southern territory of the Moabites through the northern part of the Edomite mountain-district. The king of Israel left the choice to the king of Judah, because the latter way, which led through his territory, could only be undertaken with his permission. The king of Judah decided in its favour. It was attended with such great hardships and dangers, that the Moabites probably thought themselves secure on this side, where Mount Seir seemed to form a boundary-wall insurmountable to a whole army; and might therefore be surprised the more easily. In this way, too, it would be easier to collect the auxiliary troops of the king of the Edomites, who was tributary to Judah. When, in 1 Kings 22:47, we read that there was no king in Edom at the time of Jehoshaphat, the meaning, as we see from the context, is that there was no independent king, in distinction from a vassal. But notwithstanding the apparent wisdom of the plan, it brought the army into the greatest danger. It was necessary for them to traverse the mountain-pass formed by the Wadi Hossa, which hastens from the west to the east towards the Dead Sea, the natural boundary on the side of Arabia Petraea, probably the same way which was formerly taken by Naomi when she left the land of the Moabites and returned to her home in Bethlehem, which was followed by the Crusaders when they journeyed from the Valley of Salt, Seyon, to Syria Sobal, and was afterwards taken by Seetzen on his way from Moab, past the Dead Sea, to Jerusalem. The kings had probably calculated that the Wadi Hossa would afford them a sufficient supply of water; but in this hope they were deceived. The brook had been dried up by long-continued drought. Their position was desperate; the fainting army was in hourly expectation that the Moabites would come down on them from the northern mountains. In this extremity the difference of disposition between the king of Judah and the king of Israel betrays itself in a remarkable way. Jehoram is quite in despair: he thinks he sees certain destruction before him, because he knows that he has deserved the punishment of the Lord. Jehoshaphat has a better conscience, although it is not quite pure, since his connection with the king of Israel, which he had probably regarded as allowable because Jehoram was not an idolater like his predecessor, might now appear to him in another light. He refuses to give up hope, and inquires whether there is not a prophet of the Lord in the place. Elisha was in the camp, or in its vicinity,—a circumstance only explicable on the supposition that he had received a revelation from the Lord to the effect that He would want him there. For the embarrassment in which the king was involved immediately when he began his reign, was intended as a means in the hand of the Lord to procure authority and perfect freedom for His prophets in the exercise of their calling, under this new reign. The kings, humiliated by misfortune, repair to Elisha in person. Elisha at first gives the king of Israel an evasive answer, referring him to his calf-prophets. He knew that this was the time, if ever, when punishment would make a salutary impression on the king. Jehoram is deeply humbled by sorrow. He begs Elisha not to repel him in this way, now when the Lord has brought such heavy misfortune upon him and his allies, but, if possible, to show him the way out of his embarrassment. Elisha perceives that the repentance of the king is merely superficial, and therefore seeks to move him still more deeply, by declaring that he will only interest himself in the matter for the sake of the pious Jehoshaphat. He now sends for a minstrel, and by a stringed instrument is brought into the frame of mind necessary to the reception of the Spirit of God. Where the Spirit was to speak, it was requisite first to wrap one’s own life in silence, and to fill the soul with utter rest and stillness. Perhaps Elisha felt the greater need of such a preparation, because he had been agitated by his conference with the king of Israel. But it is unnecessary to assume this to have been the case, since music appears even elsewhere as the ordinary means employed by the prophets for the suppression of self-consciousness. The prophet now prophesies that they will soon not only receive an abundant supply of water, but will completely conquer the Moabites. The natural means employed by God for the fulfilment of the former prophecy was doubtless as follows: Violent showers of rain, or a kind of waterspout, fell in the Edomitic mountains. The water ran in streams through the bed of the dried-up torrent on which the allied armies were encamped, to the Dead Sea. Thus the army received water without having seen a rain-cloud. Because the mountain-torrent, which had its origin in a sudden shower of rain, would necessarily soon subside, and the former need recur, therefore the army, at the command of Elisha, had made ditches in the bed of the torrent itself, and round about it, in which the water was retained. By divine decree the water did not come until the day after these preparations were already ended, and just at the time when the morning sacrifice was offered in the temple at Jerusalem, in order at the same time to serve for a confirmation of the legal worship. In many miraculous manifestations of