E-Book
ohne Abo 0,99 €

The Ultimate Commentary On 2 Kings E-Book

Charles H. Spurgeon

0,0

0,99 €

oder

Leseprobe lesen

Sammeln Sie Punkte in unserem Gutscheinprogramm und kaufen Sie E-Books und Hörbücher mit bis zu 100% Rabatt.
Mehr erfahren.

Herausgeber: David Turner
Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
Sprache: Englisch
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

We are to read the Bible in order to understand God’s message to us. He speaks to us in plain language but there are times we need a helping hand in what we read. Commentaries are not just for preachers or seminary students. They are for us all. The Ultimate Commentary Collection is designed to bring you a variety of thoughts and insights from theologians of high renown and reputation. Their study of the Bible is of great help to us. We are presenting to you the studies and thoughts of 6 of the Church’s greatest minds: Albert Barnes – John Calvin – Adam Clarke – Matthew Henry – Charles H. Spurgeon – John Wesley. Their commentaries will help you understand, enjoy and apply what God’s word says to you. In addition to these commentaries you will also find all of Spurgeon’s sermons on this particular book of the Bible. This volume is The Ultimate Commentary On 2 Kings.

Details

Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:

EPUB

Bewertungen

0,0

Rezensionen(0 Rezensionen)

Leseprobe

CHAPTER ONE

2 Kings

2 Kings Contents

2 KINGS CONTENTS

Chapter Two - Albert Barnes

Chapter Three - Adam Clarke

Chapter Four - Matthew Henry

Chapter Five - Charles H. Spurgeon

Chapter Six - Sermons Of Spurgeon

Chapter Seven - John Wesley

2 Kings Contents

Bible Study Guide

Other Publications

Main Contents

CHAPTER TWO

Albert Barnes

2 Kings Contents

2 KINGS CONTENTS

2 Kings Introduction

2 Kings Chapter 1

2 Kings Chapter 2

2 Kings Chapter 3

2 Kings Chapter 4

2 Kings Chapter 5

2 Kings Chapter 6

2 Kings Chapter 7

2 Kings Chapter 8

2 Kings Chapter 9

2 Kings Chapter 10

2 Kings Chapter 11

2 Kings Chapter 12

2 Kings Chapter 13

2 Kings Chapter 14

2 Kings Chapter 15

2 Kings Chapter 16

2 Kings Chapter 17

2 Kings Chapter 18

2 Kings Chapter 19

2 Kings Chapter 20

2 Kings Chapter 21

2 Kings Chapter 22

2 Kings Chapter 23

2 Kings Chapter 24

2 Kings Chapter 25

2 Kings Contents

Bible Study Guide

Other Publications

Main Contents

2 Kings Introduction

2 KINGS INTRODUCTION

Introduction to 1 and 2Kings

The Greek translators, known as the Septuagint, who separated the “Book of the Law of Moses” into five parts, and the “Book of Samuel” into two, made the division, which is now almost universally adopted, of the original “Book of Kings” into a “First” and a “Second Book.” The separation thus made was followed naturally in the early Latin versions, which were formed from the Greek; and when Jerome set forth the edition now called “The Vulgate,” he followed the custom which he found established. The general adoption of the Vulgate by the Western Church caused the arrangement introduced by the Septuagint to obtain almost universal acceptance.

The work is named from its contents, since the entire subject of the whole is the history of the “kings” of Israel and Judah from the accession of Solomon to the Babylonian captivity.

1. The unity of the work is proved by the marked and striking simplicity and regularity of the plan. The work is, from first to last a history of the kings in strict chronological order, on the same system, and on a uniform scale. Exceptions to this uniformity in the larger space bestowed on the reigns of a few monarchs are due to the principle of treating with the greatest fullness the parts of the history theocratically of most importance.

A second evidence of unity is the general uniformity of style and language - a uniformity admitted by all writers, and one which is only slightly infringed in two or three instances, where the irregularity may be accounted for by a diversity in the sources used by the author and a close following of the language which he found in those sources.

To these general heads of evidence may be added certain peculiarities of thought or expression which pervade the two books, all of them indicating with greater or less certainty a single author.

2. Some have thought from the continuity of the narrative, from the general resemblance of the style, and from the common employment of a certain number of words and phrases, that the six “books,” commencing with Judges and terminating with the Second Book of Kings, are the production of a single writer, and constitute in reality a single unbroken composition. Others consider these arguments far from conclusive. The continuity of the narrative is formal, and may be due to the after arrangements of a reviser, such as Ezra is commonly believed to have been.

So far as the mere idiom of the language goes, it is perhaps true that we cannot draw a marked line between Kings and Samuel. But many of the traits most characteristic of the writer of Kings are wholly wanting in the other (and probably earlier) composition. For these and other reasons the “Books of Kings” may claim distinctness and separateness.

3. There are two grounds upon which, apart from all traditional notices, the date of a historical work may be determined, namely, the peculiarities of the diction, and the contents.

