2 chronicles 21 commentary

2 CHRO ICLES 21 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 Then Jehoshaphat rested with his ancestors and
was buried with them in the City of David. And
Jehoram his son succeeded him as king.
BAR ES, "Jehoram’s sole reign now began. (See 2Ki_8:16 note). His eight years
2Ch_21:5 must be counted from the time of his association, in his father’s 23rd year.
GILL"Now Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers,.... See Gill on 1Ki_22:50.
HE RY 1-5, "We find here,
I. That Jehoshaphat was a very careful indulgent father to Jehoram. He had many
sons, who are here named (2Ch_21:2), and it is said (2Ch_21:13) that they were better
than Jehoram, had a great deal more wisdom and virtue, and lived up to their education,
which he went counter to. They were very hopeful, and any of them more fit for the
crown than he; and yet, because he was the first-born (2Ch_21:3), his father secured the
kingdom to him, and portioned his brethren and disposed of them so as that they would
be easy and give him no disturbance; as Abraham, when he made Isaac his heir,
dismissed his other children with gifts. Herein Jehoshaphat was very kind and fair to his
son, which might have obliged him to be respectful to him, and tread in the steps of so
good a father. But it is no new thing for the children that have been most indulged by
their parents to be least dutiful to them. Whether in doing this he acted wisely and well
for his people, and was just to them, I cannot say. His birthright entitled him to a double
portion of his father's estate, Deu_21:17. But if he appeared utterly unfit for government
(the end of which is the good of the people), and likely to undo all that his father had
done, it would have been better perhaps to have set him aside, and taken the next that
was hopeful, and not inclined as he was to idolatry. Power is a sacred thing, with which
men may either do much good or much hurt; and therefore Detur digniori - Let him that
deserves it have it. Salus populi suprema lex - The security of the people is the first
consideration.
II. That Jehoram was a most barbarous brother to his father's sons. As soon as he had
settled himself in the throne he slew all his brethren with the sword, either by false
accusation, under colour of law, or rather by assassination. By some wicked hand or

other he got them all murdered, pretending (it is likely) that he could not think himself
safe in the government till they were taken out of the way. Those that mean ill
themselves are commonly, without cause, jealous of those about them. The wicked fear
where no fear is, or pretend to do so, in order to conceal their malice. Jehoram, it is
likely, hated his brethren and slew them for the same reason that Cain hated Abel and
slew him, because their piety condemned his impiety and won them that esteem with the
people which he had lost. With them he slew divers of the princes of Israel, who adhered
to them, or were likely to avenge their death. The princes of Judah, those who had
taught the good knowledge of the Lord (2Ch_17:7), are here called princes of Israel, as
before fathers of Israel (2Ch_19:8), because they were Israelites indeed, men of
integrity. The sword which the good father had put into their hands this wicked son
sheathed in their bowels. Woe unto him that thus foundeth a kingdom in blood (Hab_
2:12); it will prove a foundation that will sink the superstructure.
JAMISO 1-4, "2Ch_21:1-4. Jehoram succeds Jehoshaphat.
Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers ... Jehoram ... reigned — The late king left
seven sons; two of them are in our version named Azariah; but in the Hebrew they
appear considerably different, the one being spelt “Azariah,” and the other “Azariahu.”
Though Jehoshaphat had made his family arrangements with prudent precaution, and
while he divided the functions of royalty in his lifetime (compare 2Ki_8:16), as well as
fixed the succession to the throne in his oldest son, he appointed each of the others to
the government of a fenced city, thus providing them with an honorable independence.
But this good intentions were frustrated; for no sooner did Jehoram find himself in the
sole possession of sovereign power than, from jealousy, or on account of their
connections, he murdered all his brothers, together with some leading influential
persons who, he suspected, were attached to their interest, or would avenge their deaths.
Similar tragedies have been sadly frequent in Eastern courts, where the heir of the crown
looks upon his brothers as his most formidable enemies, and is therefore tempted to
secure his power by their death.
K&D, "2Ch_21:1-3
Jehoshaphat's death, and the slaughter of his sons by Joram. - 2Ch_21:2, 2Ch_21:3.
Joram had six brothers, whom their father had plentifully supplied with means of
subsistence - presents in silver, gold, and precious things - “in the fenced cities of
Judah;” i.e., he had made them, as Rehoboam also had made his sons, commandants of
fortresses, with ample revenues; but the kingdom he gave to Joram as the first-born.
Among the six names two Azariah's occur, - the one written Azarjah, the other Azarjahu.
Jehoshaphat is called king of Israel instead of king of Judah, because he as king walked
in the footsteps of Israel, Jacob the wrestler with God, and was a true king of God's
people.
COFFMA , "JEHORAM; WICKED SO -I -LAW OF AHAB; RULES JUDAH
V. JEHORAM (949-942 B.C.)
"This chapter is a commentary on the man who married the daughter of Ahab and
Jezebel, and who walked in their ways (2 Chronicles 21:6). It describes his

viciousness and his apostasy (2 Chronicles 21:1-11), and God's condemnation of him
through the prophet Elijah, and the failures both national and personal that
overwhelmed him as a result (2 Chronicles 21:12-20)."[1]
His evil wife was Athaliah who in time also became a ruler of Judah. She attempted
to destroy completely the house of David and almost, but not quite, succeeded in
doing so. She was, in many respects, a carbon copy of her evil mother Jezebel.
Athaliah was never accepted by Judah, and her name was never included in the list
of Judah's legitimate rulers.
THE DEATH OF JEHOSHAPHAT A D SUCCESSIO OF JEHORAM
"And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city
of David: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. And he had brethren, the sons
of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and
Shephaliah; all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel. And their father
gave them great girls, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified
cities in Judah: but the kingdom gave he to Jehoram, because he was the first-
born."
"Azariah ... Azariah" (2 Chronicles 21:2). "These names are written differently in
the Hebrew: Azarjah and Azarjahu."[2] It is not clear why the translators rendered
the two names alike. On the strange identification of Jehoshaphat as king of Israel
(2 Chronicles 21:2), this designation was correct, because Judah was indeed the true
Israel; and those northern tribes who called themselves Israel were no longer part of
God's true Israel.
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:1 ow Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried
with his fathers in the city of David. And Jehoram his son reigned in his stead.
Ver. 1. And Jehoram his son reigned.] Than whom a worse could hardly be found:
but as the Constantinopolitans were told, that for their wickedness they were justly
plagued with a Phocas; so were these perverse Hierosolymitans with a Jehoram.
EBC, "JEHORAM, AHAZIAH, A D ATHALIAH: THE CO SEQUE CES OF A
FOREIG MARRIAGE
2 Chronicles 21:1-20; 2 Chronicles 22:1-12; 2 Chronicles 23:1-21
THE accession of Jehoram is one of the instances in which a wicked son succeeded
to a conspicuously pious father, but in this case there is no difficulty in explaining
the phenomenon: the depraved character and evil deeds of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and
Athaliah are at once accounted for when we remember that they were respectively
the son-in-law, grandson, and daughter of Ahab, and possibly of Jezebel. If,

however, Jezebel were really the mother of Athaliah, it is difficult to believe that the
chronicler understood or at any rate realized the fact. In the books of Ezra and
ehemiah the chronicler lays great stress upon the iniquity and inexpediency of
marriage with strange wives, and he has been careful to insert a note into the history
of Jehoshaphat to call attention to the fact that the king of Judah had joined affinity
with Ahab. If he had understood that this implied joining affinity with a Phoenician
devotee of Baal, this significant fact would not have been passed over in silence.
Moreover, the names Athaliah and Ahaziah are both compounded with the sacred
name Jehovah. A Phoenician Baal-worshipper may very well have been sufficiently
eclectic to make such use of the name sacred to the family into which she married,
but on the whole those names rather tell against the descent of their owners from
Jezebel and her Zidonian ancestors.
We have seen that, after giving the concluding formula for the reign of Jehoshaphat,
the chronicler adds a postscript narrating an incident discreditable to the king.
Similarly he prefaces the introductory formula for the reign of Jehoram by inserting
a cruel deed of the new king. Before telling us Jehoram’s age at his accession and
the length of his reign, the chronicler relates the steps taken by Jehoram to secure
himself upon his throne. Jehoshaphat, like Rehoboam, had disposed of his
numerous sons in the fenced cities of Judah, and had sought to make them quiet and
contented by providing largely for their material welfare: "Their father gave them
great gifts: silver, gold, and precious things, with fenced cities in Judah." The
sanguine judgment of paternal affection might expect that these gifts would make
his younger sons loyal and devoted subjects of their elder brother; but Jehoram, not
without reason, feared that treasure and cities might supply the means for a revolt,
or that Judah might be split up into a number of small principalities. Accordingly
when he had strengthened himself he slew all his brethren with the sword, and with
them those princes of Israel whom he suspected of attachment to his other victims.
He was following the precedent set by Solomon when he ordered the execution of
Adonijah; and, indeed, the slaughter by a new sovereign of all those near relations
who might possibly dispute his claim to the throne has usually been considered in
the East to be a painful but necessary and perfectly justifiable act, being, in fact,
regarded in much the same light as the drowning of superfluous kittens in domestic
circles. Probably this episode is placed before the introductory formula for the reign
because until these possible rivals were removed Jehoram’s tenure of the throne was
altogether unsafe.
For the next few verses [2 Chronicles 21:5-10; Cf. 2 Kings 8:17-22] the narrative
follows the book of Kings with scarcely any alteration, and states the evil character
of the new reign, accounting for Jehoram’s depravity by his marriage with a
daughter of Ahab. The successful revolt of Edom from Judah is next given, and the
chronicler adds a note of his own to the effect that Jehoram experienced these
reverses because he had forsaken Jehovah, the God of his fathers.
Then the chronicler proceeds to describe further sins and misfortunes of Jehoram.
He mentions definitely, what is doubtless implied by the book of Kings, that
Jehoram made high places in the cities of Judah and seduced the people into taking