God, prominence is given to the fact that they happened just at the time when His mercy was entreated by sacrifice and prayer in the sanctuary appointed by Him. In the meantime the Moabites with all their forces had repaired to their southern border, and had occupied the mountainous district north of the wadi. In all probability the water had taken a reddish hue from the red ground over which it flowed. According to Burckhardt, the mountains there are composed principally of sandstone. The illusion was strengthened by the rays of the rising sun, which were refracted in it. The Moabites, with their accurate knowledge of the district, knew that the wadi was dried up. Hence it was difficult for them to think that it was water which they saw shimmering down in the distance. The recollection of the way in which the former campaign had been thwarted by mutual destruction was still fresh in their memories. They knew the former hostile relation, and the natural jealousy existing between Israel and Judah; they knew that the Edomites were less voluntary than compelled allies of the Judaites. Thus the idea suggested itself to some, that what they saw was blood, and that their enemies had destroyed one another. The mass of the people assumed the truth of what they wished, without waiting to prove it. Eager for booty, they left their secure position in the mountain, and fell upon the hostile camp. In the valley the superior force gained an easy victory over them. Their whole land was now conquered and laid waste, as Elisha had foretold, though without approving of the cruelties then perpetrated, which, however, cannot be judged according to our more recent martial law and the code of nations. The king had thrown himself, with a part of his troops, into the fortress Kir-hareseth. This was the most important fortress in the country. It appears in Isa. Isaiah 16:7 under this name, and in Isaiah 15:1 under the name מואב, the walls of Moab. It was situated on a very high and steep mountain-rock in the neighbourhood of Zared, and commanded a view over the Dead Sea, and across to Jerusalem. In the twelfth century the ruined fortress was rebuilt, and played an important part under the name of Karak; comp. Gesenius on Isaiah 15:1, Isaiah 16:7. This fortress was besieged by the allied armies, and the slingers did great damage to the garrison. Yet it was only by starving out the garrison that they could hope to occupy the fortress, unless, like Saladin, who besieged this fortress in the middle ages, they had sling machines which were included among the slingers. Machines of this kind appear in the history of Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26:15. The Moabitish king, reduced to the last extremity, made an attempt with seven hundred men to cut his way through the enemy, choosing the side occupied by the Idumeans, because he expected less resistance in this quarter. When his attempt failed, he offered up his own son on the wall to his god Chemosh. His object was to make an impression on the minds of his enemies,—to fill them with fear of the divine revenge on account of their unmerciful conduct. That in cases of extreme need the heathen sought to propitiate the wrath of their idols by human sacrifices, is proved by not a few examples. Even in a much more enlightened age, the Tyrians, when besieged by Alexander, were on the point of resorting to it at the advice of the Carthaginians. This deed of horror was revolting to the heart of the pious Jehoshaphat, and perhaps also to the Idumeans. Their anger was kindled against the Israelites, because they had given occasion for this crime by their want of compassion in reducing the besieged to the utmost extremity. The king of Israel was obliged to yield to their decidedly expressed wish to raise the siege, and the allied armies departed homewards with the booty from the country which they had laid waste. It redounds to the honour of the covenant-nation that, from fear of God, they forbore to carry matters to extremes; and it is in vain for Ewald to represent as superstition what was the result of deep and living piety. The miraculous deeds of Elisha narrated in 2 Kings 4 of the second book of Kings find their vindication in the fact that in the kingdom of Israel the Levites had not a legally recognised position as the servants of God, as was the case in Judah; hence the prophethood had far greater importance in the latter. Moreover, the miracles performed by some among them who were specially gifted, served as an authorization of the whole class, which was the more needed, because they stood not in transitory opposition to individual ungodly kings, but in permanent hostility towards the state-religion, which was closely connected with the state. The fact that, notwithstanding these miraculous manifestations of God, the people as a whole were so little improved that the Lord was obliged to visit them with the punishment of the captivity, is a strong argument for their necessity. We shall first of all make a few observations on the history of the Shunammite. Shunem was a town of the tribe of Issachar, through which Elisha passed on his journey from his usual abode on Mount Carmel to Samaria, where, as we learn from 2 Kings 4:13, he was held in high estimation, and had unbounded