The language of Kings belongs unmistakably to the period of the captivity. It is later than that of Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Joel, and Nahum, earlier than that of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. In general character it bears a close resemblance to the language of Jeremiah and Ezekiel; and may be assigned to the sixth century before our era.

The result obtainable from the contents is similar, only somewhat more definite. Assuming the last detached section of the work 2 Kings 25:27-30 to be an integral portion of it, we obtain the year 561 B.C. - the first year of Evil-Merodach - as the earliest possible date of the completion of the composition. Again, from the fact that the work contains no allusion at all to the return of the Jews from their captivity, we obtain for the latest possible date the year 538 B.C., the year of the return under Zerubbabel: or in other words between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the accession of Cyrus in Babylon. Linguistic and other considerations favor the belief that the actual completion was early in this period - about 560 B.C.; and it is not improbable that the greater part of the work was written as early as 580 B.C. - i. e. some twenty years previously.

4. Jewish tradition assigns the authorship of Kings to Jeremiah; and there are very weighty arguments in favor of this view. There is a very remarkable affinity between the language of Kings and that of the admitted writings of the prophet. The matter moreover, of the two works, so far as the same events are treated, is in the closest harmony, those points being especially singled out for insertion, of which Jeremiah had personal knowledge and in which he took a special interest. Another argument of very considerable force is drawn from the entire omission of any notice at all of Jeremiah in Kings, which would have been very strange and unnatural in any other historian, considering the important part which Jeremiah played in the transactions of so many reigns, but which is completely intelligible on the hypothesis of his authorship of Kings: it is then the natural fruit and sign of a becoming modesty and unselfishness.

Still, though Jeremiah‘s authorship appears, all things considered, to be highly probable, we must admit that it has not been proved, and is therefore to some extent uncertain.

5. The author of Kings cites as authorities on the subject matter of his history three works:

(1) the “book of the acts of Solomon” 1 Kings 11:41;

(2) the “book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19, etc.); and

(3) the “Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29, etc.).

His own history was, at least in part, derived from these works. Lesser works were also open to him. Further, the writer had probably access to a work of a different character from any of those quoted by the author of Chronicles, namely, a collection of the miracles of Elisha, made probably in one of the schools of the prophets.

Hence, the sources of Kings may be considered threefold, consisting, first, of certain general historical documents called the “Books of the Chronicles of the Kings;” secondly, of some special treatises on the history of particular short periods; and, thirdly, of a single work of a very peculiar character, the private biography of a remarkable man.

The “books of the chronicles of the kings” were probably of the nature of public archives, - state-annals, that is, containing an account of the chief public events in the reign of each king, drawn up by an authorized person. With the Israelites the authorized person was probably in almost every case a prophet. The prophets regarded this as one of their principal duties, as we see by the examples of Isaiah 2 Chronicles 26:22; 1 Kings 6:1 seems to be a gloss of this character, and it may be suspected that to a similar origin is due the whole series of synchronisms between the dynasties of Israel and Judah. It is probable that the original work gave simply the years assigned to each king in the “books of the chronicles,” without entering upon the further question, in what regnal year of the contemporary monarch in the sister kingdom each prince ascended the throne. The chief difficulties of the chronology, and almost all the actual contradictions, disappear if we subtract from the work these portions.

Excepting in this respect, the Books of Kings have come down to us, as to all essentials, in a thoroughly sound condition. The only place where the Septuagint Version differs importantly from the Hebrew text is in 1 Kings 12:24 and 1 Kings 12:25. But this passage is clearly no part of the original narrative. It is a story after the fashion of the apocryphal Esdras, worked up out of the Scripture facts, with additions, which the Alexandrian writer may have taken from some Jewish authority whereto he had access, but which certainly did not come from the writer of Kings. None of its facts except possibly a single one - the age, namely, of Rehoboam at his accession belongs to the real narrative of our historian.

7. The primary character of the work is undoubtedly historical. It is the main object of the writer to give an account of the kings of Israel and Judah from Solomon‘s accession to the captivity of Zedekiah.

The history is, however, written - not, like most history, from a civil, but from a religious point of view. The Jews are regarded, not as an ordinary nation, but as God‘s people. The historian does not aim at exhibiting the mere political progress of the kingdoms about which he writes, but intends to describe to us God‘s treatment of the race with which lie had entered into covenant. Where he records the events of the civil history, his plan is to trace cut the fulfillment of the combined warning and promise which had been given to David 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

Hence, events, which an ordinary historian would have considered of great importance, may be (and are) omitted by our author from the narrative; or touched slightly and hastily.. He treats with the utmost brevity the conquest of Jerusalem by Shishak 1 Kings 14:25-26, the war between Abijam and Jeroboam 1 Kings 15:7, that of Amaziah with Edom 2 Kings 14:7, and that of Josiah with Pharaoh-Nechoh 2 Kings 23:29; events treated at length in the parallel passages of the Book of Chronicles.) As a general rule, the military history of the two kingdoms, which was no doubt carefully recorded in the “Books of the Chronicles,” is omitted by the writer of Kings, who is content for the most part to refer his readers to the state-annals for the events which would have made the greatest figure in an ordinary secular history.