part in a corrupt worship. The Divine condemnation of the king’s wrong-doing
came from an unexpected quarter and in an unusual fashion. The other prophetic
messages specially recorded by the chronicler were uttered by prophets of Judah,
some apparently receiving their inspiration for one particular occasion. The prophet
who rebuked Jehoram was no less distinguished a personage than the great Israelite
Elijah, who, according to the book of Kings, had long since been translated to
heaven. In the older narrative Elijah’s work is exclusively confined to the orthern
Kingdom. But the chronicler entirely ignores Elijah, except when his history
becomes connected for a moment with that of the house of David.
The other prophets of Judah delivered their messages by word of mouth, but this
communication is made by means of "a writing." This, however, is not without
parallel: Jeremiah sent a letter to the captives in Babylon, and also sent a written
collection of his prophecies to Jehoiakim. [Jeremiah 29:1-32, Jeremiah 36:1-32] In
the latter case, however, the prophecies had been originally promulgated by word of
mouth.
Elijah writes in the name of Jehovah, the God of David, and condemns Jehoram
because he was not walking in the ways of Asa and Jehoshaphat, but in the ways of
the kings of Israel and the house of Ahab. It is pleasant to find that, in spite of the
sins which marked the latter days of Asa and Jehoshaphat, their "ways" were as a
whole such as could be held up as an example by the prophet of Jehovah. Here and
elsewhere God appeals to the better feelings that spring from pride of birth.
oblesse oblige. Jehoram held his throne as representative of the house of David,
and was proud to trace his descent to the founder of the Israelite monarchy and to
inherit the glory of the great reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat; but this pride of race
implied that to depart from their ways was dishonorable apostasy. There is no more
pitiful spectacle than an effeminate libertine pluming himself on his noble ancestry.
Elijah further rebukes Jehoram for the massacre of his brethren, who were better
than himself. They had all grown up at their father’s court, and till the other
brethren were put in possession of their fenced cities had been under the same
influences. It is the husband of Ahab’s daughter who is worse than all the rest; the
influence of an unsuitable marriage has already begun to show itself. Indeed, in
view of Athaliah’s subsequent history, we do her no injustice by supposing that, like
Jezebel and Lady Macbeth, she had suggested her husband’s crime. The fact that
Jeroham’s brethren were better men than himself adds to his guilt morally, but this
undesirable superiority of the other princes of the blood to the reigning sovereign
would seem to Jehoram and his advisers an additional reason for putting them out
of the way; the massacre was an urgent political necessity.-
"Truly the tender mercies of the weak, As of the wicked, are but cruel."
There is nothing so cruel as the terror of a selfish man. The Inquisition is the
measure not only of the inhumanity, but also of the weakness, of the mediaeval
Church; and the massacre of St. Bartholomew was due to the feebleness of Charles
IX, as well as to the "revenge or the blind instinct of self-preservation" of Mary de

Medici.
The chronicler’s condemnation of Jehoram’s massacre marks the superiority of the
standard of later Judaism to the current Oriental morality. For his sins Jehoram
was to be punished by sore disease and by a great "plague" which would fall upon
his people, and his wives, and his children, and all his substance. From the following
verses we see that "plague," here as in the case of some of the plagues of Egypt, has
the sense of calamity generally, and not the narrower meaning of pestilence. This
plague took the form of an invasion of the Philistines and of the Arabians "which
are beside the Ethiopians." Divine inspiration prompted them to attack Judah;
Jehovah stirred up their spirit against Jehoram. Probably here, as in the story of
Zerah, the term Ethiopians is used loosely for the Egyptians, in which case the
Arabs in question would be inhabitants of the desert between the south of Palestine
and Egypt, and would thus be neighbors of their Philistine allies.
These marauding bands succeeded where the huge hosts of Zerah had failed; they
broke into Judah, and carried off all the king’s treasure, together with his sons and
his wives, only leaving him his youngest son: Jehoahaz or Ahaziah. They afterwards
slew the princes they had taken captive. The common people would scarcely suffer
less severely than their king. Jehoram himself was reserved for special personal
punishment: Jehovah smote him with a sore disease; and, like Asa, he lingered for
two years and then died. The people were so impressed by his wickedness that "they
made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers," whereas they had made a
very great burning for Asa.
The chronicler’s account of the reign of Ahaziah does not differ materially from
that given by the book of Kings, though it is considerably abridged, and there are
other minor alterations. The chronicler sets forth even more emphatically than the
earlier history the evil influence of Athaliah and her Israelite kinsfolk over
Ahaziah’s short reign of one year. The story of his visit to Jehoram, king of Israel,
and the murder of the two kings by Jehu, is very much abridged. The chronicler
carefully omits all reference to Elisha, according to his usual principle of ignoring
the religions life of orthern Israel; but he expressly tells us that, like Jehoshaphat,
Ahaziah suffered for consorting with the house of Omri: "His destruction or
treading down was of God in that he went unto Jehoram." Our English versions
have carefully reproduced an ambiguity in the original; but it seems probable that
the chronicler does not mean that visiting Jehoram in his illness was a flagrant
offense which God punished with death, but rather that, to punish Ahaziah for his
imitation of the evil-doings of the house of Omri. God allowed him to visit Jehoram
in order that he might share the fate of the Israelite king.
The book of Kings had stated that Jehu slew forty-two brethren of Ahaziah. It is, of
course, perfectly allowable to take "brethren" in the general sense of "kinsmen";
but as the chronicler had recently mentioned the massacre of all Ahaziah’s
brethren, he avoids even the appearance of a contradiction by substituting "sons of
the brethren of Ahaziah" for brethren. This alteration introduces new difficulties,
but these difficulties simply illustrate the general confusion of numbers and ages

which characterizes the narrative at this point. In connection with the burial of
Ahaziah, it may be noted that the popular recollection of Jehoshaphat endorsed the
favorable judgment contained in the "writing of Elijah": "They said" of Ahaziah,
"he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought Jehovah with all his heart." The
chronicler next narrates Athaliah’s murder of the seed royal of Judah and her
usurpation of the throne of David, in terms almost identical with those of the
narrative in the book of Kings. But his previous additions and modifications are
hard to reconcile with the account he here borrows from his ancient authority.
According to the chronicler, Jehoram had massacred all the other sons of
Jehoshaphat, and the Arabians had slain all Jehoram’s sons except Ahaziah, and
Jehu had slain their sons; so that Ahaziah was the only living descendant in the
male line of his grandfather Jehoshaphat; he himself apparently died at the age of
twenty-three. It is intelligible enough that he should have a son Joash and possibly
other sons; but still it is difficult to understand where Athaliah found "all the seed
royal" and "the king’s sons" whom she put to death. It is at any rate clear that
Jehoram’s slaughter of his brethren met with an appropriate punishment: all his
own sons and grandsons were similarly slain, except the child Joash. The
chronicler’s narrative of the revolution by which Athaliah was slain, and the throne
recovered for the house of David in the person of Joash, follows substantially the
earlier history, the chief difference being, as we have already noticed, that the
chronicler substitutes the Levitical guard of the second Temple for the bodyguard of
foreign mercenaries who were the actual agents in this revolution. A distinguished
authority on European history is fond of pointing to the evil effects of royal
marriages as one of the chief drawbacks to the monarchical system of government.
A crown may at any time devolve upon a woman, and by her marriage with a
powerful reigning prince her country may virtually be subjected to a foreign yoke.
If it happens that the new sovereign professes a different religion from that of his
wife’s subjects, the evils arising from the marriage are seriously aggravated. Some
such fate befell the etherlands as the result of the marriage of Mary of Burgundy
with the Emperor Maximilian, and England was only saved from the danger of
transference to Catholic dominion by the caution and patriotism of Queen
Elizabeth. Athaliah’s usurpation was a bold attempt to reverse the usual process
and transfer the husband’s dominions to the authority and faith of the wife’s family.
It is probable that Athaliah’s permanent success would have led to the absorption of
Judah in the orthern Kingdom. This last misfortune was averted by the energy
and courage of Jehoiada, but in the meantime the half-heathen queen had succeeded
in causing untold harm and suffering to her adopted country. Our own history
furnishes numerous illustrations of the evil influences that come in the train of
foreign queens. Edward II suffered grievously at the hands of his French queen;
Henry VI’s wife, Margaret of Anjou, contributed considerably to the prolonged
bitterness of the struggle between York and Lancaster; and to Henry VIII’s
marriage with Catherine of Aragon the country owed the miseries and persecutions
inflicted by Mary Tudor. But, on the other hand, many of the foreign princesses
who have shared the English throne have won the lasting gratitude of the nation. A
French queen of Kent, for instance, opened the way for Augustine’s mission to
England.

But no foreign queen of England has had the opportunities for mischief that were
enjoyed and fully utilized by Athaliah. She corrupted her husband and her son, and
she was probably at once the instigator of their crimes and the instrument of their
punishment. By corrupting the rulers of Judah and by her own misgovernment, she
exercised an evil influence over the nation; and as the people suffered, not for their
sins only, but also for those of their kings, Athaliah brought misfortunes and
calamity upon Judah. Unfortunately such experiences are not confined to royal
families; the peace and honor, and prosperity of godly families in all ranks of life
have been disturbed and often destroyed by the marriage of one of their members
with a woman of alien spirit and temperament. Here is a very general and practical
application of the chronicler’s objection to intercourse with the house of Omri.
GUZIK, "A. The sins of Jehoram.
1. (2 Chronicles 21:1-5) The murder of his brothers.
And Jehoshaphat rested with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the City
of David. Then Jehoram his son reigned in his place. He had brothers, the sons of
Jehoshaphat: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azaryahu, Michael, and Shephatiah; all
these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel. Their father gave them great gifts
of silver and gold and precious things, with fortified cities in Judah; but he gave the
kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn. ow when Jehoram was
established over the kingdom of his father, he strengthened himself and killed all his
brothers with the sword, and also others of the princes of Israel. Jehoram was
thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.
a. Then Jehoram his son reigned in his place: The father of Jehoram was the godly
king Jehoshaphat. Yet one of the worst things Jehoshaphat ever did was arrange the
marriage of his son Jehoram to Athaliah, the daughter of the evil king Ahab and his
wife Jezebel (2 Kings 8:16-18; 2Ki_8:26).
b. Their father gave them great gifts . . . with fortified cities: Jehoshaphat followed
the same wise policy with his sons that Rehoboam had previously followed (2
Chronicles 11:18-23) – to scatter them throughout the kingdom and away from the
capital so they would not be a concentrated threat to his one son to succeed him,
Jehoram.
i. “Jehoshaphat king of Israel; so he is called, either, 1. Because he was so by right.
Or, 2. Because he was king not only of Judah and Benjamin, but of a great number
of Israelites, who had come into and settled themselves in his kingdom . . . Or, 3.
Because all his subjects were Israelites; and therefore he was king of Israel, though
not of all Israel. . . . Some say Israel was foisted into some copies by the transcriber
instead of Judah, as it was first written.” (Poole)
c. He strengthened himself and killed all his brothers with the sword, and also other