influence with the king and his highest officers,—an influence which he carefully made use of for the establishment of good or the destruction of evil. In visiting the prophetic schools at Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, which were subject to his supervision, Elisha was obliged to touch at Shunem also. In these journeys he was entertained by a rich pious Shunammite with eager hospitality, based on his relation to the Lord. As a reward, her marriage, which had formerly been childless, was blessed at the prayer of the prophet. The death of the child was intended to reveal the faith of the woman and the power of the Lord. The former shows itself in the answer which she sent to her husband. He was still in the field with his men, at some distance, it appears, from the city, and knew nothing of the death of the child. The woman sends, asking for a servant to accompany her to the prophet,—a message which causes some anxiety to the husband, who inquires, “Wherefore wilt thou go to him to-day? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” He was accustomed to his wife’s visiting the prophet on holy days. From this passage it follows that on these days a small number of the faithful were in the habit of assembling about the prophets, to be taught and edified by them. But now, on an ordinary day, the husband has a presentiment of something unusual. In the kingdom of Judah we find no example of this kind of regular teaching on the part of the prophets. The history of Jehoshaphat shows that this duty devolved on the priests and Levites. The woman, without telling him the object of her journey, sets his mind at rest with the assurance that nothing evil has occurred. She was firmly convinced that the prophet would raise her dead child to life again. Hence she resolves not to trouble her husband, whose faith is weak, with news of a calamity which, persuaded by the eye of faith, she regards as no longer in existence. Her faith is still more fully shown in her address to the prophet himself. She has no doubt whatever that he can come to her assistance if he will; and from his own promise she shows him that he must be willing to do so. He had promised her a son, as a reward for the love and faith which she had shown him. A child who dies again so soon, she maintains, is no reward, but a punishment. From the way in which Elisha treats the dead child, it seems as if the Lord had suffered him to retain a faint germ of life, which was ripened by the power imparted to Elisha. But the event must by no means be removed from the sphere of the miraculous. Gehazi finds no sign whatever of life in the child, and in 2 Kings 8:5 the event is expressly characterized as a miracle. The similar miracle of Elijah was undoubtedly greater, because it had no point of contact in natural causes. After this event Elisha left his customary abode on Mount Carmel and went to Gilgal, where he had last been with Elijah. There he remained for a long time, and inspected the greatly frequented schools of the prophets, whose members, the sons of the prophets, must invariably be regarded not as pupils, but as subordinate teachers,—as those who, under the supervision of their head, were responsible for the spiritual nourishment of the people. A famine there gave him an opportunity of proving the divine nature of his authority in a twofold way before the eyes of the sons of the prophets, and also of ratifying the position of the servants of God in the kingdom of Israel in the face of the calf-prophets. A disciple of the prophets had gone out into the field to look for all kinds of herbs as vegetables for the whole community. These disciples dwelt together in a kind of convent, and the arrangements among them seem to have been more like those of a cloister than the earlier evangelical theologians, from false polemic interest against the Romish Church, would concede, though not so much so as this Church asserted. The fruit of a climbing plant attracted the attention of the youth, who had more experience in divine things than in household matters, since, owing to its great size, it promised great gain. It was a kind of wild gourd—the coloquintida. The fruit, about the size of a fist, and covered with a white skin of the nature of leather, has a soft, spongy juice, which has the bitterest and most horrible taste. It is called the devil’s apple. Taken frequently, it produces violent sickness, and finally causes death. The youth gathered as much of this plant as he could carry; and those who provided for the common kitchen were no better skilled in natural science than he: it was only by tasting it that they gained experience. Elisha remedied the evil by a means which in itself could not have had this effect. Another incident occurred in the same place. According to the law, the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil were to be given to the priests; also some of the first bread baked of fresh corn,—the amount of the present being left to the will of the giver; comp. Deuteronomy 18:4-5, Numbers 18:13. But because the priests were banished from the kingdom of Israel, those who feared God, finding it impossible to fulfil the law according to the letter, sought to fulfil it in spirit. While there can be no doubt that the great mass of