On the other hand, the special aim of the writer induces him to assign a prominent piece and to give a full treatment to events which a secular historian would have touched lightly or passed over in silence. The teaching of the prophets, and their miracles, were leading points in the religious history of the time; it was owing to them especially that the apostasy of the people was without excuse; therefore the historian who has to show that, despite the promises made to David, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the whole twelve tribes carried into captivity, must exhibit fully the grounds for this severity, and must consequently dwell on circumstances which so intensely aggravated the guilt of the people.

The character of the history that he has to relate, its general tendency and ultimate issue, naturally throw over his whole narrative an air of gloom. The tone of the work tires harmonises with that of Jeremiah‘s undoubted writings, and furnishes an additional argument in favor of that prophet‘s authorship.

The style of Kings is, for the most part, level and uniform - a simple narrative style. Occasionally, a more lofty tone is breathed, the style rising with the subject matter, and becoming in places almost poetical 1 Kings 19:11-12; 2 Kings 19:21-31. The most striking chapters are 1 Kings 8; 18; 19; 2 Kings 5; 9; 18; 19; 20.

8. The general authenticity of the narrative contained in our books is admitted. Little is denied or questioned but the miraculous portions of the story, which cluster chiefly about the persons of Elijah and Elisha. Some critics admitting that the narrative generally is derived from authentic contemporary documents - either state-annals or the writings of contemporary prophets - maintain that the histories of Elijah and Elisha come from an entirely different source, being (they hold) collections of traditions respecting those persons made many years after their deaths, either by the writer of Kings or by some other person, from the mouths of the common people. Hence, according to them, their “legendary” or “mythical” character.

But there are no critical grounds for separating off the account of Elijah, or more than a small portion of the account of Elisha, from the rest of the composition. The history of Elijah especially is so intertwined with that of the kingdom of Israel, and is altogether of so public a nature, that the “chronicles of the kings of Israel” would almost necessarily have contained an account of it; and an important part of the history of Elisha is of a similar character. Further, it is quite gratuitous to imagine that the account was not a contemporary one, or that it was left for a writer living long subsequently to collect into a volume the doings of these remarkable personages. The probability is quite the other way. As the prophets themselves were the historians of the time, it would be only natural that Elisha should collect the miracles and other remarkable deeds of Elijah; and that his own should be collected after his decease by some one of the “sons of the prophets.” Add to this that the miracles, as related, have all the air of descriptions derived from eye-witnesses, being full of such minute circumstantial detail as tradition cannot possibly preserve. The whole result would seem to be that (unless we reject miracles altogether as unworthy of belief on account of an “a priori” impossibility) the account of the two great Israelite prophets in Kings must be regarded as entitled to acceptance equally with the rest of the narrative.

Both internal consistency and probability, and also external testimony, strongly support the general authenticity of the secular history contained in Kings. The empire of Solomon is of a kind with which early Oriental history makes us familiar; it occurs exactly at a period when there was room for its creation owing to the simultaneous weakness of Egypt and Assyria; its rapid spread, and still more rapid contraction, are in harmony with our other records of Eastern dominion; its art and civilization resemble these known to have prevailed about the same time in neighboring countries. The contact of Judaea with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, during the period covered by our books agrees with the Egyptian annals, and in some respects is most strikingly illustrated by the cuneiform inscriptions. Berosus, Manetho, Menander, Dius - the pagan historians of Babylon, Egypt, and Tyre - join with the monuments in the support which they furnish to our author‘s truthfulness and accuracy, as the comment appended to the text will prove abundantly.

Even the broader features of the chronology are both internally probable, and externally confirmed by the chronologies of other countries. The interval between the accession of Solomon and the captivity of Zedekiah is given as 433 12 years, which is divided among twenty-one monarchs, who belong to eighteen (or, excluding Jehoiachin, to seventeen) generations. This allows for each generation the very probable term of 25 12 years. During the portion of the history where the chronology is double, and where the chief internal difficulties occur, the divergence of the two schemes is but slight, amounting to no more than about twenty years in 240 or 250. Egyptian annals confirm approximately the Biblical dates for Shishak‘s invasion, and So‘s alliance. The Assyrian annals agree with the Hebrew in the date of the fall of Samaria, and in exhibiting Hazael and Jehu, Tiglath-Pileser and Ahaz, Sennacherib and Hezekiah, Esarhaddon and Manasseh, as contemporaries. The chronological difficulties, where such exist, do not at all exceed those with which every reader of profane historians is familiar, and which, in fact, pervade the whole of ancient chronology. They are partly to be accounted for by diversities in the mode of reckoning; while occasionally no doubt they result from a corrupt reading, or from an unauthorized interpolation.