princes of Israel: Despite Jehoshaphat’s wise policy of scattering his sons, Jehoram
made it a point to murder all his brothers so they would not be any kind of a threat
against his reign.
i. “Jehoram’s response to God’s goodness, however, was to put not only all his
brothers to the sword, but some of his leading ‘officials’ as well. ‘Made himself
strong’ therefore, clearly means the violent removal of all other possible claimants
to the throne.” (Selman)
ii. The wickedness of Jehoram was not a surprise, considering how much he allowed
himself to be influenced by the house of Ahab. “Josephus expands on this, indicating
that he committed the murders at the prompting of Athaliah.” (Dilday)
iii. Perhaps some people thought that the marriage between the royal families of the
Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel would lift up the Kingdom of Israel
spiritually. It didn’t work that way. Instead, it brought the Kingdom of Judah down
spiritually.
PULPIT, "The matter of this chapter may be divided into four parts. The death and
burial of Jehoshaphat, and the number, names, and position of his sons (2
Chronicles 21:1-3). The accession and wicked course of Jehoram, the eldest son (2
Chronicles 21:4-11). The written warning and denunciation of Elijah, and the very
practical warning of the Philistines, etc. (2 Chronicles 21:12-17). The disease, death,
and burial of Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:18-20).
2 Chronicles 21:1
The parallel for this verse is 1 Kings 22:50; and, with the exception of one word, it is
an exact parallel. To understand the questions set in motion by the last clause of the
verse, comparison must be made of 2 Kings 1:17; 2 Kings 3:1; 2 Kings 8:16. For
anything that appears here, we should take for granted that Jehoram now first
began to exercise any royal authority and enjoy any royal dignity. But the first of
the just-quoted passages says Jehoram (of Israel) succeeded his wicked brother
Ahaziah in the second year of Jehoram (of Judah), son of Jehoshaphat. In the
second of the above-quoted passages, however, we are told that the same Jehoram
(of Israel) succeeded to the throne in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, which date
tallies with our parallel of last chapter (1 Kings 22:41), to the effect that
Jehoshaphat himself began to reign in Ahab's fourth year, and Ahaziah in Jeho-
saphat's seventeenth year. While, lastly, the third of the above-quoted references
says that in the fifth year of Joram (of Israel), "Jehoshaphat being then King of
Judah" (which, however, is itself an unfaithful rendering of what must be a corrupt
text), his son Jehoram "began to reign." It has therefore been conjectured that the
royal name was given Jehoram (of Judah) by his father in his father's sixteenth
year, and that in his twenty-third year he further invested him with some royal
power (our 2 Kings 8:3 gives some plausibility to this conjecture), from which last

date Jehoram's "eight years" (2 Kings 8:17; 2 Chronicles 21:5, 2 Chronicles 21:20)
must be reckoned; this was not less than two years before the death of Jehoshaphat.
Were it not for the countenance that our third verse (describing the cut-and-dried
arrangements that the father made for his sons) gives to the tenableness of the above
conjectures, we should prefer the conjecture that the passages commented upon are
so much corrupt text.
2 Jehoram’s brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat,
were Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariahu,
Michael and Shephatiah. All these were sons of
Jehoshaphat king of Israel.[a]
CLARKE, "And he had brethren - the sons of Jehoshaphat, king of Israel. -
Jehoshaphat certainly was not king of Israel, but king of Judah. ‫ישראל‬ Yisrael must be a
corruption in the text, for ‫יהודה‬ Yehudah; which is the reading of the Syriac, Arabic,
Septuagint, and Vulgate: the Chaldee, only agrees with the Hebrew text. And the reading
of the versions is supported by thirty-eight of Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s MSS. The word
Judah should therefore be restored to the text.
GILL, "And he had brethren, the sons of Jehoshaphat,.... That is, Jehoram had,
who succeeded him: their names follow:
Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and
Shephatiah; two of them were of the same name; though it may be observed, that in
the Hebrew text they are somewhat distinguished, the latter is called Azariah; Jehiel is
said, by the Jews (x), to be the same with Hiel that rebuilt Jericho; indeed it was rebuilt
in the times of Jehoshaphat, and was a city of the tribe of Benjamin, Jos_18:21 which
was under his jurisdiction; but it can never be thought that he would ever suffer a son of
his to rebuild it; besides, he is expressly said to be a Bethelite, 1Ki_16:34,
all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel; which generally, since the
division of the kingdom, designs the ten tribes, but cannot be the meaning here, because
Jehoshaphat was only king of two tribes, Judah and Benjamin; they were tribes of Israel
indeed, and so he was king of a part of Israel; and besides, many out of the ten tribes
came and settled in his kingdom, and were under his government; though some think he

is so called, because he concerned himself so much for the kingdom of Israel, and more
than for his own; but the Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, all read
king of Judah; wherefore some are of opinion that Israel is a mistake of the transcriber;
but this need not be supposed, since he was of right king of Israel, and was in fact king of
two tribes that belonged to Israel.
BE SO , "2 Chronicles 21:2. And Azariah — Hebrew, ‫,עזריהו‬ Azaria-hu,
distinguished by the last syllable, hu, from the Azariah mentioned in the former
clause. Of Jehoshaphat king of Israel — So he is called, either, 1st, Because he was
so by right: or, 2d, Because he was king not only of Judah and Benjamin, but of a
great number of Israelites, who had come and settled in his kingdom.
ELLICOTT, "Verses 2-4
REIG OF JEHORAM (2 Chronicles 21:2-18).
THE EW KI G MURDERS HIS SIX BROTHERS
(2 Chronicles 21:2-4).
(2) Azariah . . . and Azariah.—Heb. ‘Azaryâh . . . and Azaryâhû, different forms of
the same name. All the versions give one form only. An old error of transcription
may be involved (comp. 1 Chronicles 3:6; 1 Chronicles 3:8); but it is also possible
that Jehoshaphat named two of his sons Azariah, “Iah helpeth,” in pious recognition
of two several mercies. Shephatiah, “Iah judgeth,” repeats his own name in inverted
shape.
The other names are—“God liveth,” “Iah remem-bereth,” “Who is like God? “—all
significant of the king’s faith.
Jehoshaphat king of Israel.—The southern kingdom is called “Israel” in 2
Chronicles 12:1; 2 Chronicles 12:6; 2 Chronicles 21:4; 2 Chronicles 28:19; 2
Chronicles 28:27, and elsewhere, as enjoying the legitimate monarchy, and
maintaining the orthodox ritual and priesthood. Here, however, some Hebrew
MSS., the LXX., Syriac, Vulg., and Arabic, read “Judah.”
(3) And their father gave them great gifts.—Jehoshaphat before his death had
provided for his sons, as Rehoboam before him had done for his, by appointing
them resident governors of the national fortresses, and sending them away with
valuable presents (2 Chronicles 11:23).
Of silver, and of gold.—The preposition (le) belongs to the chronicler’s style.
Precious things (migdônôth; Genesis 24:53).—Such as jewels, robes, and spices.
Because he was the firstborn.—This was the rule. (Comp. Deuteronomy 21:15-17.)

For exceptions, see 1 Chronicles 28:5; 2 Chronicles 11:22; 2 Chronicles 36:1.
(4) ow when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his father.—Literally, And
Jehoram arose over the kingdom, &c., a peculiar expression, only found here. It
seems to mean, established himself on the throne. (See Exodus 1:8 for a similar
phrase, and comp. the use of the same verb, 1 Samuel 24:20.)
He strengthened himself.—Secured his hold of power (2 Chronicles 1:1; 2
Chronicles 1:12, &c).
And slew all his brethren.—In order to prevent intrigues against himself. Such
ruthless crimes have been customary at Oriental accessions, and are one of the
natural results of polygamy. (Comp. the conduct of Abimelech (Judges 9:5) and of
Athaliah (2 Chronicles 22:10). It was thus that Jehoram “strengthened himself.”
And divers also of the princes of Israel.—Some of the great chiefs of the clans,
whose power or sympathy with his murdered brothers Jehoram may have dreaded.
Or, like other Oriental despots, Jehoram may have acted from no other motive than
a rapacious desire to confiscate their wealth. Some suppose that both his brethren
and these “princes” had given signs of dissatisfaction at Jehoram and Athalian’s
heathen policy. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 21:13, “thy brethren . . . which were better
than thyself.”)
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:2 And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah,
and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these
[were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.
Ver. 2. King of Israel.] Of all Israel by right; but really, of a part of them only
POOLE, "Azariah; two sons called by the same name, though doubtless
distinguished by some additional title, which is not mentioned here, because it did
not concern succeeding ages to know it. Though indeed there is a difference in their
Hebrew names, the one being Azariah, the other Azariahu, hu being the last syllabic
in his name, as in Elihu and others. Jehoshaphat king of Israel; so he is called,
either,
1. Because he was so by right. Or,
2. Because he was king not only of Judah and Benjamin, but of a great number of
Israelites, who had come into and settled themselves in his kingdom, in his and in his
predecessor’s days; who being a considerable, and the purest and best, part of
Israel, may well be called Israel, being more truly and properly God’s Israel than
their apostate brethren, who were no longer worthy of that name. Or,
3. Because all his subjects were Israelites; and therefore he was

king of Israel, though not of all Israel. Or,
4. With some reflection upon his memory for making so strict an alliance and
friendship with the king of Israel, whose cause he defended with his own and his
kingdom’s great hazard, as if he had been the king not so much of Judah as of
Israel. And this may be the rather noted here, because here speedily follows a sad
effect of that wicked and cursed match. Some say Israel was foisted into some copies
by the transcriber instead of Judah, as it was first written.
PULPIT, "Though in our version two Azariahs appear among the six sons of
Jehoshaphat here given, the Hebrew text shows ‫ָה‬‫י‬ ְ‫ַר‬‫ז‬ֲ‫ע‬ in the one place and ‫ָהוּ‬‫י‬ ְ‫ַר‬‫ז‬ֲ‫ע‬ in
the other. othing is known of the previous history of these six, now so cruelly
murdered by their eldest brother. It will be observed that Jehoshaphat is styled
King of Israel, probably merely generically. Into this way the writer of Chronicles
would run, at any rate, more easily than the writer of Kings.
3 Their father had given them many gifts of silver
and gold and articles of value, as well as fortified
cities in Judah, but he had given the kingdom to
Jehoram because he was his firstborn son.
BAR ES, "Jehoshaphat departed from Rehoboam’s policy (2Ch_11:23 note),
actually making over to his sons the “fenced cities” in which they dwelt. This, it is
probable, provoked the jealousy of Jehoram, and induced him to put them to death
2Ch_21:4.
Because he was the firstborn - Compare Deu_21:15-17. Exceptions to this rule in
the northern and southern kingdoms are Solomon, where divine appointment
superseded the natural order, Abijah 2Ch_11:22 note), and Jehoahaz (2Ki_23:30 note).
CLARKE, "The kingdom gave he to Jehoram - He made him co-partner with
himself in the kingdom about three years before his death; so that he reigned only five
years after the death of his father Jehoshaphat. See the notes on 2Ki_8:16, etc.; and on
the same, 2Ch_1:17, where an attempt is made to settle this disturbed chronology.