the people transferred to the calf-priests what had been appointed for the Levitical priests, the God-fearing brought their first-fruits to the extraordinary representatives of the priests appointed by God,—the prophets and their disciples. In the time of the famine there came, among others, a man from Baal-shalisha,—a place otherwise unknown,—bringing twenty loaves of bread to the prophetic school at Gilgal. Besides this, on the foundation of Leviticus 2:14, Leviticus 23:14, he brought a bug full of carmel,—a word of uncertain meaning,—according to some, “green ears.” These are roasted by fire in the East, and then eaten, which is the case in Egypt, as modern travellers attest. Elisha commands that this food be given to the famishing disciples of the prophets to eat. “What! should I set this before an hundred men?” his servant replies. The school of the prophets had greatly increased, owing to the presence of Elisha. Twenty loaves were a small thing for a hundred men; for Eastern loaves are only the size of a plate and the thickness of a finger; comp. Korte’s Travels, p. 458. But Elisha foretells in faith that all shall be satisfied, and a remnant be left over. His word was fulfilled,—a prefiguration of the similar but far greater miracle of Christ. In both narratives, and also in that of the lost axe, which has erroneously been regarded as an actual miracle, (the extraordinary part of the thing was, that the prophet should have hit the handle of the axe at the first stroke of the stick, thus raising the iron with the wood), the life of the disciples of the prophets appears as one of great poverty,—as a life of renunciation and want,—and we can well conceive that it was necessary for God to reveal Himself to them in a very powerful way, if they were to give up all earthly things for His sake. With reference to the healing of Naaman the Syrian, related in 2 Kings 5, we have only a few remarks to make. We there have the story of the cure of the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian captain, who had acquired great influence with the king of Syria, owing to the skilful discharge of his office. He was indeed afflicted with leprosy, but had nevertheless retained his post, for the laws of separation on account of leprosy were not so strict among the Syrians as in Israel. By an Israelitish prisoner who dwelt in his house, his attention was directed to Elisha as the only one who was in a position to free him from his most irksome malady. The king probably thought that the prophets were subject to the king of Israel, just as his own venal idolatrous priests were subservient to him. To specify more definitely the way in which the cure was to be effected, was beneath his dignity, he thought. Hence Joram thought that the object in demanding from him what he was not in a position to render, was nothing less than to find a pretext for war. His unbelief made him forget the power of the Lord, which, as he himself had already experienced, was able to effect that which was impossible to man. He was greatly perplexed. Owing to these circumstances, under the guidance of God the healing of the Syrian produced a powerful impression not only on Naaman and his countrymen, but also on the king of Israel himself and his people, making them conscious of the infinite distance which separated their God from the dead idols of the heathen, and constraining them to worship him with grateful hearts. Elisha sends word to the king to send the Syrian to him, that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel. These words give the highest object of the miraculous cure. In every case when the heathen either mocked the true God, or sought His aid, He revealed His power. In this respect the character of God remains the same throughout all centuries, as a proof that He is a true historical God, and not the mere invention of fancy. Elisha does not suffer Naaman to come into his presence, but tells him through his servant what he is to do. Many have attributed this conduct to false motives. It was undoubtedly intended to humiliate the Syrian, who prided himself on his dignity, and could not yet have understood the humility of Elisha; while asserting his dignity as a servant of the true God, Elisha at the same time pointed him to the reverence due to God on his part also. The means which Elisha prescribes to Naaman for his bodily cure, form an excellent representation of those which true religion affords for spiritual purification. They are as simple as possible, dispensing with all appearance of inherent power, that the divine power may be the more strikingly manifested. Naaman’s first words give us a true picture of the mind of the natural man. The means which the prophet prescribes to Naaman are too simple for him: he himself has scarcely any part in them; and the prophet will not even be present on their application. Thus so far all human instrumentality is excluded; and yet the natural man still places his hope on it, and in his heart ascribes to it the greatest part of the result, though confessing with his mouth that he expects everything from God alone. The observation of Naaman’s servant is quite true: had the prophet told him to do some great thing, he would have done it at once. We here see the origin of the opposition