ALBERT BARNES COMMENTARY CONTENTS

2 Kings Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1

Verse 1

The Moabites, who had once lorded over Israel Judges 3:12-14, were reduced to subjection by David, and treated with extreme severity (marginal reference). In the time of Ahab they were dependent on the kingdom of Israel, to which it has been generally supposed that they fell at the separation of Israel from Judah. The Moabite monument (see 2 Kings 3:4), discovered in 1869, has now given reason to believe that they then recovered their independence, but were again reduced by Omri, who, with his son Ahab, is said (in round numbers) to have “oppressed” them for “forty years.” Ahab‘s death was seized upon as an occasion for revolt, and Moab (perhaps owing to Ahaziah‘s sickness) easily regained her independence.

Verse 2

A lattice - The “upper chamber” had probably a single latticed window, through which Ahaziah fell. Windows in the East are to this day generally closed by lattices of interlaced wood, which open outward; so that, if the fastening is not properly secured, one who leans against them may easily fall out.

Baal-zebub - literally, “Lord (i. e., averter) of flies.” Flies in the East constitute one of the most terrible of plages Psalm 105:31; Exodus 8:24; and Orientals would be as likely to have a “god of flies” as a god of storm fand thunder. To inquire 2 Kings 1:3 of Baal-zebub was practically to deny Yahweh. Ahaziah cast aside the last remnant of respect for the old religion, and consulted a foreign oracle, as if the voice of God were wholly silent in his own country.

For Ekron see the marginal reference.

Verse 4

Therefore … - As a punishment for this insult to Yahweh.

Verse 8

An hairy man - Either in allusion to his shaggy cloak of untanned skin; or, more probably, an expression descriptive of the prophet‘s person, of his long flowing locks, abundant beard, and general profusion of hair. His costume was that of a thorough ascetic. Generally the Jews wore girdles of linen or cotton stuff, soft and comfortable. Under the girdle they wore one or two long linen gowns or shirts, and over these they had sometimes a large shawl. Elijah had only his leather girdle and his sheepskin cape or “mantle.”

Verse 9

Then the king sent unto him - i. e., in order to seize and punish him. Compare 1 Kings 18:10; 1 Kings 22:27.

Verse 10

The charge of cruelty made against Elijah makes it needful to consider the question: What was Elijah‘s motive? And the answer is: Sharply to make a signal example, to vindicate God‘s honor in a striking way. Ahaziah had, as it were, challenged Yahweh to a trial of strength by sending a band of fifty to arrest one man. Elijah was not Jesus Christ, able to reconcile mercy with truth, the vindication of God‘s honor with the utmost tenderness for erring men, and awe them merely by His presence (compare John 18:6). In Elijah the spirit of the Law was embodied in its full severity. His zeal was fierce; he was not shocked by blood; he had no softness and no relenting. He did not permanently profit by the warning at Horeb (1 Kings 19:12 note). He continued the uncompromising avenger of sin, the wielder of the terrors of the Lord, such exactly as he had shown himself at Carmel. He is, consequently, no pattern for Christian men Luke 9:55; but his character is the perfection of the purely legal type. No true Christian after Pentecost would have done what Elijah did. But what he did, when he did it, was not sinful. It was but executing strict, stern justice. Elijah asked that fire should fall - God made it fall; and, by so doing, both vindicated His own honor, and justified the prayer of His prophet.

Verse 17

The similarity of names in the two royal houses of Israel and Judah at this time, and at no other, seems to be the consequence of the close ties which united the two reigning families, and is well noted among the “undesigned coincidences” of the Old Testament. The accession of the Israelite Jehoram (Ahab‘s brother) took place, according to 2 Kings 3:1, 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.

ALBERT BARNES COMMENTARY CONTENTS

2 Kings Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2

Verse 1

The events of this chapter are related out of their chronological order. Elijah‘s translation did not take place until after the accession of Jehoram in Judah 2 Chronicles 21:12, which was not until the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel 2 Kings 8:16. The writer of Kings, having concluded his notices of the ministry of Elijah in chapter 1, and being about to pass in 2 Kings 4:38.

Verse 2

Tarry here - Elijah‘s motive in making this request is not clear. Perhaps he thought that so awful and sacred a scene as that which he was led to expect 2 Kings 2:9, should be kept as secret as possible.

The Lord hath sent me to Bethel - Elijah may have been directed to Bethel, because of the “School of the prophets” there, that the sight of him - if not his words - might console and encourage them before they lost him forever.

As the Lord liveth … - This double oath, repeated three times 2 Kings 2:4, 2 Kings 2:6, is very remarkable. The two clauses of it are separately used with some frequency (see Judges 8:19; Rth 3:13 ; 1 Samuel 1:26, etc.), but it is comparatively seldom that they are united (see the marginal references).

Verse 3

Came forth to Elisha - It does not appear that any interchange of speech took place between “the sons of the prophets” (see the marginal reference note) and Elijah; but independent revelations had been made to the two “schools” at Bethel and Jericho 2 Kings 2:5, and also to Elisha, with respect to Elijah‘s coming removal.

From thy head - i. e. from his position as teacher and master. The teacher sat on an elevated seat, so that his feet were level with the heads of his pupils (compare Acts 22:3).