GILL, "And their father gave them great gifts of silver, and of gold, and of
precious things,.... As jewels and precious stones; or precious garments, as the
Targum, in like manner as Abraham gave to his sons, when he sent them from Isaac:
with fenced cities in Judah; not as their own property, but he appointed them
governors in them, to defend them against an enemy, and as a mark of honour to them:
but the kingdom gave he to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn; strictly
observing the law in Deu_21:16, which was not always done; though it was reckoned by
the Heathens contrary to the law of nations to give the kingdom to the younger (y).
BE SO , "2 Chronicles 21:3. With fenced cities of Judah — Over which he made
them governors. This he seems to have done prudently; thus providing well for
them, that they might not be tempted to envy their brother the kingdom, nor to
quarrel among themselves: but “things excellently designed,” says Strigelius, from
Cicero, “have often a very ill event.” This wealth and authority of theirs, made their
brother first fear them, and then, through his wicked covetousness, contrive to cut
them off, that he might get possession of their riches and power. Because he was the
firstborn — Whom Jehoshaphat supposed he ought to prefer on account of the law,
recorded Deuteronomy 21:15, though otherwise, it is probable, he would not have
done it, having doubtless, before this time, observed his perverse and wicked
inclinations, and how much he was swayed by his idolatrous wife.
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:3 And their father gave them great gifts of silver, and of
gold, and of precious things, with fenced cities in Judah: but the kingdom gave he to
Jehoram; because he [was] the firstborn.
Ver. 3. With fenced cities.] Herein he dealt wisely; as it is said of Rehoboam for the
like. [2 Chronicles 11:2-3] But "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to
the strong, nor yet bread to the wise," &c. [Ecclesiastes 9:11-12]
POOLE, "Whom he conceived that he ought to prefer by virtue of that law of God,
Deuteronomy 21:15, though otherwise he would not have done it, having probably
ere this time perceived his perverse and wicked inclinations, and how much he was
swayed by his idolatrous wife. ow he saw his error when it was too late.
PULPIT, "The father's foreseeing care issued very differently from what he had
thought, waking now the greed and murderous intent of Jehoram. Jehoshaphat,
nevertheless, was but following in the wake of the head of the separated kingdom of
Judah, Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:22, 2 Chronicles 11:23), wherein he is said to
have "dealt wisely;" even the parallel (in the matter of one son Abijah, sen of
Maachah, the favourite wife, being appointed king) obtaining there in an
aggravated form, as he was not the eldest son. This case, with those of Solomon and

Jehoahaz (by the favour not of the parent but of the people, 2 Kings 23:30), formed
the exceptions to the usual observance of and honour done to the principle of
primogeniture (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
Jehoram King of Judah
4 When Jehoram established himself firmly over
his father’s kingdom, he put all his brothers to the
sword along with some of the officials of Israel.
BAR ES, "The execution of several “princes of Israel” (i. e. of Judah; see 2Ch_20:34
note) implies that Jehoram’s brothers found supporters among the chief men of the
country, and that Jehoram’s sole sovereignty was not established without a struggle.
CLARKE, "Slew all his brethren - What a truly diabolic thing is the lust of power!
it destroys all the charities of life, and renders those who are under its influence the
truest resemblants of the arch fiend. That he might sit the more secure upon his throne,
this execrable man imbrues his hands in the blood of his own brothers! There are more
instances of this species of cruelty among bad Asiatic kings than among any other class
of men. The history of every country abounds in proofs; even that of our own is not the
least barren.
GILL, "Now when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his father,....
Succeeded him in it, and reigned alone, for he had reigned with his father some years
before his death; see Gill on 2Ki_8:16,
he strengthened himself; in the kingdom, by some means or another closely
attaching the greater part of the princes, and people of the land, unto him, when he
thought himself well settled and established on the throne; though some understand it
of making strong, or hardening his heart to do what is next mentioned:
and slew all his brethren with the sword; either to get their riches into his hands,

or lest, being religious princes, they should oppose his restoring idolatry, and for that
reason the people should depose him, and set up one of them; and therefore he
dispatched them out of the way to secure himself, and carry his point:
and divers also of the princes of Israel; such who had removed out of the ten
tribes, for the sake of religion, and therefore would never agree to the introduction of
idolatry among them, for which reason Jehoram slew them; and perhaps they might
express their disapprobation and abhorrence of his murder of his brethren.
K&D, "2Ch_21:4
Now when Joram ascended (raised himself to) the throne of his father, and attained to
power (‫ק‬ֵ ַ‫ח‬ ְ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ as in 2Ch_1:1), he slew all his brethren with the sword, and also some of the
princes of Israel, i.e., the tribal princes of his kingdom. It could hardly be from avarice
that he slew his brothers, merely to get possession of their property; probably it was
because they did not sympathize with the political course which he was entering upon,
and disapproved of the idolatrous conduct of Joram and his wife Athaliah. This may be
gathered from the fact that in 2Ch_21:13 they are called better than Joram. The princes
probably drew down upon themselves the wrath of Joram, or of his heathen consort, by
disapproving of the slaughter of the royal princes, or by giving other signs of discontent
with the spirit of their reign.
BE SO , "2 Chronicles 21:4. He strengthened himself — Hardened his heart, as
the word ‫חזק‬ , chazak, often signifies; and slew all his brethren with the sword —
Either by false accusation, under colour of law, or rather by assassination,
pretending, it is likely, that he could not think himself safe in the government till
they were taken out of the way. Those that mean ill themselves, are commonly,
without cause, jealous of those about them. And divers also of the princes of Israel
— Either, 1st, Of Judah, here called Israel, as in 2 Chronicles 21:2. Or rather, 2d,
Of Israel properly so called; not the princes of all Israel, or of the several tribes
thereof, but the chief of those Israelites who, out of love to God and the true religion,
had forsaken their estates in the kingdom of Israel, and were now incorporated with
the kingdom of Judah: these he slew, because he thought they would be most zealous
for that religion which he was resolved to oppose.
COFFMA , "JEHORAM'S VICIOUS MURDER OF ALL HIS BROTHERS
" ow when Jehoram was risen up over the kingdom of his father, and had
strengthened himself, he slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also of the
princes of Israel. Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign; and
he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel,
as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he did that
which was evil in the sight of Jehovah. Howbeit Jehovah would not destroy the
house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and as he
promised to give a lamp to him and to his children alway."
"Jehovah would not destroy the house of David" (2 Chronicles 21:7). The very
mention of such a thing in this paragraph is a mark of the diabolical threat that

existed at this moment in the history of the Chosen People. In these events, Satan
was moving swiftly and methodically toward that very goal: the total destruction of
the house of David. And when Jehoram's evil mother Athaliah was finally able to
seize power for herself, she all but accomplished it.
We cannot leave this without mentioning the disaster that always results from
contracting a marriage with an evil partner. Jehoshaphat is credited with being a
good king; but he was incredibly stupid in arranging a marriage for his first-born
son and presumptive heir to the throne of Judah with the wicked Jezebel II, whose
name was Athaliah.
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:4 ow when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his
father, he strengthened himself, and slew all his brethren with the sword, and
[divers] also of the princes of Israel.
Ver. 4. He strengthened himself.] By gifts, likely, he gained to his party vain men, as
Jeroboam also did, in those cities that were given to his brethren.
He slew all his brethren with the sword.] All, lewd losel (profligate)! what a bloody
foundation was here laid of his kingdom - not unlike that of Cain, of Cambyses, of
Romulus, of Jugurtha, of Caracalla, of the cruel Turks at this day - but it came
home to him, as God is the avenger of all such. See God’s judgments upon his sons
shortly after, [2 Chronicles 21:17] and also upon his grandchildren. [2 Chronicles
22:10-11] Only Jehoahaz was left of the one, and Joash of the other; and these also
merely for God’s promise’ sake to David. [2 Chronicles 21:7]
POOLE, "He strengthened himself; he took courage and hardened his heart, as that
word sometimes signifies.
Slew all his brethren with the sword; partly because they either did, or he knew that
they would, oppose him in his wicked designs; and partly for his own security, lest
his people, who, as he believed, would be highly exasperated with the execution of
his counsels, should advance any of them to the throne, and depose him.
Of the princes of Israel; either,
1. Of Judah, here called Israel, or which See Poole "2 Chronicles 21:2". Or,
2. The princes or chief men of Israel, properly so called; not the princes of all Israel,
or of the several tribes thereof, but the chief of those Israelites who, out of love to
God and to the true religion, had forsaken their estates and worthy advantages in
the kingdom of Israel, and were now incorporated with the kingdom of Judah.
These he especially struck at, either,