of the natural man to the doctrine of the atonement. “Wash and be clean,” is just as incomprehensible and offensive to the natural man in a spiritual aspect as it is here in a corporeal aspect. Yet Naaman at last follows the command of the prophet, and at once experiences the rich blessing which follows his obedience. He now wishes to give Elisha the rich presents which he had brought with him for this purpose. But Elisha refuses them, which seems strange at the first glance. We have many other examples showing that the prophets did receive presents; it even appears that the schools of the prophets were entirely supported by free-will offerings. But there can be no doubt that these gifts were only taken from those to whom the prophets stood in a pastoral relation. The prophet could accept nothing from the stranger without weakening the effect of that which had happened, on the still unstable mind of Naaman, and on his countrymen. At the same time, Naaman’s further conversation with the prophet shows that he did not stop at the gift, as is generally the case, but raised himself to the giver, in whom, by an illumination from God Himself, he recognised not one deity among many, endowed with special power, in accordance with the polytheistic notion, but the only true God; but this new light had not yet expelled all darkness of perception and will. He wishes to take a few loads of earth from Canaan, for the purpose of building an altar with it, where he might sacrifice to the true God. An element of superstition, though innocent, is here unmistakeable. Naaman goes on to say that on one point he must ask the forbearance of the Lord. When accompanying the king in his official capacity to the temple of the idol Rimmon, he cannot avoid bowing down with him before this idol. Many—for example, Buddeus—have endeavoured to set aside this inconvenient sense by a forced interpretation. Others, as Michaelis, maintain that Naaman was obliged to bow down, not to worship the idol, but from respect to the king, who was most grossly insulted if any one remained standing beside him while he was prostrate on the ground. But this latter argument plainly proves nothing. It might indeed be Naaman’s duty to bow down with the king as long as he retained his office; but why could he not give up his office for the sake of God? He is in some measure excused, though not justified, on the supposition that he zealously and assiduously made known his faith in the one true God, and his complete renunciation of all idols, so that at least the greater number of those who saw him bow down knew that he did it only for the sake of the king, and not for the sake of the idols. In this case his taking part in the ceremonies could only in an imperfect sense be called the profession of a cause which he despised in his heart. Elisha’s conduct on this occasion is remarkable. He dismisses Naaman with the words, “Go in peace.” By many these words have erroneously been regarded as conceding the points referred to by Naaman, not only that just mentioned, but also his desire to take away earth from the holy land for the building of an altar for the Lord in Syria. The words are only the customary formula of departure, here spoken with emphasis and with their original and certainly show that on the whole Naaman was in the right way, and that his attitude of heart pleased the prophet. The prophet designedly refrains from entering into the two points. With respect to the former, Naaman had not asked his permission, nor made the matter dependent on his decision. He had absolutely stated that the Lord must pardon him in this matter, since it could not be otherwise. Elisha had too much wisdom not to see that by insisting on the discontinuance of these outward acts he might have done more harm than good, perhaps even have destroyed the work which had been begun; the refusal of the presents shows that there is no question except of a faith still future. He therefore left him to the guidance of the Lord, who alone was able to lead him on in spirit, but took care not to utter a single word in justification of his weakness. The favour extended to the heathen was followed by another remarkable prefiguration of the future,—the punishment of a member of the covenant-nation, and that of one who, by virtue of his constant intercourse with the prophet, stood in a near relation to God. Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, who held the same relation towards his master as Elisha had formerly held towards Elijah, both carnally and spiritually, as the history of the Shunammite shows, was led away by avarice to hasten after Naaman, and, under a false pretext, in the name of Elisha, to ask a portion of the possessions which his master had rejected. Avarice here truly showed itself to be the root of all evil. It led him into falsehood,—first towards Naaman, and then towards his own master. It stifled all higher considerations; for if he had yielded to these, he would have hesitated to destroy the work of God, so far as it lay in his power. Naaman’s faith clung to the instrument which God had employed as a means of calling it forth. But what must he think of this instrument, when he, who had shown himself so disinterested in his presence, now sent after him, and on a suspicious