Hold ye your peace - i. e. “Say nothing - disturb us not. The matter is too sacred for words.”

Verse 7

Fifty men of the sons of the prophets - We see by this how large were the prophetical schools. It is implied that the “fifty” were only a portion of the school of Jericho. They ascended the abrupt heights behind the town, from where they would command a view of the whole course of the river and of the opposite bank for many miles.

Verse 8

They were divided … - The attestation to the divine mission of Elijah furnished by this miracle would tend to place him upon a par in the thoughts of men with the two great leaders of the nation named in the marginal references.

Verse 9

Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me - Like Solomon, Elisha asks for no worldly advantage, but for spiritual power to discharge his office aright. The “double portion” is that which denotes the proportion of a father‘s property which was the right of an eldest son Deuteronomy 21:17. Elisha therefore asked for twice as much of Elijah‘s spirit as should be inherited by any other of the “sons of the prophets.” He simply claimed, i. e., to be acknowledged as Elijah‘s firstborn spiritual son.

Verse 10

It would be better to omit the words “when I am,” which are not in the original. The sign was to be Elisha‘s seeing the actual translation, which he did 2 Kings 2:12.

Verse 11

Elijah went up … - No honest exegesis can explain this passage in any other sense than as teaching the translation of Elijah, who was taken from the earth, like Enoch Genesis 5:24, without dying. Compare Sirach 48:9.

Verse 12

The chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof - These difficult words are probably said of Elijah, whom Elisha addresses as “the true defense of Israel, better than either the chariots or horsemen” which he saw. Hence, his rending his clothes in token of his grief.

Verse 14

Where … - Some prefer, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah, even he? And when he had smitten, etc.” Or, according to others, “now when he, etc.” Elisha‘s smiting of the waters seems to have been tentative. He was not sure of its result. Hence, the form of his invocation - “Where is the Lord God of Elijah? Is He here - i. e. - with me, or is He not?” Answered by the event, he appears never subsequently to have doubted.

Verse 16

Compare the marginal references. The words “cast him upon some mountain,” rather imply that they expected to find the prophet alive.

Verse 17

Till he was ashamed - i. e. to refuse them any longer.

Verse 19

The water is naught - i. e. “bad.”

And the ground barren - Translate “and the land apt to miscarry.” The stream was thought to be the cause of untimely births, abortions, and the like, among the cattle, perhaps also among the people, that drank of it.

Verse 20

The “new cruse” and the “salt” are evidently chosen from a regard to symbolizm. The foul stream represents sin, and to cleanse it emblems of purity must he taken. Hence, the clean “new” dish previously unused, and thus untainted; and the salt, a common Scriptural symbol of incorruption (see Leviticus 2:13; Ezekiel 43:24; Matthew 5:13, etc.).

Verse 21

The spring of the waters - The spring intended is probably that now called Ain-es-Sultan, which is not much more than a mile from the site of the ancient town. It is described as a large and beautiful fountain of sweet and pleasant water. The springs issuing from the eastern base of the highlands of Judah and Benjamin are to this day generally brackish.

Verse 23

As Beth-el was the older seat of the calf-worship 1 Kings 12:32-33; 13:1-32, a prophet of Yahweh was not unlikely to meet with insult there.

By the way - i. e. “by the usual road,” probably that which winds up the Wady Suweinit, under hills even now retaining some trees, and in Elisha‘s time covered with a dense forest, the haunt of savage animals. Compare 1 Kings 13:24; and for the general prevalence of beasts of prey in the country, both earlier and later than this, see Judges 14:5; 1 Samuel 17:31; 2 Kings 17:25; Amos 5:19, etc.

Verse 24

On this occasion only do we find Elisha a minister of vengeance. Perhaps it was necessary to show, at the outset of his career as a prophet, that he too, so mild and peaceful could, like Elijah, wield the terrors of God‘s judgments (1 Kings 19:19 note). The persons really punished were, not so much the children, as the wicked parents 2 Kings 2:23, whose mouth-pieces the children were, and who justly lost the gift of offspring of which they had shown themselves unworthy.

Verse 25

Carmel - Where Elisha held gatherings for religious purposes 2 Kings 4:23-25 during one period of his life, if he did not actually reside there.

ALBERT BARNES COMMENTARY CONTENTS

2 Kings Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3

Verse 1

In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat - This date agrees exactly with the statements that Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fourth year of Ahab 1 Kings 22:41, and Ahaziah in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat 1 Kings 22:51.

Verse 2

On the “evil” done by Ahab, see especially 1 Kings 16:30-34. Jehoram, warned by the fate of his brother (2 Kings 1:4 note), began his reign by a formal abolition of the Phoenician state religion introduced by Ahab - even if he connived at its continuance among the people 2 Kings 10:26-27; and by a re-establishment of the old worship of the kingdom as arranged by Jeroboam.

Verse 4

Moab, the region immediately east of the Dead Sea and of the lower Jordan, though in part suited for agriculture, is in the main a great grazing country. Mesha resembled a modern Arab Sheikh, whose wealth is usually estimated by the number of his flocks and herds. His tribute of the wool of 100,000 lambs was a tribute in kind, the ordinary tribute at this time in the East.