1. Because his wife instigated him thereunto, both to punish them for their revolt
from her father, and to deter others from following their example. Or,
2. Because he justly and truly thought these would be most firm and constant to and
zealous for that religion which he was resolved to oppose, being both by their
conscience and interest obliged to it.
PULPIT, "Slew all his brethren … and also of the princes of Israel. It may be, as
suggested by the genius of the last clause of our yet. 13, that Jehoram's wicked heart
prompted him the rather because his own works were evil and his brothers'
righteous. He may have thought their practical witness against him, and that of the
"princes" who shared their fate, would be growingly inconvenient, and would work
in them a necessary disloyalty ( 9:1-5). On the ether showing, the "princes" now cut
down may have shown partiality and affection to the six brothers, one or other of
them.
5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he
became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight
years.
GILL 5-11, "Jehoram was thirty two years old,.... Of these verses; see Gill on 2Ki_
8:17, 2Ki_8:18, 2Ki_8:19, 2Ki_8:20, 2Ki_8:21, 2Ki_8:22
K&D, "Duration and spirit of Joram's reign. - These verses agree with 2Ki_8:17-22,
with the exception of some immaterial divergences, and have been commented upon in
the remarks on that passage. - In 2Ch_21:7 the thought is somewhat otherwise
expressed than in 2Ki_8:19 : “Jahve would not destroy the house of David, because of
the covenant that He had made with David;” instead of, “He would not destroy Judah
because of David His servant, as He had said.” Instead of ‫יו‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫יר‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ָ‫ל‬ we have in the
Chronicle ‫יו‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫וּל‬ ‫יר‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ָ‫,ל‬ to give him a lamp, and that in respect of his sons, w being
inserted before ‫לבניו‬ to bring the idea more prominently forward. In regard to ‫יו‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ‫ם‬ ִ‫,ע‬
2Ch_21:9, instead of ‫ה‬ ָ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ְ‫,צ‬ 2Ki_8:21, see on 2 Kings loc. cit. At the end of 2Ch_21:9 the
words, “and the people fled to their tents” (2Ki_8:21), whereby the notice of Joram's
attempt to bring Edom again under his sway, which is in itself obscure enough, becomes

yet more obscure.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 5
JEHORAM’S IDOLATRY. THE REVOLT OF EDOM A D LIB AH
(2 Chronicles 21:5-11).
This section is parallel with 2 Kings 8:17-22.
(5) Jehoram was thirty and two years old.—2 Kings 8:17, “he was;” because the
name had just occurred in the former verse.
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:5 Jehoram [was] thirty and two years old when he began
to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.
Ver. 5. Jehoram was thirty and two.] See 2 Kings 8:17.
PULPIT, "He reigned eight years. This rejoin dates to begin with the twenty-second
or twenty-third year of the reign of his father Jehoshaphat, according to note on 2
Chronicles 21:1, above. The parallel of 2 Kings 8:17-21 may be consulted for our 2
Kings 8:5-11; our 2 Kings 8:11, 2 Kings 8:13 expound in clearer detail the "evil"
that Jehoram wrought than the narrative of Kings.
6 He followed the ways of the kings of Israel, as
the house of Ahab had done, for he married a
daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the
Lord.
CLARKE, "He had the daughter of Ahab to wife - This was Athaliah, daughter
of Ahab and Jezebel, who was famous for her impieties and cruelty, as was her most
profligate mother. It is likely that she was the principal cause of Jehoram’s cruelty and
profaneness.

HE RY 6-11, "III. That Jehoram was a most wicked king, who corrupted and
debauched his kingdom, and ruined the reformation that his good father and
grandfather had carried on: He walked in the way of the house of Ahab (2Ch_21:6),
made high places, which the people were of themselves too forward to make, and did his
utmost to set up idolatry again, 2Ch_21:11. 1. As for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, where
he kept his court, he easily drew them into his spiritual whoredom: He caused them to
commit fornication, seducing them to eat things sacrificed to idols, Rev_2:20. 2. The
country people seem to have been brought to it with more difficulty; but those that
would not be corrupted by flatteries were driven by force to partake in his abominable
idolatries: He compelled Judah thereto. He used that power for the destruction of the
church which was given him for the edification of it.
IV. That when he forsook God and his worship his subjects withdrew from their
allegiance to him. 1. Some of the provinces abroad that were tributaries to him did so.
The Edomites revolted (2Ch_21:8), and, though he chastised them (2Ch_21:9), yet he
could not reduce them, 2Ch_21:10. 2. One of the cities of his own kingdom did so.
Libnah revolted (2Ch_21:10) and set up for a free state, as of old it had a king of its own,
Jos_12:15. And the reason is here given, not only why God permitted it, but why they did
it; they shook off his government because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers,
had become an idolater and a worshipper of false gods, and they could not continue
subject to him without some danger of being themselves also drawn away from God and
their duty. While he adhered to God they adhered to him; but, when he cast God off, they
cast him off. Whether this reason will justify them in their revolt of no, it will justify
God's providence which ordered it so.
V. That yet God was tender of his covenant with the house of David, and therefore
would not destroy the royal family, though it was so wretchedly corrupted and
degenerated, 2Ch_21:7. These things we had before, 2Ki_8:19-22. The tenour of the
covenant was that David's seed should be visited for their transgressions, but the
covenant should never be broken, Psa_89:30, etc.
JAMISO , "he walked ... as did the house of Ahab, for he had the daughter
of Ahab to wife — The precepts and examples of his excellent father were soon
obliterated by his matrimonial alliance with a daughter of the royal house of Israel.
Through the influence of Athaliah he abolished the worship of the Lord, and encouraged
an introduction of all the corruptions prevalent in the sister kingdom. The divine
vengeance was denounced against him, and would have utterly destroyed him and his
house, had it not been for a tender regard to the promise made to David (2Sa_7:29; 2Ki_
8:19).
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:6 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as
did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought
[that which was] evil in the eyes of the LORD.
Ver. 6. And he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel.] He was an idolater, and
therefore so cruel and bloody minded toward his innocent brethren. It is probable
that he charged them with high treason, which ever was unicum crimen eorum qui
crimine vacabant, saith Lipsius; but the Hebrews say that he slew them because they
walked in the good ways of their father Jehoshaphat, and would not yield to his

idolatries; and then it was the worse: those princes might be put to death as their
partisans.
For he had the daughter of Ahab to wife,] viz., Wicked Athaliah, that Jezebel of
Jerusalem. She is called also the daughter of Omri, Ahab’s father, to denote the
deep ingraffing of idolatrous principles within her breast, as taking them from two
such arch-idolaters.
PARKER, "Jehoram
"For he [Jehoram] had the daughter of Ahab to wife" ( 2 Chronicles 21:6).
THIS is not given as a fact, but is stated as an explanation. Such an explanation fills
the heart with shame. Here is a man who did wickedly in the sight of the Lord, and
when we begin to ask why he deported himself so viciously, we are told that "he had
the daughter of Ahab to wife." What can there be in such an explanation to bring
upon the cheek the blush of shame, and fill the heart with the fire of horror and
resentment? He had the daughter of a bad man as his companion. How can some
men be good when they must needs drink daily of an evil fountain, and come into
association day by day with a breath hot and malarious as a pestilence? This woman
makes no great demonstration of herself; we cannot say that to-day or tomorrow she
will figure in some great tragedy, and show how terrible a thing it is to be the slave
of sin. She may have been a silent woman; she may never have spoken above a
whisper; but her whole life was set in a wrong direction. Every comment she made
was discouraging to goodness, every attitude she assumed was inconsistent with the
posture of prayer. We are not special pleaders on behalf of Jehoram, but we are
bound to recognise that which is set down as one of the key-facts of his life. He was
not bound to marry the daughter of Ahab; he selected her to be his life-companion.
Men must reap the harvests which they themselves have sown. o man is at liberty
to fall back upon secondary explanations, saying, Had I been better related, more
comfortably situated; had my circumstances been more favourable,—all such
reasoning is tainted with the vice of selfishness. First let us settle how far we
ourselves are responsible for the circumstances. A man must not light a fire and
then complain of the heat. o man is at liberty to drink poison and then say that he
is in pain, and ask for the pity of those who are round about him. Cause and effect
must go together: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." On the other
hand, we are to recognise facts as we find them. How can some women be good? for
they have no joy at home; when they open the window, the sun seems to pass by on
the other side without blessing it; when they speak a generous word, they meet with
no response; when they propose to begin a larger and nobler life, their suggestions
are received with resentment or disdain. So again we ask, How can some men be
good? How can a man lay hold with sense of security upon an inclined plane, so
steep that he can hardly hold his own for a moment? Why ask the man to come
upward, to advance, when the very geometry of life seems to be set against him?
Still, we go back to origins and say, Who began this? There must be no mere

exchange of denunciation, but a common penitence, a common sorrow, a mutual
amnesty, and a united recommencement. How musically these words might read!
"For he had the daughter of Ahab to wife," need not have explained a vicious spirit,
and an unpatriotic and unholy policy; such words would rhyme well with Wisdom
of Solomon , progress, patriotism, philanthropy: "For he had the daughter of Ahab
to wife," a woman who cheered him, understood him, supported him by her
sympathy, and led the way to the brighter worlds which she wished him to claim
and to enjoy. The words are right; it is the context that gives them blackness, and
sting, and tincture of hell.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Chronicles 21:6-7) Why God showed mercy to Jehoram.
And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just as the house of Ahab had done,
for he had the daughter of Ahab as a wife; and he did evil in the sight of the LORD.
Yet the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that
He had made with David, and since He had promised to give a lamp to him and to
his sons forever.
a. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel: This was not a compliment. While the
southern Kingdom of Judah had a mixture of godly and wicked kings, the northern
Kingdom of Israel had nothing but evil, God-rejecting kings.
i. “This was Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, who was famous for her
impieties and cruelty, as was her most profligate mother. It is likely that she was the
principle cause of Jehoram’s cruelty and profaneness.” (Clarke)
ii. His father Jehoshaphat was a godly man who had a bad and sinful habit of
making compromising associations. The worst fruit of this sinful tendency was not
evident until after Jehoshaphat’s death.
b. Yet the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that
He had made with David: The implication is that Jehoram’s evil was great enough
to justify such judgment, but God withheld it out of faithfulness to his ancestor
David.
i. “The lamp was more than a symbol of life and of testimony, it reminded the
hearer of the covenant (Psalms 132:17, c.f. 2 Chronicles 21:7).” (Wiseman)
ii. When God first made this promise to David it was not formally called a covenant
(1 Chronicles 17, 2 Samuel 7). However, it was divinely called a covenant afterwards
(2 Samuel 23:5; Psalms 89:3; Psa_89:34; Psalms 132:11-12). (Payne)
PULPIT, "The daughter of Ahab to wife. That is, Athaliah, called (2 Chronicles
22:2; 2 Kings 8:26) the daughter, that is, granddaughter, of Omri.

7 evertheless, because of the covenant the Lord
had made with David, the Lord was not willing to
destroy the house of David. He had promised to
maintain a lamp for him and his descendants
forever.
ELLICOTT, "(7) The Lord would not destroy the house of David . . .—An
exegetical (not arbitrary, as Thenius asserts) expansion of “The Lord would not
destroy Judah, for the sake of David his servant” (Kings).
The covenant that he had made with David.—Literally, for David. So Isaiah 55:3, “I
will make an everlasting covenant for you, even the sure mercies of David.” This
construction is generally used of the stronger imposing conditions on the weaker.
(Comp. Joshua 9:6; 1 Samuel 11:1-2.) In the Pentateuch, God makes a covenant
with (im or eth) His people (Genesis 15:16; Exodus 24:8).
To give a light to him and to his sons.—Literally, a lamp. Some critics find another
“deviation” here, and render 1 Kings 8:19, “to give a lamp to him in respect of his
sons.” But many Hebrew MSS., and the LXX., Vulg., and Targum of that passage,
read, “and to his sons,” as here. Syriac, “On account of the oaths which he sware to
David, to give to him a burning lamp, and to his sons all the days.”
For ever.—All the days.
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:7 Howbeit the LORD would not destroy the house of
David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and as he promised to
give a light to him and to his sons for ever.
Ver. 7. As he promised to give a light to him.] Successionem stirpis regiae et
splendidae. Out of this "light," or lamp, came at length that "Sun of righteousness,"
"the Light of the world," Christ Jesus. See on 2 Kings 8:19.

POOLE, "Because of the covenant that he had made with David; for which, in 2
Kings 8:19, it is for David his servant’s sake, i.e. not for David’s merits, but for
God’s free promise and covenant, as it is here explained.
PULPIT, "The covenant … a light … his sons for ever (so 2 Samuel 7:12, 2 Samuel
7:13, 2 Samuel 7:15, 2 Samuel 7:16; 2 Samuel 23:5; 1 Kings 8:20, 1 Kings 8:24, 1
Kings 8:25; 1 Chronicles 22:10; Psalms 132:11, Psalms 132:12; Isaiah 55:3; Acts
13:34).
8 In the time of Jehoram, Edom rebelled against
Judah and set up its own king.
JAMISO , "2Ch_21:8-17. Edom and Libnah revolt.
the Edomites revolted — That nation had been made dependent by David, and
down to the time of Jehoshaphat was governed by a tributary ruler (1Ki_22:47; 2Ki_
3:9). But that king having been slain in an insurrection at home, his successor thought to
ingratiate himself with his new subjects by raising the flag of independence [Josephus].
The attempt was defeated in the first instance by Jehoram, who possessed all the
military establishments of his father; but being renewed unexpectedly, the Edomites
succeeded in completely emancipating their country from the yoke of Judah (Gen_
27:40). Libnah, which lay on the southern frontier and towards Edom, followed the
example of that country.
COFFMA , "JEHORAM PROMPTLY LOST EDOM A D LIB AH
"In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over
themselves. Then Jehoram passed over with his captains, and all his chariots with
him; and he rose up by night, and smote the Edomites that compassed him about,
and the captains of the chariots. So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah
unto this day: then did Libnah revolt at the same time from under his hand, because
he had forsaken Jehovah, the God of his fathers."
"What appears to have happened here is that Jehoram and his army went to teach
the Edomites a lesson, but found out that the Edomites had surrounded him and his
chariots."[3] The consequent loss of two subject peoples, the Edomites from east of
Jordan, and those of Libnah from the area of the Philistines, was directly due to the
wickedness of Jehoram and were the result of the judgment of God upon him.

Part of this chapter is parallel to 2 Kings 8:17-24, and our comments on some of
these events are found in the Commentary on Second Kings.
ELLICOTT, "(8) In his days the Edomites revolted.—2 Kings 8:20. See also 1 Kings
22:47, from which it appears that under Jehoshaphat “a deputy,” or viceroy, ruled
in Edom. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 20:35, ote.)
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:8 In his days the Edomites revolted from under the
dominion of Judah, and made themselves a king.
Ver. 8. In his days the Edomites.] See on 2 Kings 8:20.
GUZIK, "B. The consequences of his sin
1. (2 Chronicles 21:8-11) Jehoram’s sinful compromise and the revolt of Edom and
Libnah.
In his days the Edomites revolted against Judah’s authority, and made a king over
themselves. So Jehoram went out with his officers, and all his chariots with him.
And he rose by night and attacked the Edomites who had surrounded him and the
captains of the chariots. Thus Edom has been in revolt against Judah’s authority to
this day. At that time Libnah revolted against his rule, because he had forsaken the
LORD God of his fathers. Moreover he made high places in the mountains of
Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit harlotry, and led Judah
astray.
a. In his days the Edomites revolted against Judah’s authority: For some time,
Edom was essentially a client kingdom to Judah and owed them tribute (taxes).
Under the reign of Jehoram, the leaders of Edom sensed weakness in Judah and
their opportunity to free themselves.
i. “ othing else is known of trouble in Libnah, a town of uncertain location on
Judah’s western border not far from Lachish.” (Selman)
ii. “As long as the kings of Judah remained true to their allegiance to God, they were
able to keep in subjection the surrounding nations; but just so soon as they revolted
from God these people revolted from there. It was as though power descended into
them from the source of all power; and when that link between themselves and God
was broken, that between themselves and their subordinates was broken also.”
(Meyer)
iii. This applies to our passions; when we are properly submitted to God, our
passions are properly submitted to us. When we come out from submission to God,
we often find our passions flare up in seemingly overwhelming strength. It also

applies to the proper exercise of authority in any sphere – home, government,
church, society –those who are submitted to God can be trusted to be submitted
unto.
b. He rose by night and attacked the Edomites who had surrounded him: We aren’t
told a specific outcome of this battle; perhaps it was inconclusive. Yet because of the
Edom’s continued revolt against Judah, it was evident that Judah did not exert itself
over Edom against and they remained somewhat independent.
c. Thus Edom has been in revolt against Judah’s authority: This is evidence of the
weakness of the kingdom of Jehoram. He thought that the marriage alliance with
Ahab and the Kingdom of Israel would make Judah stronger, but this act of
disobedience only made them weaker – because he had forsake the LORD God of
his fathers.
d. Moreover he made high places: It was the policy of both his father Jehoshaphat
(2 Chronicles 17:6) and his grandfather Asa (2 Chronicles 14:1-5) to work against
these high places. Jehoram promoted them instead.
i. “He is the first Judean king who actually constructed high places, among which is
probably to be counted a Baal temple in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chronicles 23:17).”
(Selman)
e. And caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit harlotry: Their idolatry was
likened to harlotry for two reasons. First, the worship of these pagan sex/fertility
gods and goddesses often involved immorality with a pagan priestess or priest.
Second, since Israel was obligated to be faithful to God as a wife is obligated to be
faithful to her husband, their idolatry was like harlotry in a spiritual sense.
PULPIT, "In his days the Edomites revolted … made themselves a king. The
expression, "in his days," scarcely fails intending to accentuate the mournful change
now as compared with the state of things depicted in our 2 Chronicles 17:5-11.
9 So Jehoram went there with his officers and all
his chariots. The Edomites surrounded him and
his chariot commanders, but he rose up and broke
through by night.

ELLICOTT, "(9) Then Jehoram went forth.—And Jehoram passed over.
With his princes.—Captains (‘im sârâv); Kings, “to Zair,” which appears to be a
corruption of “to Seir.” The chronicler has substituted an intelligible for an obscure
expression.
And he rose up by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him in.—
Literally, and it came to pass, he rose. Brief as the notice is, it is evident that the
verse relates not a victory of Jehoram’s, but his desperate escape by cutting his way
through the enemy’s troops, which had surrounded him and his forces. (See on 2
Kings 8:21, where it is added, “and the people fled to their tents.”) (Syriac. “And
Jehoram passed over with his captains; and all his chariots with him. And it came to
pass that when he rose in the night, he destroyed the Edomites, and the captains of
the chariots came with him.”)
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:9 Then Jehoram went forth with his princes, and all his
chariots with him: and he rose up by night, and smote the Edomites which
compassed him in, and the captains of the chariots.
Ver. 9. And smote the Edomites.] But could not subdue them. They might be more
troublesome, as Carthage was to Rome, when but half destroyed, than before he
meddled with them.
PULPIT, "With his princes. The parallel, 2 Kings 8:21, reads, "to Zair." Of any
such place nothing is known, and it has been proposed to supersede the word there
by "Self," which a certain amount of similarity of the Hebrew characters might
countenance. Possibly by some mishap, not so readily explainable by misoccurrence
of characters simply, our words, "with his princes," should stand in place of "to
Zair." It must be noted that the two first clauses of the verse in the parallel become
something inconsequential (which is not the ease with the reading of our text), in
that it says, "The king and chariots went forth to a place, and rose up by night," etc.
The dislocation is, perhaps, not serious, but our text avoids it in reading, "The king,
princes, and chariots went forth, and rose up by night and smote," etc.
10 To this day Edom has been in rebellion against
Judah.

Libnah revolted at the same time, because
Jehoram had forsaken the Lord, the God of his
ancestors.
K&D, "The chronicler concludes the account of the revolt of Edom and of the city of
Libnah against Judah's dominion with the reflection: “For he (Joram) had forsaken
Jahve the God of the fathers,” and consequently had brought this revolt upon himself,
the Lord punishing him thereby for his sin. “Yea, even high places did he make.” The ‫ם‬ַ
placed at the beginning may be connected with ‫ּות‬‫מ‬ ָ (cf. Isa_30:33), while the subject is
emphasized by ‫:הוּא‬ The same who had forsaken the God of the fathers, made also high
places, which Asa and Jehoshaphat had removed, 2Ch_14:2, 2Ch_14:4; 2Ch_17:6. “And
he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication,” i.e., seduced them into
the idolatrous worship of Baal. That the Hiph. ‫ן‬ֶ‫ז‬ֶ ַ‫ו‬ is to be understood of the spiritual
whoredom of Baal-worship we learn from 2Ch_21:13 : “as the house of Ahab caused to
commit fornication.” ‫ח‬ ַ ַ‫י‬ַ‫,ו‬ “and misled Judah,” i.e., drew them away by violence from the
right way. ‫ח‬ ַ ַ‫י‬ is to be interpreted in accordance with Deu_13:6, Deu_13:11.
BE SO , "2 Chronicles 21:10. The same time did Libnah revolt — Libnah seems
to have set up for a free state. And the reason is here given, both why God permitted
it, and why they did it, because Jehoram was become an idolater. While he adhered
to God, they adhered to him; but when he cast God off, they cast him off. Whether
this would justify them in their revolt or not, it justified God’s providence which
suffered it.
ELLICOTT, "(10) Unto this day.—See on 2 Chronicles 5:9. The date thus assigned
is some time prior to the captivity. o account is taken of Amaziah’s reduction of
Edom (2 Chronicles 25:11-15), which was probably not permanent.
The same time also.—Literally, then revolted Libnah at that time. 2 Kings 8:22 ends
here. The chronicler adds, “from under his (i.e., Jehoram’s) hand,” and assigns a
moral ground for the successful rebellion: “For he had forsaken Jehovah, the God
of his fathers.” (Thenius can hardly be right in asserting that the chronicler meant
to say that Libnah, as a city of the priests, refused obedience to the idolatrous king;
nor Hitzig, in explaining the revolt as merely a religious secession. ) He forsook
Jehovah, by “walking in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab,”
i.e., by adopting and popularising the worship of the Tyrian Baal, to please his wife
and her people. In those days friendship with an alien race seems to have involved