pretext yet demanded his reward? The punishment which fell upon Gehazi was not simply just, it was necessary for the sake of the cause. The news of it must soon spread abroad in every direction, and would reach even Naaman. The leprosy with which Gehazi was afflicted was a far heavier calamity for him than it had been for Naaman. For the latter, it was only of the same nature as any other sickness. It was evident that among the Syrians no ignominy was attached to leprosy, from the circumstance that Naaman held his high dignity afterwards as well as before, continuing to live in the society of his wife and children, and visiting the temple of the god Rimmon. It was quite different with leprosy in Israel. By the law, it was appointed to be a type of sin, and the leper was treated as the actual sin, being thrust out from society. And the fact that leprosy was by law an image of sin, explains why the punishment of leprosy was inflicted on Gehazi. The image of sin is best adapted to reflect it: the sinner before God is in this way revealed as a sinner before man, before whom he must bear the image of sin. This punishment was the more appropriate in this case, since Gehazi had played the hypocrite, concealing his sin under the semblance of piety. God now made it manifest before the eyes of all the world.
After a short interruption, the war with the Syrians began again. Elisha had here another opportunity of convincing the king and the nation of the deity of the Lord, and of the divinity of his own mission. The magnanimity shown to the captive Syrians, and at the same time the divine co-operation so apparent in the matter, induced Ben-hadad, the Syrian king, to suspend hostilities for a time. Soon, however, these motives lost their power. Ben-hadad again invaded Israel with a large army, and besieged Samaria. But palpable punishment was destined to overtake nation and king, because all their previous experience had failed to bring forth in them the true fruits of repentance; they had contented themselves with mere admiration of the divine power and external obedience to the prophets, and had not felt themselves constrained to seek help in their spiritual need, which is the object of all temporal aid. The famine reached its greatest height in the city. Even kinds of food which were forbidden in the law, and were unclean according to it, could only be had for a high price. An ass’s head was sold for eighty pieces of silver, and a small measure of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver. The latter designation ought perhaps to be taken figuratively, as the name of a coarse kind of food unknown to us, similar to that which bears the same name among the Arabs; comp. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 1. 1, chap. 7. Ewald and Thenius, indeed, hold to the literal meaning. “If the excrement of snipe can be eaten as a luxury,” the latter remarks, “necessity might readily permit the use of dove’s dung.” Experience alone can decide, and the defenders of this view ought to have made the experiment. Scenes of horror occurred such as Moses had foretold as a divine judgment on the transgressors of the law, Deuteronomy 28:53 ff., and were afterwards repeated when Jerusalem was besieged -by the Chaldeans, comp. Lamentations 4:10, and again by the Romans. But when the need was greatest, divine help appeared. Not long afterwards, Elisha repaired to Damascus, or to the neighbourhood of this town. Notwithstanding the importance of the services which Elisha had rendered to Jehoram, no lasting impression had been made on prince and people. Jehoram, though not personally attached to heathendom, yet suffered it to pursue its course, and his mother Jezebel retained great influence; comp. 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Kings 9:30. It was God’s design soon to make a reckoning with nation and king. Elijah had been commanded by God to anoint Hazael, a chief servant of the king of Syria, as king over Damascus, i.e. to declare solemnly that by divine decree he was appointed to this dignity. Elijah had left the carrying out of this command to Elisha, who now received the divine instructions that the time for it was come. This interference in the affairs of a foreign country by a prophet who was only designed to be active among his own people, seems strange at the first glance. But the strangeness disappears on closer consideration. It becomes evident that the interference of the prophet stands in the closest relation to the kingdom of Israel. Hazael was destined to be a fearful instrument for the accomplishment of the divine revenge on Israel. If these judgments were to attain their object,—if they were to lead the nation to repentance,—it was necessary that they should be recognised as such, and should not be regarded as accidental effects of the sin of the human instrument. This mode of consideration was excluded by the fact that the divine decree of the exaltation of Hazael to the Syrian throne was pronounced by the prophet: all that happened by his instrumentality must now appear as foreordained by God. The sorrows which He inflicted upon Israel formed an argument not against, but in favour of His deity. We have already seen that the proclamation of such a divine decree does not justify the