Mesha is the monarch who wrote the inscription on the “Moabite stone” (2 Kings 1:1 note). The points established by the Inscription are:

1. That Moab recovered from the blow dealt by David 2 Samuel 8:2, 2 Samuel 8:12, and became again an independent state in the interval between David‘s conquest and the accession of Omri;

2. That Omri reconquered the country, and that it then became subject to the northern kingdom, and remained so throughout his reign and that of his son Ahab, and into the reign of Ahab‘s son and successor, Ahaziah;

3. That the independence was regained by means of a war, in which Mesha took town after town from the Israelites, including in his conquests many of the towns which, at the original occupation of the holy land, had passed into the possession of the Reubenites or the Gadites, as Baal-Meon Numbers 32:38, Kirjathaim Numbers 32:37, Ataroth Numbers 32:34, Nebo Numbers 32:38, Jahaz Joshua 13:18, etc.;

4. That the name of Yahweh was well known to the Moabites as that of the God of the Israelites; and

5. That there was a sanctuary of Yahweh at Nebo, in the Trans-Jordanic territory, where “vessels” were used in His service.

Verse 7

The close alliance between the two kingdoms still subsisted. Jehoram therefore sends confidently to make the same request with respect to Moab that his father had made two years before with respect to Syria (marginal reference). Jehoshaphat consented at once, notwithstanding that his former compliance had drawn upon him the rebuke of a prophet 2 Chronicles 19:2. Perhaps Jehoram‘s removal of the Baal-worship 2 Kings 3:2 weighed with him. He had himself been attacked by the Moabites in the preceding year; and though the attempt had failed, Jehoshaphat would feel that it might be renewed, and that it was important to seize the opportunity of weakening his enemy which now offered itself.

Verse 8

The readiest and most natural “way” was across the Jordan near Jericho into the Arboth-Moab, and then along the eastern shore of the Dead Sea to Moab proper, the tract south of the Arnon. But the way chosen was that which led to the Edomite country, namely, round the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, and across the Arabah, or continuation of the Jordan and Dead Sea valley. Thus would be effected a junction with the forces of Edom, which had resumed its dependence on Judah, though the year before it had been in alliance with Moab 2 Chronicles 20:22; and they would come upon the Moabites unprepared.

Verse 9

Seven days‘ journey - The distance of the route probably followed is not much more than 100 miles. But the difficulties of the way are great; and the army might not be able to move along it at a faster rate than about 15 miles a day.

No water - The kings had probably expected to find sufficient water for both men and baggage animals in the Wady-el-Ahsy, which divides Edom from Moab, and which has a stream that is now regarded as perennial. But it was dried up - quite a possible occurrence with any of the streams of this region.

Verse 11

A prophet of the Lord - i. e. of Yahweh. It was necessary to inquire thus definitely, as there were still plenty of prophets who were only prophets of Baal 2 Kings 3:13.

Here is Elisha - Jehoram appears to have been ignorant of his presence with the host, and one of his “servants,” or officers, answered Jehoshaphat‘s inquiry.

Which poured water - An act signifying ministration or attendance (compare John 13:5 ff).

Verse 13

Jehoram‘s humility in seeking 2 Kings 3:12 instead of summoning Elisha, does not save him from rebuke. His reformation 2 Kings 3:2 had been but a half reformation - a compromise with idolatry.

Nay: for the Lord hath called … - The force of this reply seems to be - “Nay, reproach me not, since I am in a sore strait - and not only I, but these two other kings also. The Lord - Yahweh - is about to deliver us into the hand of Moab. If thou canst not, or wilt not help, at least do not reproach.”

Verse 15

Music seems to have been a regular accompaniment of prophecy in the “schools of the prophets” (marginal reference), and an occasional accompaniment of it elsewhere Exodus 15:20.

Verse 16

Ditches - Or “pits” Jeremiah 14:3. They were to dig pits in the broad valley or wady, wherein the water might remain, instead of flowing off down the torrent course.

Verse 17

No rain was to fall where the Israelites and their enemies were encamped; there was not even to be that all but universal accompaniment of rain in the East, a sudden rise of wind (compare 1 Kings 18:45; Psalm 147:18; Matthew 7:25).

Cattle, and your beast - The former are the animals brought for food. The latter are the baggage animals.

Verse 19

Ye shall fell every good tree - This is not an infringement of the rule laid down in Deuteronomy 20:19-20. The Israelites were not forbidden to fell the fruit trees in an enemy‘s country, as a part of the ravage of war, when they had no thoughts of occupying the country. The plan of thus injuring an enemy was probably in general use among the nations of these parts at the time. We see the destruction represented frequently on the Assyrian monuments and mentioned in the inscriptions of Egypt.

And stop all wells of water - The stoppage of wells was a common feature of ancient, and especially Oriental, warfare (compare Genesis 26:15-18).