recognition of their gods. (Comp. Amos 1:9 for the alliance between Tyre and
Judah.)
Libnah.—Syriac, “the Edomites that lived in Libnah.”
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:10 So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of
Judah unto this day. The same time [also] did Libnah revolt from under his hand;
because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers.
Ver. 10. Did Libnah revolt.] See 2 Kings 8:22.
POOLE, "To wit, publicly and avowedly, setting him at defiance, as the next verse
shows. And this is mentioned, either,
1. As the reason why the priests, whose city Libnah was, forsook him, because he
had forsaken God; or rather,
2. As the reason why God raised up so many enemies against him, both from abroad
and at home.
PULPIT, "Libnah … because he had forsaken. The parallel states the revolt of
Libnah also, but does not make the closing remark of our verse.
2 Chronicles 21:11—Caused … to commit fornication. Perhaps the meaning is
exclusively here the infidelity of idolatry, but at any rate it includes this.
11 He had also built high places on the hills of
Judah and had caused the people of Jerusalem to
prostitute themselves and had led Judah astray.
BAR ES, "See 2Ki_8:18. The writer of Kings only tells us in general terms that
Jehoram “did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and “walked in the way of the house of
Ahab.” Here, in 2Ch_21:11, 2Ch_21:13, we have particulars of his idolatry. Jehoram, it
seems, seduced by the evil influence of his wife - Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab -
permitted the introduction of Baal-worship, idolatrous altars in various high places,

groves (Asherahs), images, and pillars; the people were not only allowed, but compelled
to take part in the new rites. “To commit fornication” is a common metaphor, signifying
idolatry or spiritual unfaithfulness (compare the 2Ki_9:22 note).
CLARKE, "To commit fornication - That is, to serve idols. The Israelites were
considered as joined to Jehovah as a woman is joined to her husband: when she
associates with other men, this is adultery; when they served other gods, this was called
by the same name, it was adultery against Jehovah. This is frequently the only meaning
of the terms adultery and fornication in the Scriptures.
GILL, "Moreover, he made high places in the mountains of Judah,.... Temples
and altars for idols, which, being built on mountains, had the name of high places; and
these Jehoram made or rebuilt were those which had been pulled down by Asa and
Jehoshaphat:
and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication; that is,
idolatry, drawing them by his own example to worship Baal, for he did what Ahab and
his family did, 2Ch_21:6, and compelled Judah thereto; the inhabitants of Jerusalem
falling into the same idolatrous practice with him, he forced the inhabitants of the cities,
and in the country, to do the same, who it seems were not so willing and ready to comply
therewith.
BE SO , "2 Chronicles 21:11. He made high places — ot to the Lord, whose
sworn enemy he was, but to Baals, or false gods. Caused the inhabitants of
Jerusalem to commit fornication — Spiritual whoredom, or idolatry, seducing them
to eat things sacrificed to idols, (Revelation 2:20,) not only by his counsel and
example, but, as it follows, by force, by threats, and penalties.
COFFMA , "THAT WRITI G FROM ELIJAH REGARDI G JEHORAM
"Moreover he made high places in the montains of Judah, and made the inhabitants
of Jerusalem to play the harlot, and led Judah astray. And there came a writing to
him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David thy
father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in
the ways of Asa king of Judah, but hast walked in the ways of the kings of Israel,
and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot, like as the
house of Ahab did, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, who were
better than thyself: behold, Jehovah will smite with a great plague thy people, and
thy children, and thy wives, and all thy substance; and thou shalt have great
sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of thy sickness,
day by day."
Some scholars have argued that Elijah was already deceased at the times of
Jehoram and that he could not have written the letter mentioned here; but this

criticism is groundless for two reasons: (1) Elijah might indeed still have been living,
a rather attractive argument for this having been cited by Myers.[4] That Elijah did
indeed write this `document' and that it was sent during Elijah's lifetime was flatly
declared by Josephus.[5] William Whiston, who translated the works of Josephus,
however, insisted that Elijah had died four years previously to the times indicated
here, and that the simplest explanation is that some copier inadvertently substituted
the name Elijah for that of Elisha.[6] (2) The passage does not indicate that the
"document"[7] (as the word is translated by Myers) was written during Elijah's
lifetime. Furthermore, the Chronicler gives five other examples of prophets
predicting disaster to kings before the event (2 Chronicles 12:5; 16:7; 19:2; 24:20;
and 26:16).[8] In this light, we find no difficulty whatever in what is written here.
ELLICOTT, "(11) Moreover he made.—There is a stress on the pronoun, “he
made,” in contrast with Asa and Jehoshaphat, his worthier predecessors (2
Chronicles 17:6). Or he himself, and not the people. LXX., καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν.
From this point to the end of the reign the narrative is peculiar to the chronicler.
High places.—For the worship of the foreign gods, as well as of the God of Israel.
Mountains.—Many Heb. MSS., LXX., and Vulg., “cities” (a similar word); Syriac,
“Moreover he made high places in the mountain of Judah, and caused the azarites
of Jerusalem to drink wine, and scattered those who were of the house of Judah.”
And caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication—i.e., the spiritual
fornication of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, the only lawful spouse of Israel. (Comp.
Hosea 2:5; Hosea 2:8; Hosea 2:13; Hosea 2:16-17; Hosea 2:19 :1 Chronicles 5:25.)
And compelled.—Or, seduced (Deuteronomy 13:6; Deuteronomy 13:11). LXX.,
ἀπεπλάνησε.
TRAPP, "2 Chronicles 21:11 Moreover he made high places in the mountains of
Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and
compelled Judah [thereto].
Ver. 11. Moreover he made high places.] (a) He restored what his father and
grandfather had destroyed, Heroum filii noxae. The reason whereof some give is
this, that God may show that good children are his gift alone. And again, good men
are oft so intent upon the public affairs in state and church, that they neglect their
private, and give not their children so good education as they should.
To commit fornication.] To worship Baal. See 2 Kings 9:22. This was the worse,
because in Jerusalem, the holy city; and because he caused them to do it, partly by
his allurements, and partly by affrightments; as did Julian also the apostate, qui
persuadendo persecutus est.

POOLE, "He made high places; not to the Lord, whose sworn enemy he was, but to
Baals, or false gods.
Caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication; not only by his counsel
and example, but, as it follows, by force, by threats and penalties.
12 Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the
prophet, which said:
“This is what the Lord, the God of your father
David, says: ‘You have not followed the ways of
your father Jehoshaphat or of Asa king of Judah.
BAR ES, "This is the only notice which we have of Elijah in Chronicles. As a prophet
of the northern kingdom, he engaged but slightly the attention of the historian of the
southern one. The notice shows that Elijah did not confine his attention to the affairs of
his own state, but strove to check the progress of idolatry in Judah. And it proves that he
was alive after the death of Jehoshaphat 2Ch_21:13; a fact bearing
(1) upon the chronological order of 2Ki_2:1 (see the note), and
(2) showing that Elisha, who prophesied in the time of Jehoshaphat. 2Ki_3:11-19
commenced his public ministry before his master’s translation.
CLARKE, "There came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet - From
2Ki_2:11, it is evident that Elijah had been translated in the reign of Jehoshaphat, the
father of Jehoram. How then could he send a letter to the son? Some say he sent it from
heaven by an angel; others, that by the spirit of prophecy he foresaw this defection of
Jehoram, and left the letter with Elisha, to be sent to him when this defection should
take place; others say that Elijah is put here for Elisha; and others, that this Elijah was
not the same that was translated, but another prophet of the same name. There are
others who think that, as Elijah was still in the body, for he did not die, but was
translated, he sent this letter from that secret place in which he was hidden by the

Almighty. All the versions have Elijah, and all the MSS. the same reading. Dr. Kennicott
contends that Elisha was the writer; for Elijah had been taken up to heaven thirteen
years before the time of this writing. Our margin says, the letter was written before his
assumption, and refers to 2Ki_2:1.
These are all conjectures; and I could add another to their number, but still we should
be where we were. I should adopt the conjecture relative to Elisha, were not every
Hebrew MS., and all the Oriental versions, against it; to which may be added, that the
author of this book does not once mention Elisha in any part of his work. It is certainly a
possible case that this writing might have been a prediction of Jehoram’s impiety and
miserable death, delivered in the time of the prophet, and which was now laid before this
wicked king for the first time: and by it the prophet, though not among mortals, still
continued to speak. I can see no solid reason against this opinion.
GILL, "And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet,.... Not what
was written by him after his ascension to heaven, and from thence came to Jehoram,
even seven years after that, as say some Jewish writers (z); nor was it a writing from
another person of the same name in those times, since of such an one we nowhere read;
nor from Elisha bearing the name of Elijah, having a double portion of his spirit on him,
since he is never so called; but this was a writing of Elijah's before his ascension, who,
foreseeing by a spirit of prophecy what Jehoram would be guilty of, wrote this, and gave
it to one of the prophets, as Kimchi suggests, and most probably to Elisha, to
communicate it to him at a proper time; and who might, as the above writer intimates,
think it came immediately from heaven:
saying, thus saith the Lord God of David thy father; and from whose God he had
departed, and to which ancestor of his he was so much unlike:
because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in
the ways of Asa king of Judah; neither trod in the steps of his father nor
grandfather.
HE RY 12-19, "Here we have, I. A warning from God sent to Jehoram by a writing
from Elijah the prophet. By this it appears that Jehoram came to the throne, and showed
himself what he was before Elijah's translation. It is true we find Elisha attending
Jehoshaphat, and described as pouring water on the hands of Elijah, after the story of
Elijah's translation (2Ki_3:11); but that might be, and that description might be given of
him, while Elijah was yet on earth: and it is certain that that history is put out of its
proper place, for we read of Jehoshaphat's death, and Jehoram's coming to the crown,
before we read of Elijah's translation, 1Ki_22:50. We will suppose that the time of his
departure was at hand, so that he could not go in person to Jehoram; but that, hearing of
his great wickedness in murdering his brethren, he left this writing it is probable with
Elisha, to be sent him by the first opportunity, that it might either be a means to reclaim
him or a witness against him that he was fairly told what would be in the end hereof. The
message is sent him in the name of the Lord God of David his father (2Ch_21:12),
upbraiding him with his relation to David as that which, though it was his honour, was
an aggravation of his degeneracy. 1. His crimes are plainly charged upon him - his
departure from the good ways of God, in which he had been educated, and which he had
been directed and encouraged to walk in by the example of his good father and

grandfather, who lived and died in peace and honour (2Ch_21:12) - his conformity to the
ways of the house of Ahab, that impious scandalous family - his setting up and enforcing
idolatry in his kingdom - and his murdering his brethren because they were better than
himself, 2Ch_21:13. These are the heads of the indictment against him. 2. Judgment is
given against him for these crimes; he is plainly told that his sin should certainly be the
ruin, (1.) Of his kingdom and family (2Ch_21:14): “With a heavy stroke, even that of war
and captivity, will the Lord smite thy people and thy children,” etc. Bad men bring God's
judgments upon all about them. His people justly suffer because they had complied with
his idolatry, and his wives because they had drawn him to it. (2.) Of his health and life:
“Thou shalt have great sickness, very painful and tedious, and at last mortal,” 2Ch_
21:15. This he is warned of before, that his blood might be upon his own head, the
watchman having delivered his soul; and that when these things so particularly foretold,
came to pass, it might appear that they did not come by chance, but as the punishment
of his sins, and were so intended. And now if, as he had learned of Ahab to do wickedly,
he had but learned even of Ahab to humble himself upon the receipt of this threatening
message from Elijah - if, like (1Ki_21:27), he had rent his clothes, put on sackcloth, and
fasted - who knows but, like him, he might have obtained at least a reprieve? But it does
not appear that he took any notice of it; he threw it by as waste-paper; Elijah seemed to
him as one that mocked. But those that will not believe shall feel.
II. The threatened judgments brought upon him because he slighted the warning. No
marvel that hardened sinners are not frightened from sin and to repentance by the
threatenings of misery in another world, which is future and out of sight, when the
certain prospect of misery in this world, the sinking of their estates and the ruin of their
healths, will not restrain them from vicious courses.
1. See Jehoram here stripped of all his comforts. God stirred up the spirit of his
neighbours against him, who had loved and feared Jehoshaphat, but hated and despised
him, looking upon it as a scandalous thing for a nation to change their gods. Some
occasion or other they took to quarrel with him, invaded his country, but, as it should
seem, fought neither against small nor great, but the king's house only; they made
directly to that, and carried away all the substance that was found in it. No mention is
made of their carrying any away captive but the king's wives and his sons, 2Ch_21:17.
Thus God made it evident that the controversy was with him and his house. Here it is
only said, They carried away his sons; but we find (2Ch_22:1) that they slew them all.
Blood for blood. He had slain all his brethren, to strengthen himself; and now all his
sons are slain but one, and so he is weakened. If he had not been of the house of David,
that one would not have escaped. When Jeroboam's house, and Baasha's, and Ahab's,
were destroyed, there was none left; but David's house must not be wholly extirpated,
though sometimes wretchedly degenerated, because a blessing was in it, no less a
blessing than that of the Messiah.
2. See him tormented with sore diseases and of long continuance, such as were
threatened in the law against those that would not fear the Lord their God, Deu_28:58,
Deu_28:59. His disease was very grievous. It lay in his bowels, producing a continual
griping, and with this there was a complication of other sore diseases. The affliction was
moreover very tedious. Two years he continued ill, and could get no relief; for the
disease was incurable, though he was in the prime of life, not forty years old. Asa, whose
heart was perfect with God though in some instances he stepped aside, was diseased
only in his feet; but Jehoram, whose heart was wicked, was struck in his inwards, and he
that had no bowels of compassion towards his brethren was so plagued in his bowels
that they fell out. Even good men, and those who are very dear to God, may be afflicted
with diseases of this kind; but to them they are fatherly chastisements, and by the

support of divine consolations the soul may dwell at ease even then when the body lies in
pain. These sore diseases seized him just after his house was plundered and his wives
and children were carried away. (1.) Perhaps his grief and anguish of mind for that
calamity might occasion his sickness, or at least contribute to the heightening of it. (2.)
By this sickness he was disabled to do any thing for the recovery of them or the revenge
of the injury done him. (3.) It added, no doubt, very much to his grief, in his sickness,
that he was deprived of the society of his wives and children and that all the substance of
his house was carried away. To be sick and poor, sick and solitary, but especially to be
sick and in sin, sick and under the curse of God, sick and destitute of grace to bear the
affliction, and of comfort to counter-balance it - is a most deplorable case.
JAMISO 12-15, "there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet —
That prophet’s translation having taken place in the reign of Jehoshaphat [2Ki_2:11,
2Ki_2:12], we must conclude that the name of Elijah has, by the error of a transcriber,
been put for that of Elisha.
K&D 12-17, "The prophet Elijah's letter against Joram, and the infliction of the
punishments as announced. - 2Ch_21:12. There came to him a writing from the prophet
Elijah to this effect: “Thus saith Jahve, the God of thy father David, Because thou hast
not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat, ... but hast walked in the way of the kings of
Israel, ... and also hast slain thy brethren, the house of thy father, who were better than
thyself; behold, Jahve will send a great plague upon thy people, and upon thy sons, and
thy wives, and upon all thy goods; and thou shalt have great sickness, by disease of thy
bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.” ‫ב‬ ָ‫ת‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ writing, is a
written prophetic threatening, in which his sins are pointed out to Joram, and the divine
punishment for them announced. In regard to this statement, we need not be surprised
that nothing is elsewhere told us of any written prophecies of Elijah; for we have no
circumstantial accounts of his prophetic activity, by which we might estimate the
circumstances which may have induced him in this particular instance to commit his
prophecy to writing. But, on the other hand, it is very questionable if Elijah was still alive
in the reign of Joram of Judah. His translation to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings 2,
between the reign of Ahaziah and Joram of Israel, but the year of the event is nowhere
stated in Scripture. In the Jewish Chronicle Seder olam, 2 Chr 17:45, it is indeed placed
in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel; but this statement is not founded upon historical
tradition, but is a mere deduction from the fact that his translation is narrated in 2 Kings
2 immediately after Ahaziah's death; and the last act of Elijah of which we have any
record (2 Kings 1) falls in the second year of that king. Lightfoot, indeed (Opp. i. p. 85),
Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 2Ki_3:11 that Elijah was taken away from the
earth in the reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the campaign
against the Moabites, undertaken in company with Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat
inquired for a prophet, and received the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured
water upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn from that is, that in
the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah's servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon
earth. The perfect ‫ק‬ ַ‫צ‬ָ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬ seems indeed to imply this; but it is questionable if we may so
press the perfect, i.e., whether the speaker made use of it, or whether it was employed

only by the later historian. The words are merely a periphrasis to express the
relationship of master and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only that
the latter was Elijah's attendant. But Elisha had entered upon this relationship to Elijah
long before Elijah's departure from the earth (1Ki_19:19.). Elijah may therefore have still
been alive under Joram of Judah; and Berth. accordingly thinks it “antecedently
probable that he spoke of Joram's sins, and threatened him with punishment. But the
letter,” so he further says, “is couched in quite general terms, and gives, moreover,
merely a prophetic explanation of the misfortunes with which Joram was visited;”
whence we may conclude that in its present form it is the work of a historian living at a
later time, who describes the relation of Elijah to Joram in few words, and according to
his conception of it as a whole. This judgment rests on dogmatic grounds, and flows
from a principle which refuses to recognise any supernatural prediction in the prophetic
utterances. The contents of the letter can be regarded as a prophetic exposition of the
misfortunes which broke in, as it were, upon Joram, only by those who deny à priori
that there is any special prediction in the speeches of the prophets, and hold all
prophecies which contain such to be vaticinia post eventum. Somewhat more weighty is
the objection raised against the view that Elijah was still upon earth, to the effect that
the divine threatenings would make a much deeper impression upon Joram by the very
fact that the letter came from a prophet who was no longer in life, and would thus more
easily bring him to the knowledge that the Lord is the living God, who had in His hand
his breath and all his ways, and who knew all his acts. Thus the writing would smite the
conscience of Joram like a voice from the other world (Dächsel). But this whole remark
is founded only upon subjective conjectures and presumptions, for which actual
analogies are wanting.
For the same reason we cannot regard the remark of Menken as very much to the
point, when he says: “If a man like Elias were to speak again upon earth, after he had
been taken from it, he must do it from the clouds: this would harmonize with the whole
splendour of his course in life; and, in my opinion, that is what actually occurred.” For
although we do not venture “to mark the limits to which the power and sphere of activity
of the perfected saints is extended,” yet we are not only justified, but also bound in duty,
to judge of those facts of revelation which are susceptible of different interpretations,
according to the analogy of the whole Scripture. But the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments know nothing of any communications by writings between the perfected
saints in heaven and men; indeed, they rather teach the contrary in the parable of the
rich man
(Note: “Neque enim,” says Ramb., “ulla ratione credibile est, Deum in gratiam
impii regis ejusmodi quid fecisse, cujus nullum alias exemplum exstat; immo quod
nec necessarium erat, quum plures aliae essent rationes, quibus Deus voluntatem
suam ei manifestare poterat; coll. Luc. 16:27, 29.” And, still more conclusively,
Calov. declares: “Non enim triumphantium in coelis est erudire aut ad poenitentiam
revocare mortales in terra. Habent Mosen et prophetas, si illos non audiant, neque
si quis ex mortius resurrexerit, nedum si quis ex coelis literas perscripserit, credent
Luc. 16:31.”)
(Luk_16:31)
There are consequently no sufficient grounds for believing that the glorified Elijah
either sent a letter to Joram from heaven by an angel, or commissioned any living person
to write the letter. The statement of the narrative, “there came to him a writing from
Elijah the prophet,” cannot well be understood to mean anything else than that Elijah
wrote the threatening prophecy which follows; but we have no certain proof that Elijah
was then no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. The time of his

2 chronicles 21 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 2 chronicles 21 commentary

Similar to 2 chronicles 21 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2 chronicles 21 commentary