human deed, which is condemned by the law of God; and even Hazael did not on this account acquire the smallest right to murder his lord and king. It is a different thing when the Lord commands something to be done by His prophets, and when he simply makes known that it will happen. At that very time Ben-hadad lay sick. He had already had opportunity enough to learn to know the prophet as such; hence he no sooner heard of his arrival than he sent a messenger to him—by God’s dispensation Hazael himself—to ask whether he would recover. The rich presents destined for the prophet, in accordance with the custom of the East, were borne by a multitude of beasts of burden quite disproportionate to their magnitude, in order to make them appear still greater than they were in reality. According to another view, the words “forty camels’ burden” only indicate the value of what was sent,—the quantity of corn carried by a camel being taken as the measure. The answer of Elisha has given rise to many discussions. In 2 Kings 8:10 we find two different readings. The reading of the text is, “Go, say unto him, Thou canst not recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” The marginal reading is, “Go, say unto him, Thou shalt live.” Instead of the לא, “not,” of the text, the margin has לו, “to him.” If the reading of the text be taken as correct, no difficulty exists. Moreover, this alone has external authority in its favour. The marginal readings are only conjectures ex ingenio? the textual readings so strongly confirm what is in the MS., that the Masoretes did not venture to insert their “emendations” or deteriorations in the text. The marginal reading presents this difficulty: it makes the prophet charge Hazael with a lie,—a supposition which we cannot accept. The way in which the marginal reading originated is easily explained. It was thought that the prophet must necessarily have charged Hazael with the same message which he delivered to the king. Elisha then makes known to Hazael his future dignity, and at the same time with deep sorrow foretells the misery which he will bring upon Israel. Hazael feigns astonishment, in order not to betray himself, though he had no doubt conceived the plan long before, and prepared everything for its accomplishment. By his lying declaration he makes Ben-hadad glad with the certain prospect of recovery. On the very day following he carried out his murderous intent, in such a way that the corpse of the king showed no external marks of violence or injury. He dipped the net, or perhaps a cloth (the meaning of the expression is uncertain), which is used in the East during sleep as a protection against mosquitoes and other insects, in water, so that no fresh air could penetrate it, and spread it over the sleeping king, so that he was suffocated.
We must now give a brief summary of the parallel history of the kings of Judah, because it is closely connected with that of Israel. In 2 Kings 8:16 we read that Jehoram became king over Judah in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. This does not imply, as the verse itself shows, that Jehoshaphat was then already dead. He lived for two years afterwards. But he then transferred the greater part of the government to Jehoram, whom, according to 2 Kings 1:17, he had taken as co-regent several years before. In the acts of Jehoram we soon perceive the injurious effects of the union of Ahab with the Phenician Jezebel, whose equally infamous daughter Athaliah had been married by Jehoram. The Mosaic prohibition against marrying heathen wives, which is still binding in spirit on the Church of God, here receives its justification. Michaelis says very justly: “In this respect Tyrian, Israelitish, and Jewish history coincide. The spirit which then possessed Tyre, together with much misfortune, was brought into Israelitish history by marriage. The king of Tyre contemporary with Jehoram is Pygmalion, who murdered the husband of his sister Dido, merely to gain possession of his treasures. So also, according to 2 Chronicles 21, after the death of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram slew all his brothers, for no other reason, as it appears, than to have the treasures which his father had bequeathed to them. As idolatry had formerly been openly introduced into Israel at the instigation of Jezebel, so it was now in Judah at the instigation of Athaliah.” Here also apostasy was followed by divine judgments. The first of these was the revolt of the Idumeans, whose king had previously been a vassal of the Jewish kings. Faithfulness towards the Lord was the principle of the Israelitish nationality; the necessary consequence of the apostasy was weakness within and feebleness without. In God alone lay the strength of Israel. Soon afterwards Jehoram received a prediction of still heavier misfortune by a writing in the hand of Elijah. This appears strange at the first glance, since Elijah had already been dead for some time. Among the various attempts which have been made to solve this problem, some of which are absurd enough, two only deserve notice. According to one of these, the thing which was accomplished by Elisha is here attributed to Elijah. This explanation loses the forced character which it bears at first sight, when we take into consideration what has already been said respecting Elisha’s relation of dependence towards Elijah, whose spirit was bestowed upon him. But there is another view which has still greater probability in its favour. According to 1 Kings 19, Elijah had foreseen the elevation of Jehu to the throne of Israel, and the impending destruction by his instrumentality of the family of Ahab; also the accession of Hazael to the throne, and the heavy misfortunes inflicted on the Israelitish kingdom through him. If in this case the future were revealed to him, the greatest of all the prophets of the old covenant, why might it not also have been revealed to him that Jehoram, who came to the throne about four years after his death, and already before it had allied himself with the infamous Athaliah, would draw down upon himself the judgments of the Lord by grievous sin? This prophecy, which he had written down and given to Elisha, was at the proper time sent by the latter to the king of Judah, and was soon afterwards fulfilled. The Philistines, in alliance with Arab Bedouins, entered the land and fell upon the camp of the Judaites, where Joram was with his wives and children and a part of his treasures. All his sons, with the exception of the youngest, Jehoahaz, or, by transposition, Azariah, were slain. This was retribution for what he had done to his brothers. Jehoram himself died in the eighth year of his reign of a dreadful disease. The angry people would not suffer him to be buried in the royal sepulchre. The solemnities usual on the burial of kings were omitted. His son Ahaziah ascended the throne at the age of twenty-two years; comp. 2 Kings 8:26. It is plainly a mistake of the copyist when 2 Chronicles 22:2 represents him as forty-two years of age, since it is stated immediately before that his father died at forty years of age. He was completely under the influence of his ungodly mother Athaliah. An important crisis took place at this time. In both kingdoms heathenism, favoured by royalty, threatened to supplant the true religion. It is a striking example of divine retribution, that since Ahaziah had taken part in the crime of the family of Ahab, with which he had so closely allied himself, so too he was involved in their destruction, after having reigned for one year. This was brought about by Jehu, the captain of the host, who slew the king of Israel, Jezebel, and all the house of Ahab, and afterwards the king of Judah, who was on a visit to the king of Israel, together with a whole company of princes of the royal house of Judah whom he encountered on their way to the Israelitish court. Various judgments have been passed on this act of Jehu’s. The following is the correct view: The family of Ahab had wickedly sought to destroy the foundation of the kingdom of God in Israel; they had not only continued the worship of calves, but had also introduced idolatry; from 2 Kings 10 we see that in the latter days of Jehoram the service of Baal, which had been suppressed for a time by Elijah, now reasserted itself in the kingdom of Israel with all its horrors. They had persecuted and slain the prophets and other servants of the true God. For this, by the law of retribution, destruction was to overtake them, otherwise the threats of Moses in Deuteronomy 28, and in so many other passages, would have been falsified. But if any one had undertaken to destroy the house of Ahab with his own hand, however well-merited the destruction may have been, yet he who had been the cause of it would have incurred grievous sin, and have been an object of the divine wrath. Here, however, the case was very different. Two prophets, who proved their divine mission in a way excluding all doubt and all abuse of their example, had pronounced the divine sentence of punishment on the house of Ahab, and empowered Jehu to execute it. This was done in order that the punishment might be openly manifested as such,—that every one might recognise in Jehu only a servant of divine righteousness, and in that which befell the family of Ahab a prophecy of their own fate if they would incur similar guilt. If Jehu’s act, however, were to be perfectly just, it was not sufficient that it should be in external harmony with the divine command, it was necessary that internally also he should be guided by no other motive, that he should not be influenced by human ambition and cruelty. This was nevertheless the case. The honour of God served him for a veil.
We go on to remark that the condition of Israel, which left the pious mind in a state of dissatisfaction, called forth peculiar separatists phenomena. Among these are the Rechabites mentioned in 2 Kings 10:15-23, and in Jeremiah 35. Their founder was Jonathan the son of Eechab, contemporary with Jehu, and associated with him against the worship of Baal. They strictly refrained from all participation in civil and ecclesiastical fellowship, led a solitary life in the wilderness, and for food limited themselves to its productions. From the Nazarites, whose continuance in the ten tribes appears from Amos 2:11 ff., they borrowed the principle of total abstinence from wine and all intoxicating drinks. In them Christian asceticism has an Old Testament type. We see from Jeremiah that it still continued in the time of the Babylonian exile.