Mar … with stones - The exact converse of that suggested in Isaiah 5:2. The land in and about Palestine is so stony that the first work of the cultivator is to collect the surface stones together into heaps. An army marching through a land could easily undo this work, dispersing the stones thus gathered, and spreading them once more over the fields.

Verse 20

When the meat offering was offered - i. e. about sunrise, when the morning sacrifice was offered. Compare 1 Kings 18:29.

There came water by the way of Edom - The Wady-el-Ahsy drains a considerable portion of northern Edom. Heavy rain had fallen during the night in some part of this tract, and with the morning a freshet of water came down the valley, filling the pits.

Verse 21

And stood in the border - On the north side of the wady, ready to defend their territory.

Verse 23

The sun had risen with a ruddy light, as is frequently the case after a storm (compare Matthew 16:3), nearly over the Israelite camp, and the pits, deep but with small mouths, gleaming redly through the haze which would lie along the newly moistened valley, seemed to the Moabites like pools of blood. The preceding year, they and their allies had mutually destroyed each other 2 Chronicles 20:23. It seemed to them, from their knowledge of the jealousies between Judah, Israel, and Edom, not unlikely that a similar calamity had now befallen their foes.

Verse 25

Kir-Haraseth, also Kir-Hareseth, is identified almost certainly with the modern Kerak, a strong city on the highland immediately east of the southern part of the Dead Sea. It was the great fortress of Moab, though not the capital, which was Rabbath or Rabbah. It was an important strong-hold at the time of the Crusades, and is still a place of great strength. Kir seems to have meant “fortress.” It is found in Cir-cesium, Car-chemish, etc.

Kir-Haraseth resisted all the attempts to dismantle it; but the slingers found places on the hills which surrounded it, from where they could throw their stones into it and harass the garrison, though they could not take the town.

Verse 26

To break through, even unto the king of Edom - Either because he thought that the king of Edom would connive at his escape or to take vengeance on him for having deserted his former allies (2 Kings 3:8 note).

Verse 27

Compare the marginal reference. Mesha, when his sally failed, took, as a last resource, his first born son, and offered him as a burnt-offering to appease the manifest anger of his god Chemosh, and obtain his aid against his enemies. This act was thoroughly in accordance with Moabitish notions.

And there was great indignation against Israel - Either the Israelites were indignant with themselves, or the men of Judah and the Edomites were indignant at the Israelites for having caused the pollution of this sacrifice, and the siege was relinquished.

ALBERT BARNES COMMENTARY CONTENTS

2 Kings Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4

Verse 1

The creditor is come … - The Law of Moses, like the Athenian and the Roman law, recognized servitude for debt, and allowed that pledging of the debtor‘s person, which, in a rude state of society, is regarded as the safest and the most natural security (see the marginal reference). In the present case it would seem that, so long as the debtor lived, the creditor had not enforced his right over his sons, but now on his death he claimed their services, to which he was by law entitled.

Verse 2

A pot of oil - Or, “an anointing of oil” - so much oil, i. e., as would serve me for one anointing of my person. The word used occurs only in this passage.

Verse 8

And it fell on a day - The original of the expression here used, which occurs three times in the present narrative 2 Kings 4:11, 2 Kings 4:18, is also found in Job 1:6, Job 1:13; Job 2:1. The character of the expression perhaps supports the view that the author of Kings has collected from various sources his account of the miracles of Elisha, and has kept in each case the words of the original writer.

A great woman - That is, “a rich woman.” Compare 1 Samuel 25:2; 2 Samuel 19:32.

Verse 10

A little chamber on the wall - The room probably projected like a balcony beyond the lower apartments - an arrangement common in the East.

A stool - Rather, “a chair.” The “chair” and “table,” unusual in the sleeping-rooms of the East, indicate that the prophet was expected to use his apartment for study and retirement, not only as a sleeping-chamber.

Verse 13

Thou hast been careful for us - For the prophet and his servant, who must have been lodged as well as his master.

I dwell among mine own people - The woman declines Elisha‘s offer. She has no wrong to complain of, no quarrel with any neighbor, in respect of which she might need the help of one in power. She “dwells among her own people” - her friends, and dependents, with whom she lives peaceably.

Verse 16

Do not lie - Compare a similar incredulity in Genesis 17:17; Genesis 18:12; Luke 1:20. The expression, “do not lie,” which is harsh to us, accords with the plain, straightforward simplicity of ancient speech. It would not mean more than “deceive” (compare the marginal reference).

Verse 19

The child‘s malady was a sunstroke. The inhabitants of Palestine suffered from this (Psalm 121:6; Isaiah 49:10; Judith 8:3).

Verse 22

Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men and one of the asses - All the “young men” and all the “asses” were in the harvest field, the young men cutting and binding the sheaves, and placing them upon carts or wains, the donkeys drawing these vehicles fully laden, to the threshing-floor. Compare Amos 2:13.

Verse 23

Her husband did not connect the illness with his wife‘s demand, but thought she wished to attend one of the prophet‘s devotional services. It is evident that such services were now held with something like regularity on Carmel for the benefit of the faithfull in those parts.

