2 Kings 8

1. Then, etc. Rather, “Now Elisha had spoken” (R.V.). It would seem that Elisha said this before the events related in the two preceding chapters, and that it is mentioned here in consequence of what occurred upon the woman’s return, after the restoration of plenty. From the mention of Gehazi in ver. 4, it may be inferred that these events occurred before the cure of Naaman, as afterwards Gehazi would have been in no condition to converse with a king.

the Lord hath called, etc. The famine was a Divine punishment for the idolatry of the people.

2 in the land of the Philistines. If the famine was caused by drought, the lowlands near the sea were less likely to suffer from it than the mountainous districts, and they might also obtain supplies by sea. If it was occasioned or aggravated by Syrian invasion, the Philistines in the south might be exempt.

9 forty camels’ burden. To display the king’s wealth and to honour the prophet.

10. Thou mayest certainly (“shalt surely,” R.V.) recover. It means that his disease was not mortal, and would not be the cause of his death; but that nevertheless he would die.

11 until he was ashamed. This verse seems to mean that Elisha “set his eyes (upon him, R.V.), and kept them fixed, until [Hazael] was ashamed” at finding his purposes detected.

13 is thy servant a dog? This expression has often been interpreted as an outbreak of indignant horror at being thought capable of such atrocities.

But, considering the character and conduct of Hazael, and the spirit of the warfare of that age, it is more natural to understand the exclamation as self-depreciation, and as expressing a doubt whether a person so inconsiderable as he was could ever have it in his power to do such a great (as he himself calls it, not such an evil) thing. The Hebrew text stands thus: “But what! thy servant! the dog! that he should do this great work!” The R.V. translates, “But what is thy servant, which is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?” The prophet’s answer is plainly calculated to remove his surprise.

15 a thick cloth. R.V., “the coverlet.” “If the king’s disease was, e.g., erysipelas of head and face, the act, by inducing metastasis to the brain, might render the disease mortal, which otherwise it might not have been” (Sir J. Risdon Bennett).

16-29. Care must be taken to distinguish the Jehoram and Ahaziah of Israel from the kings of the same name in Judah.

16. Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah. This clause is not found in several ancient manuscripts and versions and appears inconsistent with 2 Chron. xxi. 1, 5. The Hebrew words are the same as the last three in the verse, “Jehoshaphat king of Judah,” and were probably a transcriber’s repetition.

21. This narrative is brief and obscure. It seems likely that Jehoram, advancing incautiously into the fastnesses of Edom, was surrounded, and only by a vigorous night assault broke through his enemies, so that his people regained their tents. “Zair” is thought by many expositors to be another form for Seir.

22. Yet (R.V. “So”) Edom revolted. It appears that the dominion of Judah over Edom was never completely restored. Thus was fulfilled the second part of Isaac’s prediction respecting Esau in Gen. xxvii. 40. This cut off the Indian trade from Ezion-geber on the Red Sea.

Libnah. Libnah lay in the south-western lowlands. It was one of the priests’ cities (see Josh. xxi. 14), and its revolt was probably caused by the introduction of the worship of Baal (see 2 Chron. xxi. 10). It was besieged by the king of Assyria in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 8).

24. Jehoram slept with his fathers. See a fuller account of Jehoram’s death and burial in 2 Chron. xxi. 18, 19.