New moon - By the Law the first day of each month was to be kept holy. Offerings were appointed for such occasions Numbers 28:11-15, and they were among the days on which the silver trumpets were to be blown Numbers 10:10; Psalm 81:3. Hence, “new moons” are frequently joined with “sabbaths” (see Isaiah 1:13; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11; 1 Chronicles 23:31).

It shall be well - Rather, as in the margin, “Peace.” i. e., “Be quiet - trouble me not with inquiries - only let me do as I wish.”

Verse 24

Slack not thy riding - Translate, “delay me not in my riding, except I bid thee.” The servant went on foot with the donkey to urge it forward, as is the ordinary custom in the East.

Verse 25

The distance was about sixteen or seventeen miles.

Verse 27

She caught him by the feet - To lay hold of the knees or feet has always been thought in the East to add force to supplication, and is practiced even at the present day. Compare Matthew 18:29; John 11:32.

Verse 28

Great grief shrinks from putting itself into words. The Shunammite cannot bring herself to say, “My son is dead;” but by reproaching the prophet with having “deceived” her, she sufficiently indicates her loss.

Verse 29

Salute him not - Compare the marginal reference. Salutation is the forerunner of conversation and one bent on speed would avoid every temptation to loiter.

Lay my staff upon the face of the child - Perhaps to assuage the grief of the mother, by letting her feel that something was being done for her child.

Verse 31

There was neither voice nor hearing - Compare 1 Kings 18:29.

The child is not awakened - See 2 Kings 4:20. The euphemism by which death is spoken of as a sleep was already familiar to the Jews (see 1 Kings 1:21 note).

Verse 33

Prayed - Prayer was the only remedy in such a case as this (compare the marginal reference and James 5:16), though it did not exclude the use of other means 2 Kings 4:34.

Verse 34

Be stretched himself - Or, “prostrated himself.” The word is a different one from that used of Elijah, and expresses closer contact with the body. Warmth may have been actually communicated from the living body to the dead one; and Elisha‘s persistence Hebrews 11:35, may have been a condition of the child‘s return to life.

Verse 36

Take up thy son - Compare Elijah‘s action (marginal reference “t”) and our Blessed Lord‘s Luke 7:15.

Verse 38

There was a dearth in the land - Rather, “The famine was in the land.” The seven years‘ dearth of which Elisha had prophesied (marginal reference) had begun.

The sons of the prophets - See 1 Kings 20:35 note. They were sitting before him as scholars before their master, hearing his instructions.

Verse 39

A wild vine - Not a real wild vine, the fruit of which, if not very palatable, is harmless; but some climbing plant with tendrils. The plant was probably either the Ecbalium elaterium, or “squirting cucumber,” the fruit of which, egg-shaped, and of a very bitter taste, bursts at the slightest touch, when it is ripe, and squirts out sap and seed grains; or the Colocynthis, which belongs to the family of cucumbers, has a vine-shaped leaf, and bears a fruit as large as an orange, very bitter, from which is prepared the drug sold as colocynth. This latter plant grows abundantly in Palestine.

His lap full - literally, “his shawl full.” The prophet brought the fruit home in his “shawl” or “outer garment.”

Verse 41

Then bring meal - The natural properties of meal would but slightly diminish either the bitterness or the unwholesomeness of a drink containing colocynth. It is evident, therefore, that the conversion of the food from a pernicious and unsavory mess into palatable and wholesome nourishment was by miracle.

Verse 42

Baal-shalisha - Fifteen Roman miles north of Lydda, in the Sharon plain to the west of the highlands of Ephraim. It was, apparently, the chief city of the “land of Shalisha” (marginal reference).

Bread of the first fruits - It appears by this that the Levitical priests having withdrawn from the land of Israel (see 2 Chronicles 11:13-14), pious Israelites transferred to the prophets, whom God raised up, the offerings required by the Law to be given to the priests Numbers 18:13; Deuteronomy 18:4.

In the husk thereof - “In his bag.” The word does not occur elsewhere in Scripture.

Verse 43

This miracle was a faint foreshadowing of our Lord‘s far more marvelous feeding of thousands with even scantier materials. The resemblance is not only in the broad fact, but in various minute particulars, such as the distribution through the hands of others; the material, bread; the surprised question of the servant; and the evidence of superfluity in the fragments that were left (see the marginal references). As Elijah was a type of the Baptist, so Elisha was in many respects a type of our Blessed Lord. In his peaceful, non-ascetic life, in his mild and gentle character, in his constant circuits, in his many miracles of mercy, in the healing virtue which abode in his bodily frame 2 Kings 13:21, he resembled, more than any other prophet, the Messiah, of whom all prophets were more or less shadows and figures.

ALBERT BARNES COMMENTARY CONTENTS

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollst?ndigen Ausgabe!

Tausende von E-Books und Hörbücher

Ihre Zahl wächst ständig und Sie haben eine Fixpreisgarantie.

Sie haben über uns geschrieben: