Elisha warned a woman whose son he had resurrected to leave Israel due to a seven-year famine, urging her to seek refuge elsewhere. Upon her return, she found her property taken and petitioned the king, who, influenced by Gehazi's conversation about Elisha's miracles, restored her land and its profits. This narrative highlights God's judgment on Israel and the providential care granted to the Shunammite for her faithfulness.

1. 2 KI GS 8 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Shunammite’s Land Restored
1 ow Elisha had said to the woman whose son he
had restored to life, “Go away with your family
and stay for a while wherever you can, because
the Lord has decreed a famine in the land that
will last seven years.”
BAR ES, "The famine here recorded, and the conversation of the monarch with
Gehazi, must have been anterior to the events related in 2 Kings 5 since we may be sure
that a king of Israel would not have entered into familiar conversation with a confirmed
leper. The writer of Kings probably col ected the miracles of Elisha from various sources,
and did not always arrange them chronologically. Here the link of connection is to be
found in the nature of the miracle. As Elisha on one occasion prophesied plenty, so on
another he had prophesied a famine.
Called for a famine - A frequent expression (compare the marginal references).
God’s “calling for” anything is the same as His producing it (see Eze_36:29; Rom_4:17).
CLARKE, "Then spake Elisha - As this is the relation of an event far past, the words
should be translated, “But Elisha had spoken unto the woman whose son he had
restored unto life; and the woman had arisen, and acted according to the saying of the
man of God, and had gone with her family, and had sojourned in the land of the
Philistines seven years.” What is mentioned in these two verses happened several years
before the time specified in the third verse. See the observations at the end of the
preceding chapter, 2Ki_7:17 (note).
GILL, "Then spoke Elisha unto the woman (whose son he had restored to
life),.... His hostess at Shunem, 2Ki_4:8 the following he said to her, not after the
famine in Samaria, but before it, as some circumstances show:
saying, arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever

2. thou canst sojourn; with the greatest safety to her person and property, and with the
least danger to her moral and religious character:
for the Lord hath called for a famine, and it shall also come upon the land
seven years: which Jarchi says was the famine that was in the days of Joel; it was,
undoubtedly, on account of the idolatry of Israel, and was double the time of that in the
days of Elijah.
HE RY 1-6, "Here we have,
I. The wickedness of Israel punished with a long famine, one of God's sore judgments
often threatened in the law. Canaan, that fruitful land, was turned into barrenness, for
the iniquity of those that dwelt therein. The famine in Samaria was soon relieved by the
raising of that siege, but neither that judgment nor that mercy had a due influence upon
them, and therefore the Lord called for another famine; for when he judgeth he will
overcome. If less judgments do not prevail to bring men to repentance, he will send
greater and longer; they are at his beck, and will come when he calls for them. He does,
by his ministers, call for reformation and obedience, and, if those calls be not regarded,
we may expect he will call for some plague or other, for he will be heard. This famine
continued seven years, as long again as that in Elijah's time; for if men will walk contrary
to him, he will heat the furnace yet hotter.
II. The kindness of the good Shunammite to the prophet rewarded by the care that
was taken of her in that famine; she was not indeed fed by miracle, as the widow of
Sarepta was, but, 1. She had notice given her of this famine before it came, that she
might provide accordingly, and was directed to remove to some other country; any
where but in Israel she would find plenty. It was a great advantage to Egypt in Joseph's
time that they had notice of the famine before it came, so it was to this Shunammite;
others would be forced to remove at last, after they had long borne the grievances of the
famine, and had wasted their substance, and could not settle elsewhere upon such good
terms as she might that went early, before the crowd, and took her stock with her
unbroken. It is our happiness to foresee an evil, and our wisdom, when we foresee an
evil, and our wisdom, when we foresee it, to hide ourselves. 2. Providence gave her a
comfortable settlement in the land of the Philistines, who, though subdued by David, yet
were not wholly rooted out. It seems the famine was peculiar to the land of Israel, and
other countries that joined close to them had plenty at the same time, which plainly
showed the immediate hand of God in it (as in the plagues of Egypt, when they
distinguished between the Israelites and the Egyptians) and that the sins of Israel,
against whom this judgment was directly levelled, were more provoking to God than the
sins of their neighbours, because of their profession of relation to God. You only have I
known, therefore will I punish you, Amo_3:2. Other countries had rain when they had
none, were free from locusts and caterpillars when they were eaten up with them; for
some think this was the famine spoken of, Joe_1:3, Joe_1:4. It is strange that when there
was plenty in the neighbouring countries there were not those that made it their
business to import corn into the land of Israel, which might have prevented the
inhabitants from removing; but, as they were befooled with their idolatries, so they were
infatuated even in the matters of their civil interest.
III. Her petition to the king at her return, favoured by the seasonableness of her
application to him. 1. When the famine was over she returned out of the land of the
Philistines; that was no proper place for an Israelite to dwell any longer than there was a
necessity for so doing, for there she could not keep her new moons and her sabbaths as
she used to do in her own country, among the schools of the prophets, 2Ki_4:23. 2. At

3. her return she found herself kept out of the possession of her own estate, it being either
confiscated to the exchequer, seized by the lord, or usurped in her absence by some of
the neighbours; or perhaps the person she had entrusted with the management of it
proved false, and would neither resign it to her nor come to an account with her for the
profits: so hard is it to find a person that one can put a confidence in in a time of trouble,
Pro_25:19; Mic_7:5. 3. She made her application to the king himself for redress; for, it
seems (be it observed to his praise), he was easy of access, and did himself take
cognizance of the complaint of his injured subjects. Time was when she dwelt so securely
among her own people that she had no occasion to be spoken for to the king, or to the
captain of the host (2Ki_4:13); but now her own familiar friends, in whom she trusted,
proved so unjust and unkind that she was glad to appeal to the king against them. Such
uncertainty there is in the creature that that may fail us which we most depend upon and
that befriend us which we think we shall never need. 4. She found the king talking with
Gehazi about Elisha's miracles, 2Ki_8:4. It was his shame that he needed now to be
informed concerning them, when he might have acquainted himself with them as they
were done from Elisha himself, if he had not been wiling to shut his eyes against the
convincing evidence of his mission; yet it was his praise that he was now better disposed,
and would rather talk with a leper that was capable of giving a good account of them
than continue ignorant of them. The law did not forbid all conversation with lepers, but
only dwelling with them. There being then no priests in Israel, perhaps the king, or some
one appointed by him, had the inspection of lepers, and passed the judgment upon
them, which might bring him acquainted with Behazi. 5. This happy coincidence
befriended both Behazi's narrative and her petition. Providence is to be acknowledged in
ordering the circumstances of events, for sometimes those that are minute in themselves
prove of great consequence, as this did, for, (1.) It made the king ready to believe
Gehazi's narrative when it was thus confirmed by the persons most nearly concerned:
“This is the woman, and this her son; let them speak for themselves,” 2Ki_8:5. Thus did
God even force him to believe what he might have had some colour to question if he had
only had Gehazi's word for it, because he was branded for a liar, witness his leprosy. (2.)
It made him ready to grant her request; for who would not be ready to favour one whom
heaven had thus favoured, and to support a life which was given once and again by
miracle? In consideration of this the king gave orders that her land should be restored to
her and all the profits that were made of it in her absence. If it was to himself that the
land and profits had escheated, it was generous and kind to make so full a restitution; he
would not (as Pharaoh did in Joseph's time) enrich the crown by the calamities of his
subjects. If it was by some other person that her property was invaded, it was an act of
justice in the king, and part of the duty of his place, to give her redress, Psa_82:3, Psa_
82:4; Pro_31:9. It is not enough for those in authority that they do no wrong themselves,
but they must support the right of those that are wronged.
JAMISO "2Ki_8:1-6. The Shunammite’s land restored.
Then spake Elisha unto the woman — rather “had spoken.” The repetition of
Elisha’s direction to the Shunammite is merely given as an introduction to the following
narrative; and it probably took place before the events recorded in 2Ki_5:1-27 and 2Ki_
6:1-33.
the Lord hath called for a famine — All such calamities are chastisements
inflicted by the hand of God; and this famine was to be of double duration to that one
which happened in the time of Elijah (Jam_5:17) - a just increase of severity, since the
Israelites still continued obdurate and incorrigible under the ministry and miracles of

4. Elisha (Lev_26:21, Lev_26:24, Lev_26:28).
K&D, "Elisha's Influence Helps the Shunammite to the Possession of her House and
Field. - 2Ki_8:1, 2Ki_8:2. By the advice of Elisha, the woman whose son the prophet had
restored to life (2Ki_4:33) had gone with her family into the land of the Philistines
during a seven years' famine, and had remained there seven years. The two verses are
rendered by most commentators in the pluperfect, and that with perfect correctness, for
they are circumstantial clauses, and ‫ם‬ ָ‫ק‬ ָ ַ‫ו‬ is merely a continuation of ‫ר‬ ֶ ִ , the two together
preparing the way for, and introducing the following event. The object is not to relate a
prophecy of Elisha of the seven years' famine, but what afterwards occurred, namely,
how king Joram was induced by the account of Elisha's miraculous works to have the
property of the Shunammite restored to her upon her application. The seven years'
famine occurred in the middle of Joram's reign, and the event related here took place
before the curing of Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5), as is evident from the fact that
Gehazi talked with the king (2Ki_8:4), and therefore had not yet been punished with
leprosy. But it cannot have originally stood between 2Ki_4:37 and 2Ki_4:38, as Thenius
supposes, because the incidents related in 2Ki_4:38-44 belong to the time of this famine
(cf. 2Ki_4:38), and therefore precede the occurrence mentioned here. By the words, “the
Lord called the famine, and it came seven years” (sc., lasting that time), the famine is
described as a divine judgment for the idolatry of the nation.
BE SO ,"2 Kings 8:1. Then spake Elisha — There is nothing in the Hebrew for
this particle of time, then. It is literally, And Elisha spake, or, as Houbigant renders
it, had spoken. So 2 Kings 8:2, The woman had arisen, and done, &c. He
conjectures, from 2 Kings 8:4, that this event happened before Gehazi was struck
with the leprosy: this, however, is by no means certain. On the other hand, most
commentators seem to be of opinion that it took place in the order in which it is
recorded in the history, after the events related in the former chapter, and some
think several years after. Unto the woman whose son he had restored to life —
Manifesting his gratitude for her former kindness, by taking special care for her
preservation. Go thou, and sojourn, &c. — In any convenient place out of the land
of Israel. For the Lord hath called for a famine — Hath appointed to bring a famine
upon the country, or a great scarcity of provisions. The manner of speaking
intimates that all afflictions are sent by God, and come at his call. Seven years — A
double time to the former famine under Elijah, which was but just, because they
were still incorrigible under all the judgments of God, and under the powerful
ministry of Elisha, who confirmed his doctrine by so many astonishing miracles.
COFFMA , "The big problem in this paragraph is the mention of Gehazi. Unless
he had providentially been healed of his leprosy, this episode would necessarily have
had to happen PRIOR TO the healing of aaman, because it would be quite
unlikely that the king of Israel would be talking freely with a leper. This problem
has resulted in different opinions of scholars regarding which king restored the
Shunammite's properties. Hammond believed it was Jehoram,[1] and Martin wrote

5. that it was Jehu.[2] (See our introduction regarding the uncertainties regarding the
chronologies in 2Kings.) The very fact of the sacred author's omitting the
information that men seek regarding such questions underscores their lack of
importance. It really does not make any difference which king it was. The big point
of the narrative is that of the Shunammite's trust of the prophet's word and her
reward in doing so.
"She went with her household and sojourned in the land of the Philistines" (2 Kings
8:2). The coastal plain of Palestine was usually spared from droughts that came to
Israel, and even when it was not spared, supplies were readily available by sea from
Egypt and the ile Delta. Of course, during the woman's seven years' absence, her
properties were appropriated by someone else, hence, her appeal to the king. Also, it
would appear that during her sojourn in Philistia her husband had died.
"The king was talking with Gehazi ... and as he was telling the king ... behold, the
woman ... cried to the king" (2 Kings 8:4,5). othing is more wonderful than the
timing of the providences of God. " ote the coincidence. God times incidents with
precision; `things work together' (Romans 8:28); they interweave."[3] Another
example is found in the reading to the king of Persia of the honors due Mordecai
just before his asking Haman what should be done for the man whom the king
delighted to honor (Esther 6:1-14).
"The king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers" (2
Kings 8:6). "The primary meaning of the word officer here is eunuch, and the
secondary meaning is court minister."[4] "Eunuch is the preferred meaning here
for propriety's sake when a man accompanied a lady."[5] The introduction of
eunuchs into the social structure of the royal families of Israel was due to their
shameful harems. David possessed eunuchs (1 Chronicles 28:1), and presumably
Solomon also; and afterward "Eunuchs were common in the Samarian court of
Israel; but there is no record of them in the kingdom of Judah until the times of
Hezekiah (Isaiah 56:3-4)."[6]
"What happened here shows that Elisha's previous offer to speak to the king for the
Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:13) had not been an idle one."[7]
COKE, "2 Kings 8:1. Then spake Elisha, &c.— Elisha had said, &c. So 2 Kings 8:2.
And the woman had arisen, and done, &c. Houbigant: who conjectures from the 4th
verse, that this event happened before Gehazi was stricken with leprosy.
ELLICOTT, "(1-6) How the kindness of the Shunammite woman to Elisha was
further rewarded through the prophet’s influence with the king.
(1) Then spake Elisha.—Rather, ow Elisha had spoken. The time is not defined by
the phrase. It was after the raising of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 8:1), and
before the healing of aaman the Syrian, inasmuch as the king still talks with

6. Gehazi (2 Kings 8:5).
Go thou.—The peculiar form of the pronoun points to the identity of the original
author of this account with the writer of 2 Kings 4. Moreover, the famine here
foretold appears to be that of 2 Kings 4:38, seq., so that the present section must in
the original document have preceded 2 Kings 5. Thenius thinks the compiler
transferred the present account to this place, because he wished to proceed
chronologically, and supposed that the seven years’ famine came to an end with the
raising of the siege of Samaria.
For a famine.—To the famine. The sword, the famine, the noisome beasts, and the
pestilence were Jehovah’s “four sore judgments,” as we find in Ezekiel 14:21.
And it shall also come upon.—And, moreover, it cometh into.
Seven Years.—Perhaps not to be understood literally, any more than Dante’s
“O caro Duca mio che più di sette
Volte m’hai sicurtà. renduta.”—Inferno 8. 97.
EBC, "THE SHU AMMITE A D HAZAEL
2 Kings 8:1-15
(Circa B.C. 886)
"Our acts still follow with us from afar,
And what we have been makes us what we are."
-GEORGE ELIOT
THE next anecdote of Elisha brings us once more into contact with the Lady of
Shunem. Famines, or dearths, were unhappily of very frequent occurrence in a
country which is so wholly dependent, as Palestine is, upon the early and latter rain.
On some former occasion Elisha had foreseen that "Jehovah had called for a
famine"; for the sword, the famine, and the pestilence are represented as ministers
who wait His bidding (Jeremiah 25:29; Ezekiel 38:21). He had also foreseen that it
would be of long duration, and in kindness to the Shunammite had warned her that
she had better remove for a time into a land in which there was greater plenty. It
was under similar circumstances that Elimelech and aomi, ancestors of David’s
line, had taken their sons Mahlon and Chillon and gone to live in the land of Moab;
and, indeed, the famine which decided the migration of Jacob and his children into
Egypt had been a turning-point in the history of the Chosen People.

7. The Lady of Shunem had learnt by experience the weight of Elisha’s words. Her
husband is not mentioned, and was probably dead; so she arose with her household,
and went for seven years to live in the plain of Philistia. At the end of that time the
dearth had ceased, and she returned to Shunem, but only to find that during her
absence her house and land were in possession of other owners, and had probably
escheated to the Crown. The king was the ultimate, and to a great extent the only,
source of justice in his little kingdom, and she went to lay her claim before him and
demand the restitution of her property. By a providential circumstance she came
exactly at the most favorable moment. The king-it must have been Jehoram-was at
the very time talking to Gehazi about the great works of Elisha. As it is unlikely that
he would converse long with a leper, and as Gehazi is still called "the servant of the
man of God," the incident may here be narrated out of order. It is pleasant to find
Jehoram taking so deep an interest in the prophet’s story. Already on many
occasions during his wars with Moab and Syria, as well as on the occasion of
aaman’s visit, if that had already occurred, he had received the completest proof
of the reality of Elisha’s mission, but he might be naturally unaware of the many
private incidents in which he had exhibited a supernatural power. Among other
stories Gehazi was telling him that of the Shunammite, and how Elisha had given
life to her dead son. At that juncture she came before the king, and Gehazi said,
"My lord, O king, this is the very woman, and this is her son whom Elisha recalled
to life." In answer to Jehoram’s questions she confirmed the story, and he was so
much impressed by the narrative that he not only ordered the immediate restitution
of her land, but also of the value of its products during the seven years of her exile.
We now come to the fulfillment of the second of the commands which Elijah had
received so long before at Horeb. To complete the retribution which was yet to fall
on Israel, he had been bidden to anoint Hazael to be king of Syria in the room of
Benhadad. Hitherto the mandate had remained unfulfilled, because no opportunity
had occurred; but the appointed time had now arrived. Elisha, for some purpose,
and during an interval of peace, visited Damascus, where the visit of aaman and
the events of the Syrian wars had made his name very famous. Benhadad II,
grandson or great-grandson of Rezin, after a stormy reign of some thirty years,
marked by some successes, but also by the terrible reverses already recorded, lay
dangerously ill. Hearing the news that the wonder-working prophet of Israel was in
his capital, he sent to ask of him the question, "Shall I recover?" It had been the
custom from the earliest days to propitiate the favor of prophets by presents,
without which even the humblest suppliant hardly ventured to approach them. The
gift sent by Benhadad was truly royal, for he thought perhaps that he could
purchase the intercession or the miraculous intervention of this mighty
thaumaturge. He sent Hazael with a selection "of every good thing of Damascus,"
and, like an Eastern, he endeavored to make his offering seem more magnificent by
distributing it on the backs of forty camels.
At the head of this imposing procession of camels walked Hazael, the commander of
the forces, and stood in Elisha’s presence with the humble appeal, "Thy son
Benhadad, King of Syria, hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this
disease?"

8. About the king’s munificence we are told no more, but we cannot doubt that it was
refused. If aaman’s still costlier blessing had been rejected, though he was about to
receive through Elisha’s ministration an inestimable boon, it is unlikely that Elisha
would accept a gift for which he could offer no return, and which, in fact, directly or
indirectly, involved the death of the sender. But the historian does not think it
necessary to pause and tell us that Elisha sent back the forty camels unladen of their
treasures. It was not worthwhile to narrate what was a matter of course. If it had
been no time, a few years earlier, to receive money and garments, and olive-yards
and vineyards, and men-servants and maid-servants, still less was it a time to do so
now. The days were darker now than they had been, and Elisha himself stood near
the Great White Throne. The protection of these fearless prophets lay in their utter
simplicity of soul. They rose above human fears because they stood above human
desires. What Elisha possessed was more than sufficient for the needs of the plain
and humble life of one whose communing was with God. It was not wonderful that
prophets should rise to an elevation whence they could look down with indifference
upon the superfluities of the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, when even sages of
the heathen have attained to a similar independence of earthly luxuries. One who
can climb such mountain-heights can look with silent contempt on gold.
But there is a serious difficulty about Elisha’s answer to the embassage. "Go, say
unto him"-so it is rendered in our Authorized Version-"Thou mayest certainly
recover: howbeit the, Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die."
It is evident that the translators of 1611 meant the emphasis to be laid on the
"mayest," and understood the answer of Elisha to mean, "Thy recovery is quite
possible; and yet"-he adds to Hazael, and not as part of his answer to the
king-"Jehovah has shown me that dying he shall die,"-not indeed of this disease, but
by other means before he has recovered from it.
Unfortunately, however, the Hebrew will not bear this meaning. Elisha bids Hazael
to go back with the distinct message, "Thou shalt surely recover," as it is rightly
rendered in the Revised Version.
This, however, is the rendering, not of the written text as it stands, but of the
margin. Every one knows that in the Masoretic original the text itself is called the
K’thib, or "what is written," whereas the margin is called Q’ri, " read." ow, our
translators, both those of 1611 and those of the Revision Committee, all but
invariably follow the Kethib as the most authentic reading. In this instance,
however, they abandon the rule and translate the marginal reading.
What, then, is the written text?
It is the reverse of the marginal reading, for it has: "Go, say, Thou shalt not
recover."
The reader may naturally ask the cause of this startling discrepancy.

9. It seems to be twofold.
(I) Both the Hebrew word, lo, " not" (alo), and the word lo, to him, have precisely
the same pronunciation. Hence this text might mean either "Go, say to him, Thou
shalt certainly recover," or "Go, say, Thou shalt not recover." The same identity of
the negative and the dative of the preposition has made nonsense of another passage
of the Authorized Version, where "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not
increased the joy: they joy before Thee according to the joy of harvest," should be
"Thou hast multiplied the nation, and increased its joy." So, too, the verse "It is He
that hath made us, and not we ourselves," may mean "It is He that hath made us,
and to Him we belong." In the present case the adoption of the negative (which
would have conveyed to Benhadad the exact truth) is not possible; for it makes the
next clause and its introduction by the word "Howbeit" entirely meaningless.
But-
(II) this confusion in the text might not have arisen in the present instance but for
the difficulty of Elisha’s appearing to send a deliberately false message to
Benhadad, and a message which he tells Hazael at the time is false.
Can this be deemed impossible?
With the views prevalent in "those times of ignorance," I think not. Abraham and
Isaac, saints and patriarchs as they were, both told practical falsehoods about their
wives. They, indeed, were reproved for this, though not severely; but, on the other
hand, Jael is not reproved for her treachery to Sisera; and Samuel, under the
semblance of a Divine permission, used a diplomatic ruse when he visited the
household of Jesse; and in the apologue of Micaiah a lying spirit is represented as
sent forth to do service to Jehovah; and Elisha himself tells a deliberate falsehood to
the Syrians at Dothan. The sensitiveness to the duty of always speaking the exact
truth is not felt in the East with anything like the intensity that it is in Christian
lands; and reluctant as we should be to find in the message of Elisha another
instance of that falsitas dispensativa which has been so fatally patronized by some of
the Fathers and by many Romish theologians, the love of truth itself would compel
us to accept this view of the case if there were no other possible interpretation.
I think, however, that another view is possible. I think that Elisha may have said to
Hazael, "Go, say unto him, Thou shalt surely recover," with the same accent of
irony in which Micaiah said at first to the two kings, "Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and
prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king." I think that this
whole manner and the tone of his voice may have shown to Hazael, and may have
been meant to show him, that this was not Elisha’s real message to Benhadad. Or, to
adopt the same line of explanation with an unimportant difference Elisha may have
meant to imply, "Go, follow the bent which I know you will follow; go carry back to
your master the lying message that I said he would recover. But that is not my
message. My message, whether it suits your courtier instincts or not, is that Jehovah

10. has warned me that he shall surely die."
That some such meaning as this attaches to the verse seems to be shown by the
context. For not only was some reproof involved in Elisha’s words, but he showed
his grief still more by his manner. It was as though he had said, "Take back what
message you choose, but Benhadad will certainly die"; and then he fastened his
steady gaze on the soldier’s countenance, till Hazael blushed and became uneasy.
Only when he noted that Hazael’s conscience was troubled by the glittering eyes
which seemed to read the inmost secrets of his heart did Elisha drop his glance, and
burst into tears. "Why weepeth my lord?" asked Hazael, in still deeper uneasiness.
Whereupon Elisha revealed to him the future. "I weep," he said, "because I see in
thee the curse and the avenger of the sins of my native land. Thou wilt become to
them a sword of God; thou wilt set their fortresses on fire; thou wilt slaughter their
youths; thou wilt dash their little ones to pieces against the stones; thou wilt rip up
their women with child." That he actually inflicted these savageries of warfare on
the miserable Israelites we are not told, but, we are told that he smote them in all
their coasts; that Jehovah delivered them into his hands; that he oppressed Israel all
the days of Jehoahaz. {2 Kings 10:32; 2 Kings 13:3; 2 Kings 13:22} That being so,
there can be no question that he carried out the same laws of atrocious warfare
which belonged to those times and continued long afterwards. Such atrocities were
not only inflicted on the Israelites again and again by the Assyrians and others,
{Isaiah 13:15-16 Hosea 10:14; Hosea 13:16 ahum 3:10} but they themselves had
often inflicted them, and inflicted them with what they believed to be Divine
approval, on their own enemies. {See Joshua 6:17-21 1 Samuel 15:3 Leviticus 27:28-
29} Centuries after, one of their own poets accounted it a beatitude to him who
should dash the children of the Babylonians against the stones. {Psalms 137:9}
As the answer of Hazael is usually read and interpreted, we are taught to regard it
as an indignant declaration that he could never be guilty of such vile deeds. It is
regarded as though it were "an abhorrent repudiation of his future self." The lesson
often drawn from it in sermons is that a man may live to do, and to delight in,
crimes which he once hated and deemed it impossible that he should ever commit.
The lesson is a most true one, and is capable of a thousand illustrations. It conveys
the deeply needed warning that those who, even in thought, dabble with wrong
courses, which they only regard as venial peccadilloes, may live to commit, without
any sense of horror, the most enormous offences. It is the explanation of the terrible
fact that youths who once seemed innocent and holy-minded may grow up, step by
step, into colossal criminals. "Men," says Scherer, "advance unconsciously from
errors to faults, and from faults to crimes, till sensibility is destroyed by the habitual
spectacle of guilt, and the most savage atrocities come to be dignified by the name of
state policy."
"Lui-meme a son portrait force de rendre hommage,
Il fremira d’horreur devant sa propre image."

11. But true and needful as these lessons are, they are entirely beside the mark as
deduced from the story of Hazael. What he said was not, as in our Authorized
Version, "But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?" nor by
"great thing" does he mean "so deadly a crime." His words, more accurately
rendered in our Revision, are, "But what is thy servant, which is but a dog, that he
should do this great thing?" or, "But what is the dog, thy servant?" It was a
hypocritic deprecation of the future importance and eminence which Elisha had
prophesied for him. There is not the least sense of horror either in his words or in
his thoughts. He merely means "A mere dog, such as I am, can never accomplish
such great designs." A dog in the East is utterly despised; {1 Samuel 24:14; 2
Samuel 9:8} and Hazael, with Oriental irony, calls himself a dog, though he was the
Syrian commander-in-chief-just as a Chinaman, in speaking of himself, adopts the
periphrasis "this little thief."
Elisha did not notice his sham humility, but told him, "The Lord hath showed me
that thou shalt be King over Syria." The date of the event was B.C. 886.
The scene has sometimes been misrepresented to Elisha’s discredit, as though he
suggested to the general the crimes of murder and rebellion The accusation is
entirely untenable. Elisha was, indeed, in one sense, commissioned to anoint Hazael
King of Syria, because the cruel soldier had been predestined by God to that
position; but, in another sense, he had no power whatever to give to Hazael the
mighty kingdom of Aram, nor to wrest it from the dynasty which had now held it
for many generations. All this was brought about by the Divine purpose, in a course
of events entirely out of the sphere of the humble man of God. In the transferring of
this crown he was in no sense the agent or the suggester. The thought of usurpation
must, without doubt, have been already in Hazael’s mind. Benhadad, as far as we
know, was childless. At any rate he had no natural heirs, and seems to have been a
drunken king, whose reckless undertakings and immense failures had so completely
alienated the affections of his subjects from himself and his dynasty, that he died
undesired and unlamented, and no hand was uplifted to strike a blow in his defense.
It hardly needed a prophet to foresee that the scepter would be snatched by so
strong a hand as that of Hazael from a grasp so feeble as that of Benhadad II. The
utmost that Elisha had done was, under Divine guidance, to read his character and
his designs, and to tell him that the accomplishment of these designs was near at
hand.
So Hazael went back to Benhadad, and in answer to the eager inquiry, "What said
Elisha to thee?" he gave the answer which Elisha had foreseen that he meant to
give, and which was in any case a falsehood, for it suppressed half of what Elisha
had really said. "He told me," said Hazael, "that thou shouldest surely recover."
Was the sequel of the interview the murder of Benhadad by Hazael?
The story has usually been so read, but Elisha had neither prophesied this nor
suggested it. The sequel is thus described. "And it came to pass on the morrow, that
he took the coverlet, and dipped it" in "water, and spread it on his face so that he

12. died: and Hazael reigned in his stead." The repetition of the name Hazael in the last
clause is superfluous if he was the subject of the previous clause, and it has been
consequently conjectured that "he took" is merely the impersonal idiom "one took."
Some suppose that, as Benhadad was in the bath, his servant took the bath-cloth,
wetted it, and laid its thick folds over the mouth of the helpless king; others, that he
soaked the thick quilt, which the king was too weak to lift away. In either case it is
hardly likely that a great officer like Hazael would have been in the bath-room or
the bedroom of the dying king. Yet we must remember that the Praetorian Praefect
Macro is said to have suffocated Tiberius with his bed-clothes. Josephus says that
Hazael strangled his master with a net; and, indeed, he has generally been held
guilty of the perpetration of the murder. But it is fair to give him the benefit of the
doubt. Be that as it may, he seems to have reigned for some forty-six years (B.C.
886-840), and to have bequeathed the scepter to a son on whom he had bestowed the
old dynastic name of Benhadad.
PARKER, "Elisha and Hazael
A difficulty will be found as to the king"s conversation with Gehazi, who has just
been driven out, according to the narrative, from the presence of the prophet "a
leper as white as snow." We follow the criticism, however, which does not regard
the narrative as in strict chronological order. We have here a gathering up of
invaluable historical memoranda, each one of which may be fully relied upon as to
accuracy, but we are not to understand that the events occurred in immediately
successive days. It is in this way that we overcome the difficulty of the conversation
which is reported in the fourth verse.
"The Lord hath called for a famine." ( 2 Kings 8:1.)—What is the meaning of that
expression? Simply, the Lord hath produced it—ordered it; it is part of his
providence. "God said, Let there be light: and there was light." A wonderful thing
is this we find in the whole Bible—God calling for circumstances as if they were
creatures which could hear him, and respond to his call; as if famine and plenty,
pestilence and scourge of every name, were so many personalities, all standing back
in the clouds: and God said, Famine, forward! and immediately the famine came
and took away the bread of the people; but then next door to famine stands plenty,
and God says to abundance, Forward! and the earth laughs in harvest; the table is
abundantly spread, and every living thing is satisfied. Take Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 36:29),
as presenting the pleasant side of this call by the voice divine: "I call for the corn,
and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you." Hear how the divine voice rolls
through all this sphere of revelation. If we proceed to Romans 4:17, we find in the
last clause of the verse words often overlooked: "God... calleth those things which be
not as though they were." God is always creating, calling something out of nothing,
amazing the ages by new flashes of glory, unexpected disclosures of grace. Calling
for a famine is a frequent expression. We find it, for example, in the Psalm ,
"Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread"
( Psalm 105:16); and we find it in so out-of-the-way corner as the prophecy of
Haggai , "And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and

13. upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the
ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of
the hands" ( 2 Kings 1:11). The earth is the Lord"s and the fulness thereof. So there
are men who still believe that plague, and pestilence, and short harvest, and things
evil that are of a material kind, have a subtle and often immeasurable relation to a
divine thought, to a new disclosure of divine providence; that all these things round
about us are used as instruments in the chastening, and education, and
sanctification of the human race. We cannot be laughed out of this citadel.
Sometimes we have half left it under the joke of the giber, because we had no
answer to the mocker"s laugh; but presently we began to see how things are related,
how mysteriously earth belongs to heaven, and how the simplest, meanest flower
that grows draws its life-blood from the sun; then we have returned into the
sanctuary, and said, Be the mysteries dark as they may, and all but innumerable,
there is a comfort in this doctrine that there is in none other—and not a quieting
comfort after the nature of a soporific, but an encouraging, stimulating, rousing
comfort, that lifts our prayer into a nobler elevation, and sharpens our voice by the
introduction of a new accent. So we abide in this Christian faith, and await the
explanation which God has promised.
This call for a famine was made known by Elisha unto the woman whose son he had
restored to life. There are people who have intimations of coming events. Account
for it as we may, one man does see farther than another. We may content ourselves
by saying, This is due to intellectual capacity; this prescience is a mere freak of
talent or of genius; it is one of the phenomena not yet brought within the reach of
any recognised law. We may talk nonsense of that kind to ourselves in our lowest
moods, but again the spirit is suddenly lifted to the right point of observation, and
we come to this solemn fact: "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him."
We cannot tell on grounds philosophical or merely rational how we did what has
saved us from a thousand troubles. How did the idea occur to us that if we
introduced such and such a line into our covenant it would be better? At the time
nothing seemed less likely than that such a line would be either needed or operative;
and now we find that the insertion of that one line has been to us liberty, perhaps
wealth, perhaps comfort. The prophetic spirit has never been withdrawn from the
world, but the prophetic spirit has always been punished by the world. The
prophets have always had to sleep outside, and get the hairy garment where they
could for the covering of their bare shoulders. The world hates to live the future
within a day, when that future is declared by a prophetic voice, which not only
announces comforts but pronounces judgments. In the way of anxiety the world will
live any number of days at a time; in the spirit of apprehension some men are living
seven years ahead of themselves at this moment: but not in the prophetic sense of
anticipation, which sees a great reconcilement of all contradictions, the uplifting of
clouds from covered mountains, and the incoming and downpouring of heaven"s
radiant morning that shall clothe all things with the glory of God. We cannot,
therefore, tell how it is that some men have intimations of what is coming, and how
those intimations are passed on even to the humblest class of the population.
Hearing this word, "The woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God:

14. and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven
years" ( 2 Kings 8:2). Here is a wonderful fact—that there should be plenty in
Philistia, and nothing in the land which we call promised and holy. This is a
circumstance not easily to be understood, that the enemy should have abundance,
and that those who are supposed to have special relations to the divine throne
should be left empty-handed. There was always plenty in the low-lying land or
valley inhabited by these Philistines; or, if they had not plenty of themselves, they
could easily import it by sea from Egypt. Behold, the Philistines had the best of it!
They have today, if the terms "the best of it" are to be measured by wheat, and oil,
and wine, and gold. We should not be surprised, if these standards be erected, if the
"world," as we understand that word, should be in a superior condition of comfort
to those who are spiritually-minded and whose house is in heaven. How long shall
we be learning the lesson that "a man"s life consisteth not in the abundance of the
things which he possesseth"? how long also in learning that man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? When
shall we be made to understand that this world is but a beginning, a symbol, an
alphabetical hint of a great literature to us yet unpublished and unknown? Until
Christians learn that lesson they will often be chafed and exasperated by
appearances which seem to point in the direction that worldly-mindedness or
worldly-wisdom furnishes the true security and reward of life. When they seek first
the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, the world will believe that they are at
least consistent with their faith, even though that faith be found at last to be a
delusion. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
The famine is now over. "The woman returned out of the land of the Philistines:
and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land" ( 2 Kings
8:3). Immediate access to the king was permitted in Oriental countries; so we read
in 2 Samuel 14:4 : "And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on
her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king,;" and in 1 Kings
3:16 : "Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood
before him;" and in 2 Kings 6:26 : "And as the king of Israel was passing by upon
the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king." That is a
remarkable circumstance that the people should be permitted to speak to the king.
It is so in a limited sense now: but in a sense so limited as to be painful to those who
care for it The king should hear the sufferer himself if he would understand the
petition. The written petition the king might read in his own tone, and the king
might be in an evil humour or in a frivolous mood; he might hasten over the lines as
if they contained nothing; but when the petitioner stands before the king, and says,
"Help, O lord, the king," the king is in a position to know by the very voice how far
the person addressing him is animated by a spirit of profound and rational
earnestness. What is impossible under many human conditions is possible as
between the soul and God. When shall we learn this fact, accept it, and rest in it?
Then should we know the meaning of the words, "Pray without ceasing;" "Wait on
the Lord;" "Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him." Let your own voice be
heard in heaven. Do not pray by proxy. Go, hasten to the King and say, Help, O
King of heaven! God be merciful to me a sinner! Let every soul, in the priesthood of
Christ, plead its own case—point to the void that makes its heart so empty. Let

15. every sinner state his own circumstances, and pray, if not in his own words—for he
may have no gift of words—yet in his own tone. By the tone God judges. Your
words may be made of gold, your sentences built up with stars, and yet be but a
fabric made by the hand; but the tone comes from the heart, and interprets the
spirit"s need, and impresses the infinite ear of the listening God.
We have not spared the kings of Israel or of Judah up to this point. ow an
opportunity is afforded to remark upon the good qualities of one whom we have
condemned in no measured terms. The king asked the woman what she wanted, she
told him, and the king at once "appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore
all that was her"s, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land,
even until now" ( 2 Kings 8:6). The king was bad, but there was this good feature in
his case, and it ought to be pointed out. But remember that the hand may be the
hand of an assassin though there gleams upon it a diamond of the first water. The
king of Israel generously responded to the poor woman"s cry. Let that be set down
to his credit. We do but repel men if we do not recognise whatever may even seem to
be good about them. If there is one spot of light in all the dark cloud, look at it as if
it were of infinite value. Encouragement may help some men towards piety.
Elisha discovers the old form of his character when he proceeds to Damascus. ote
his boldness. We have seen how he baffled the king, how the king sent after him,
and could not find him. The king might as well have sent after the wind,
commanding the charioteer to bring it back. Who can seize a spirit? Who can arrest
a soul? Who can encage a thought? Elisha had been identified with a retreat of
which Syria could only think with humiliation. The Syrians heard a "noise," and
away they ran, as if a flock of sheep had seen a wolf descending on the fold. It was
but a "noise." Who can measure a noise? Who knows what it means? Is it the tramp
of an army? Is it the descent of a cloud filled with spirits? Is it an intimation of the
day of judgment? What does it represent? The king of Syria knew not, and we have
already reminded ourselves that "the wicked flee when no man pursueth." But
Elisha is very bold. He will go down into the king"s own country. Why? Because he
has a message. You cannot have a missionary until you have a gospel. You may have
a man who will run an errand for you on certain specified terms, and the man will
be very particular to have the bond fulfilled. But the man of God will go anywhere,
everywhere, at any time. What makes this Elisha so bold? The message that burns
within him makes him courageous. It is the truth that makes heroes. Given a
conviction that seizes the whole soul, and it will burn its way out into language. Why
have we such dainty preaching; such accommodations to human infirmity and social
circumstances? Because our message is a recitation; because it begins and ends
within mechanical boundaries; because it admits of formulation and of criticism:
whereas the real message of God—the outgoing of the soul in truth and judgment—
defies criticism; is not above it or below it, but away from it, in infinitely higher
spheres, unpolluted, undebased by the pedantry of men who have a trick of seeing
flaws, but no genius for the understanding of entireties and perfect harmonies. We
shall have men hesitating about going to small settlements and to heathen countries,
and to undertaking very difficult work, just in proportion as they have no message.
Given the right message, and all things fall down before it.

16. When the king heard that the man of God had come, he addressed a message to him
and sent all manner of temptations to the prophet—rich robes, precious metals, the
luscious wines of Helbon, the drink of the Persian kings, the soft white wool of the
Antilibanus, the damask coverings of couches, a procession of forty camels"
burden—all to be offered to Elisha. ow Elisha was above all these things,—we may
not be. Shame upon those who report how many carriages stand at their church-
doors! Shame upon shame to those who wearing a prophet"s mantle of their own
manufacture, have to ask what is the congregation before they can deliver their
message! How independent were these men of old! You could never do them any
favour. They had no "expectations." What the Lord teacheth me, that will I surely
say, though I go home to my salary, which consists of two figures—bread of
affliction, and water of affliction; it is a poor income, but I must deliver God"s
message. The times die for want of that heroic spirit.
The prophet looked upon Hazael—fixed those wondrous eyes upon him; and the
tears came and ran down his furrowed cheeks. "And Hazael said, Why weepeth my
lord? And he [Elisha] answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the
children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt
thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with
child" ( 2 Kings 8:12). And the prophet cried for the sufferings of Israel. Sometimes
the answer of Hazael is read as though he himself were shocked. He was not
shocked. He gloried in the prophecy. Read the thirteenth verse thus: But what, thy
servant only a dog—is it possible that Hebrews , so mean, can do this great thing?
He gloried in his wickedness. When he heard of this cruelty he was like a man who
heard his native tongue in a far-off land. Elisha told no lie to Hazael when he said,
"Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath shewed
me that he shall surely die": equal to—Go, and perform your trick, tell your
customary lies, flatter the dying man that he is better today than he was yesterday;
but know this, he is to die, and all the physicians in Syria cannot heal the king.
What wonder that Elisha wept? Who would not weep if he could see what is coming
upon his country? Whose heart would not pour out itself in blood to know what is
yet to be done in the land of his birth or the country of his adoption? If the men of
long ago could have seen how civilisation would be turned into an engine of
oppression, how the whole land would groan under the burden of drunkeries, and
breweries, and houses of hell of every name; if they could have seen how the truth
would be sold in the market-place, and how there would be no further need of
martyrdom, surely they would have died the violent death of grief. The heart can
only be read in the sanctuary. You cannot read it through journalism, or criticism,
or political comment, or combinations of any kind which exclude the divine element;
to know what Hazael will do, let Elisha read him. The journalist never could have
read him; he might have called him long-headed, intrepid, sagacious, a statesman;
but the prophet said, "Their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men
wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women
with child:" thy course is a course of havoc. It is only in the sanctuary that we know
what things really are. When the pulpit becomes a very tower of God, a very fort of
heaven, then the preacher will be able to say, as no other man can say, what the

17. heart Isaiah , and what the heart will do under circumstances yet to be revealed. But
whence has the preacher this power? He has it as a divine gift. Then did God know
the world before he sent his Son to save it? It was because he knew it that he loved it
and pitied it. Whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us. He did not catch us on
the return, seeing that we were about to amend, gathering ourselves up for a
supreme effort at amelioration; it was not then that Christ died for us, but whilst we
were yet sinners, whilst both hands were outstretched in rebellion, and then thrown
down to cruelty, and then put out in cupidity and oppression and wrong of every
form. When the heart had gone astray, then Christ died for us! Amazing love—pity
infinite! We have heard of this famine in the land of Israel: "Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor
a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." O pitiful One, take our
bread, our cattle, destroy our fields, burn our forests; but take not thy Holy Spirit
from us!
GUZIK, "A. The restoration of the Shunammite’s land.
1. (2 Kings 8:1-3) The Shunammite returns to Israel after seven years.
Then Elisha spoke to the woman whose son he had restored to life, saying, “Arise
and go, you and your household, and stay wherever you can; for the LORD has
called for a famine, and furthermore, it will come upon the land for seven years.” So
the woman arose and did according to the saying of the man of God, and she went
with her household and dwelt in the land of the Philistines seven years. It came to
pass, at the end of seven years, that the woman returned from the land of the
Philistines; and she went to make an appeal to the king for her house and for her
land.
a. Elisha spoke to the woman whose son he had restored to life: 2 Kings 4 describes
Elisha’s previous dealings with this woman. She and her husband were godly,
generous people who helped the prophet. Through Elisha’s prayer they were blessed
with a son, who was also brought miraculously back to life.
b. She went with her household and dwelt in the land of the Philistines seven years:
On the advice of the prophet, the woman and her family left Israel because of a
coming famine. In the land of the Philistines, they were spared the worst of the
famine.
c. She went to make an appeal to the king for her house and for her land: Upon
leaving Israel and going to the land of the Philistines, the woman forfeited her claim
to her ancestral lands. She made this appeal so she would not be a loser for listening
to God’s prophet and for saving her family from famine.
ISBET, "FAMI E—GOD’S MESSE GER
‘The Lord hath called for a famine.’

18. 2 Kings 8:1
I. What is the meaning of this expression?—Simply, the Lord hath produced it—
ordered it; it is part of His Providence. ‘God said, Let there be light: and there was
light.’ A wonderful thing is this we find in the whole Bible—God calling for
circumstances as if they were creatures which could hear Him and respond to His
call; as if famine and plenty, pestilence and scourge of every name, were so many
personalities, all standing back in the clouds, and God said, Famine, forward! and
immediately the famine came, and took away the bread of the people; but then next
door to famine stands plenty, and God says to abundance, Forward! and the earth
laughs in harvests; the table is abundantly spread, and every living thing is satisfied.
Take Ezekiel 36:29 as presenting the pleasant side of this call by the voice Divine: ‘I
will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.’ Hear how
the Divine voice rolls through all this sphere of revelation. If you proceed to Romans
4:17 you will find in the last clause of the verse words often overlooked: ‘God …
calleth those things which be not as though they were.’ God is always creating,
calling something out of nothing, amazing the ages by new flashes of glory,
unexpected disclosures of presence and grace. Calling for a famine is a frequent
expression. You find it, for example, in Psalms 105:16 : ‘Moreover He called for a
famine upon the land: He brake the whole staff of bread’; and you find it in so out-
of-the-way a corner as the prophecy of Haggai 1:11 : ‘And I called for a drought
upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine,
and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men,
and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.’
II. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.—So there are men who still
believe that plague, pestilence, and short harvest, and things evil that are of a
material kind, have a subtle and often immeasurable relation to a Divine thought, to
a new disclosure of Divine Providence; that all these things round about us are used
as instruments in the chastening, and education, and sanctification of the human
race. We cannot be laughed out of this citadel. Sometimes we have half left it under
the joke of the jiber, because we had no answer to the mocker’s laugh; but presently
we began to see how things are related, how mysteriously earth belongs to heaven,
and how the simplest, meanest flower that grows draws its life-blood from the sun;
then we have returned into the sanctuary, and said, ‘Be the mysteries dark as they
may and all but innumerable, there is a comfort in this doctrine that there is in none
other’—and not a quieting comfort after the nature of a soporific, but an
encouraging, stimulating, rousing comfort, that lifts our prayer into a nobler
elevation, and sharpens our voice by the introduction of a new accent. So we abide
in this Christian faith, and await the explanation which God has promised.
PETT, "The Shunammite, ow A Widow, Has Her Land Restored To Her By The
King Of Israel (2 Kings 8:1-6).
The prophetic author has two purposes in this incident. Firstly to emphasis the
miraculous powers of Elisha, and secondly to bring out that YHWH watches over
those who are faithful to Him.

19. The incident involves the Shunnamite woman mentioned in 2 Kings 6:8-33. We are
probably to see that her husband has since died, for he is not mentioned in the
narrative. Thus the inheritance now belonged to the son. But Elisha foresaw a
lengthy (‘seven year’ ) famine which was coming and advised her to take her
household and seek refuge outside the land. Obediently she sought refuge in
Philistia, and waited for the famine to be over. We have no information on what if
any procedures would be followed in a case like this. It is possible that the house and
land came under the protection of the crown. But no doubt those who took
possession of it would not be desirous of returning it.
So on her return at the end of the period she presumably discovered that her son’s
inheritance had been taken over by someone, who had also presumably occupied the
house, and her intention was therefore to appeal to the king for her son’s rights to
be restored. The author probably intends us to see that it was in the will of YHWH
that this happened precisely at that time that the king was asking Gehazi, Elisha’s
servant, to recount to him some of Elisha’s miracles, and Gehazi was telling him
about the raising from the dead of the Shunnamite’s son. And when Gehazi saw the
woman coming for an audience with the king he pointed her out as the Shunnamite
whose son Elisha had healed. The king accordingly spoke with the woman and
arranged for her house and lands to be restored to her, along with the produce of
the land during the famine.
It is important to note that the king obtained his information about the miracles of
Elisha directly from an eyewitness, and may well have had them recorded. There is
absolutely no reason for doubting Gehazi’s accuracy, or for suggesting that he
exaggerated. There is no evidence of it whatsoever. Any such idea is all in the mind
of the doubters.
Analysis.
a ow Elisha had spoken to the woman, whose son he had restored to life,
saying, “Arise, and go, you and your household, and sojourn wherever you can
sojourn, for YHWH has called for a famine, and it will also come on the land seven
years.” And the woman arose, and acted in accordance with the word of the man of
God, and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines
seven years (2 Kings 8:1-2).
b And it came about at the end of the seven years, that the woman returned out
of the land of the Philistines, and she went forth to cry to the king for her house and
for her land (2 Kings 8:3).
c ow the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying,
“Tell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done” (2 Kings 8:4).
b And it came about, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him
who was dead, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to
the king for her house and for her land (2 Kings 8:5 a).
a And Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son,
whom Elisha restored to life.” And when the king asked the woman, she told him.

20. So the king appointed to her a certain officer, saying, “Restore all that was hers, and
all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now” (2 Kings
8:5-6).
In ‘a’ ‘the woman whose son Elisha had restored to life’ took refuge in Philistia,
leaving her land behind, and in the parallel ‘the woman whose son Elisha had
restored to life’ received her land and produce back from the king. In ‘b’ the
woman went to the king to cry for her house and land, and in the parallel she cried
to the king for her house and land. Centrally in ‘c’ Gehazi recounted to the king
some of the miracles performed by Elisha.
2 Kings 8:1
‘ ow Elisha had spoken to the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying,
“Arise, and go, you and your household, and sojourn wherever you can sojourn, for
YHWH has called for a famine, and it will also come on the land seven years.” ’
The reason why the Shunnamite woman had left her house and land was because
Elisha had advised her to do so in view of a ‘seven year famine’ (a lengthy, drawn
out famine) which ‘YHWH was calling for’ on the land, that is, a period when the
rains would fail. Any such natural event would have been seen by the prophets as
‘called for by YHWH’, and no particular reason is given for it. We have no means
of knowing how it connected with other famines mentioned earlier. Elisha’s advice
was that she find a suitable place to ‘sojourn’ (be a short term resident alien). Being
wealthy she would be able to afford to stay at a suitable place.
BI 1-6, "Then spake Elisha unto the woman.
The potent influence of a good man
I. His counsel is valuable, and gratefully acted upon. Here we see how the kindness
shown by the Shunammite receives still further reward. There is nothing so fruitful in
blessing as kindness. In the great dilemmas of life we seek counsel, not from the
frivolous and wicked, but from the wise and good. A good man has the destiny of many
lives in his hands; a word from him has great weight.
II. His beneficent acts are the theme of popular conversation (2Ki_8:4). A good action
cannot be hid. Sooner or later it will emerge from the obscurity in which it was first
done, and become the talk of a nation, until it reaches even royal ears. All good actions
do not attain such distinguished popularity. There were many good things that Elisha
said and did of which history takes no notice. A good act may be remembered and
applauded for generations, while the name of the actor is unknown.
III. His holy and unselfish life is a testimony for Jehovah in the midst of national
apostasy. In the darkest night of national apostasy, Israel was favoured with an Elisha,
whose divinely-illumined life threw a bright stream of light across the gloom. How
deplorable the condition of that nation from which all moral worth is excluded!
IV. His reputation is the means of promoting the ends of justice (2Ki_8:5-6). There was
surely a Divine providence at work that brought the suppliant Shunammite into the
presence of the king at the very moment when Gehazi was rehearsing the great works of

21. Elisha. Justice triumphed; her land and all its produce for the seven years were restored
to her. It requires power to enforce the claims of justice, and the highest -kind of power
is goodness. The arrangements of justice are more likely to be permanent when brought
about by the influence of righteous principles, than when compelled by physical force.
The presence of a holy character in society is a powerful check upon injustice and wrong.
(G. Barlow.)
Beneficence of the Christian life
The other summer, says Dr. Abbott, while sailing along the shores of the Sound, I landed
at a little cove; there was a lighthouse tower and a fog-bell, and the keeper showed us the
fog-bell, and how the mechanism made it strike every few minutes in the darkness and in
the night when the fog hung over the coast; and I said, “That is the preacher; there he
stands, ringing out the message of warning, ringing out the message of instruction,
ringing out the message of cheer; it is a great thing to be a preacher.” We went up into
the lighthouse tower. Here was a tower that never said anything and never did
anything—it just stood still and shone—and I said, “That is the Christian. He may not
have any word to utter, he may not be a prophet, he may not be a worker, he may achieve
nothing, but he stands still and shines, in the darkness and in the storm, always, and
every night.” The fog-bell strikes only on occasion, but all the time and every night the
light flashes out from the lighthouse; all the time and every night this light is flashing out
from you if you are God’s children.
Permanent effects of godliness
Sir Wilfred Laurier has recently given a very striking testimony to the powerful influence
of the Puritan spirit. He was asked why he was absolutely, in the best sense of the word,
an Imperialist. Sir Wilfred replied that when he was a boy he was brought up in the
home of a God-fearing Scottish farmer, at whose family worship he was present every
morning and night. He was struck by the catholicity of spirit of the farmer, but still more
by the fact that the farmer took the affairs of his house, his neighbourhood, and all his
country in the presence of the Almighty, and sought His blessing upon all. This
experience implanted in Sir Wilfred’s heart an abiding conviction that an empire based
on such community of spirit was made by God to lead the world. Here is the influence of
a humble family worship determining the destinies of an empire. The lowly farmer in
Scotland little realised how far-reaching the ministry of his family altar would be. Little
did he know that while he was praying and worshipping in apparent obscurity he was
moulding the thoughts and feelings of a great statesman, and so shaping the policy of
states. What a dignity this gives to the home altar, and what solemnity surrounds the
lowly acts of family worship! It can be said of these humble ministries that “their lines
are gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” (Hartley
Aspen.)
2 The woman proceeded to do as the man of God
said. She and her family went away and stayed in

22. the land of the Philistines seven years.
BAR ES, "The country of the Philistines - the rich low grain-growing plain along the
seacoast of Judah - was always a land of plenty compared with the highlands of
Palestine. Moreover, if food failed there, it was easily imported by sea from the
neighboring Egypt.
GILL, "And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God,....
Whose words she had reason to believe; she having a son given to her according to his
word, and this restored to life, when dead, through his intercession:
and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the
Philistines; which was not far from her native place, and where there was plenty of
food, and she could have as free an exercise of her religion as in the idolatrous kingdom
of Israel.
JAMISO "she ... sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years —
Their territory was recommended to her from its contiguity to her usual residence; and
now that this state had been so greatly reduced, there was less risk than formerly from
the seductions of idolatry; and many of the Jews and Israelites were residing there.
Besides, an emigration thither was less offensive to the king of Israel than going to
sojourn in Judah.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:2. The woman arose, and sojourned in the land of the
Philistines — Which, though bordering upon Israel, was free from the famine: by
which it appeared, that the special hand of God was in that calamity, and that it was
a judgment from him upon the Israelites for their idolatry, and abuse of the means
of grace, which they now enjoyed in such abundance through Elisha and many
other prophets.
ELLICOTT, "(2) After the saying.—According to the word.
In the land of the Philistines.—The lowlands of the coast were not so subject to
droughts as the limestone highlands of Israel. (Comp. Genesis 12:10; Genesis 26:1.)
The Philistines, besides, dealt with foreign traders who put in to their shores.
(Comp. Joel 3:4-6.)
PETT, "2 Kings 8:2
‘And the woman arose, and acted in accordance with the word of the man of God,

23. and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven
years.’
In accordance with Elisha’s instructions as ‘a man of God’ she took her household
and sojourned in the land of the Philistines for the seven year period. The non-
mention of her husband may suggest that he was dead.
3 At the end of the seven years she came back
from the land of the Philistines and went to appeal
to the king for her house and land.
BAR ES, "During the Shunammite’s absence in Philistia, her dwelling and her
grain-fields had been appropriated by some one who refused to restore them. She
therefore determined to appeal to the king. Such direct appeals are common in Oriental
countries. Compare 2Ki_6:26; 2Sa_14:4; 1Ki_3:16.
GILL, "And it came to pass, at the seven years end, that the woman returned
out of the land of the Philistines,.... Either hearing that the famine was over, or
believing that it was, the time being expired the prophet fixed for it:
and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house, and for her land; which
her nearest relations in her absence had seized upon, as heirs to them; or those in whose
hands she had intrusted them refused, upon her return, to deliver them to her; or the
king's officers had seized upon them for him, as forfeited to the crown by her going out
of the land without leave; and now she needed a friend to speak for her to the king,
which, in time past, she had no occasion for, and thought she never should, see 2Ki_
4:13.
JAMISO "she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her
land — In consequence of her long-continued absence from the country, her
possessions were occupied by her kindred, or had been confiscated by the crown. No
statute in the law of Moses ordained that alienation. But the innovation seems to have
been adopted in Israel.
K&D, "When the woman returned to her home at the end of the seven years, she
went to the king to cry, i.e., to invoke his help, with regard to her house and her field, of
which, as is evident from the context, another had taken possession during her absence.

24. BE SO , "2 Kings 8:3. She went to cry unto the king for her house and land —
Which, having been forsaken by her, were possessed by her kindred or others, who
probably had obtained a grant of them from the king, and now intended to keep
possession of them.
ELLICOTT, "(3) At the seven years’ end.—Omit the.
She went forth.—From Shunem to Samaria.
For her house and for her land.—Literally, with regard to her house, &c. She found
them in the possession of strangers. The State may have occupied the property as
abandoned by its owner; or, as is more likely, some neighbouring landowner may
have encroached upon her rights. She therefore appealed to the king.
PETT, "2 Kings 8:3
‘And it came about at the end of the seven years, that the woman returned out of the
land of the Philistines, and she went forth to cry to the king for her house and for
her land.’
At the end of the lengthy period, no doubt having learned that the famine was over,
the woman returned from Philistia, and went to put in her official request for her
home and land to be restored to her. Land and property in the countryside belonged
to its original Israelite owners in perpetuity. ‘To cry out --’ was probably a legal
expression for putting forward an official claim.
4 The king was talking to Gehazi, the servant of
the man of God, and had said, “Tell me about all
the great things Elisha has done.”
CLARKE, "The king talked with Gehazi - This is supposed to have happened
before the cleansing of Naaman, for is it likely that the king would hold conversation
with a leprous man; or that, knowing Gehazi had been dismissed with the highest
disgrace from the prophet’s service, he could hold any conversation with him concerning
his late master, relative to whom he could not expect him to give either a true or
impartial account?

25. Some think that this conversation might have taken place after Gehazi became
leprous; the king having an insatiable curiosity to know the private history of a man who
had done such astonishing things: and from whom could he get this information, except
from the prophet’s own confidential servant? It agrees better with the chronology to
consider what is here related as having taken place after the cure of Naaman. As to the
circumstance of Gehazi’s disease, he might overlook that, and converse with him,
keeping at a reasonable distance, as nothing but actual contact could defile.
GILL, "And the king talked with Gehazi the servant of the man of God,....
Elisha's servant, just at the same time the woman made her application to him; so that
this was before he was dismissed from the service of the prophet, and consequently
before the affair of Naaman's cure, and so before the siege of Samaria:
saying, tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done; the
miracles he wrought, as the dividing of the waters of Jordan, and healing those near
Jericho; the affair of procuring water for the armies of the three kings in Edom he
needed not to relate, since Jehoram was an eyewitness thereof; the next was the
multiplying the widow's cruse of oil, when he in course came to those that were done for
the Shunammite woman.
JAMISO 4-6, "the king talked with Gehazi — Ceremonial pollution being
conveyed by contact alone, there was nothing to prevent a conference being held with
this leper at a distance; and although he was excluded from the town of Samaria, this
reported conversation may have taken place at the gate or in one of the royal gardens.
The providence of God so ordained that King Jehoram had been led to inquire, with
great interest, into the miraculous deeds of Elisha, and that the prophet’s servant was in
the act of relating the marvelous incident of the restoration of the Shunammite’s son
when she made her appearance to prefer her request. The king was pleased to grant it;
and a state officer was charged to afford her every facility in the recovery of her family
possession out of the hands of the occupier.
K&D, "And just at that time the king was asking Gehazi to relate to him the great
things that Elisha had done; and among these he was giving an account of the
restoration of the Shunammite's son to life.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:4. The king talked with Gehazi, the servant of the man of God
— Or, who had been his servant formerly. The law did not forbid conversing with
lepers at a due distance, but only the dwelling with them. Thus aaman conversed
with Elisha’s family at a distance; and the lepers called to our Lord, as he went
along the highway.
ELLICOTT, "(4) And the king talked.—And the king was speaking unto.
Gehazi.—He, therefore, was not yet a leper (2 Kings 5:27). So Keil and some earlier

26. expositors. But lepers, though excluded from the city, were not excluded from
conversation with others. (Comp. Matthew 8:2; Luke 17:12.) aaman was
apparently admitted into the royal palace (2 Kings 5:6). The way, however, in which
Gehazi is spoken of as “the servant of the man of God” (comp. 2 Kings 5:20) seems
to imply the priority of the present narrative to that of 2 Kings 5.
Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things.—“The history of Elijah and Elisha has a
distinctly popular character; it reads like a story told by word of mouth, full of the
dramatic touches and vivid presentations of detail which characterise all Semitic
history that closely follows oral narration. The king of Israel of whom we read in 2
Kings 8:4, was, we may be sure, not the only man who talked with Gehazi, saying,
‘Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done.’ By many repetitions
the history of the prophets took a fixed shape long before it was committed to
writing, and the written record preserves all the essential features of the narratives
that passed from mouth to mouth, and were handed down orally from father to
child.” (Prof. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel, p. 116.)
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 8:4-6) Her land is restored.
Then the king talked with Gehazi, the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell me,
please, all the great things Elisha has done.” ow it happened, as he was telling the
king how he had restored the dead to life, that there was the woman whose son he
had restored to life, appealing to the king for her house and for her land. And
Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son whom Elisha
restored to life.” And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king
appointed a certain officer for her, saying, “Restore all that was hers, and all the
proceeds of the field from the day that she left the land until now.”
a. Then the king talked with Gehazi: This was the same servant of Elisha who was
cursed with leprosy in 2 Kings 5:20-27. It seems strange that a severely afflicted
leper would be a counselor to a king, so it seems that either Gehazi was granted
healing from his leprosy or that this actually took place before the events of 2 Kings
chapter 5.
i. Of course, it is still possible that the king had this conversation with Gehazi when
the former prophet’s assistant was a leper and the king simply kept his distance.
“Some think that this conversation might have taken place after Gehazi became
leprous; the king having an insatiable curiosity to know the private history or a man
who had done such astonishing things: and from whom could he get this
information, except from the prophet’s own confidential servant?” (Clarke)
b. Tell me, please, all the great things Elisha has done: Perhaps his motive was
nothing more than curiosity, yet it was still a significant testimony to the King of
Israel. He knew that God was with the actions of Elisha, giving evidence that He was
also with the word of Elisha.

27. c. As he was telling the king: The woman came to make her request at the exact time
Gehazi told the king about the miracles associated with her life. This was perfect,
God-ordained timing.
d. Restore all that was hers, and all the proceeds of the field from the day that she
left: The king understood that if God was obviously supportive of this woman, then
it also made sense for him to support her and to answer her request. In the end, her
obedience to God’s word was not penalized.
i. “This act was in striking contrast to the notorious land-grabbing of Jehoram’s
father, Ahab.” (Dilday)
PETT, "2 Kings 8:4
‘ ow the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell
me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done.” ’
Meanwhile, not knowing about this (although we are intended to see that YHWH
knew) the king had summoned Gehazi in order to receive an eyewitness account of
what miracles Elisha had performed. It may well have been an official summons
with the intention of recording them for the future. It indicates clearly that Elisha
had an outstanding reputation for the miraculous. We do not know which king this
was, but it indicates an official interest in the miracles..
The fact that Gehazi was allowed in the king’s presence indicates that the skin
disease from which he suffered was not leprosy. Compare also how aaman had
been able to serve the king of Aram having the same disease. It would, however,
prevent Gehazi from entering the court of the Sanctuary.
5 Just as Gehazi was telling the king how Elisha
had restored the dead to life, the woman whose
son Elisha had brought back to life came to
appeal to the king for her house and land.
Gehazi said, “This is the woman, my lord the
king, and this is her son whom Elisha restored to
life.”

28. CLARKE, "This is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to
life - This was a very providential occurrence in behalf of the Shunammite. The relation
given by Gehazi was now corroborated by the woman herself; the king was duly affected,
and gave immediate orders for the restoration of her land.
GILL, "And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he had restored a
dead body to life,.... Which was the Shunammite's son:
that, behold, the woman whose son he had restored to life cried to the king
for her house, and for her land; came and presented her petition to the king at that
very instant:
and Gehazi said, my lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son,
whom Elisha restored to life; the very person I am speaking of.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:5-6. As he was telling the king, &c., the woman cried to the
king, &c. — By the order of Providence she came to present her petition, and
brought her son with her, in that very instant of time when Gehazi was telling the
story of Elisha’s restoring him to life, that the king might be more fully satisfied of
the truth of what he related from her own mouth, and that it might make the deeper
impression upon him. Providence ought to be carefully observed, and devoutly
acknowledged, in ordering the circumstances of events; for sometimes, as here, those
that are minute of themselves, prove of great consequence. And when the king asked
the woman, she told him — That is, she confirmed what Gehazi had said. Thus did
God even force him to believe, what he might have had some colour to question, if
he had only had Gehazi’s word for it. So the king appointed, saying, Restore all that
was hers — ot only her house and land, but all the profits that had been made of
them, and brought into his treasury. This was a high act of justice, and an argument
of some goodness left in a bad man.
ELLICOTT, "(5) A dead body.—The dead.
Cried.—Was crying. Literally, the Hebrew runs, And it came to pass, he (emphatic)
was telling . . . and behold the woman was crying, &c. The woman came in, and
began her prayer to the king, while he was talking with Gehazi about her and her
son.
This is her son.—Who was now grown up, and came as his mother’s escort.
PETT, "2 Kings 8:5

29. ‘And it came about, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him who
was dead, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the
king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the
woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.” ’
And even while Gehazi was in the middle of recounting details of how Elisha had
raised the son of a Shunnamite from the dead the woman herself approached the
king for an audience, in order to put forward her official appeal. It was one of those
God-ordained coincidences. And Gehazi pointed out the woman was the one he was
speaking about.
6 The king asked the woman about it, and she told
him.
Then he assigned an official to her case and said
to him, “Give back everything that belonged to
her, including all the income from her land from
the day she left the country until now.”
BAR ES, "A certain officer - literally, “a certain eunuch” (margin). Eunuchs were
now in common use at the Samaritan court (compare 2Ki_9:32). They are ascribed to
the court of David in Chronicles 1Ch_28:1; and we may conjecture that they were
maintained by Solomon. But otherwise we do not find them in the kingdom of Judah
until the time of Hezekiah Isa_56:3-4.
GILL, "And when the king asked the woman, she told him,.... The whole affair;
how that she had a son according to the word of Elisha, when she had been barren, and
her husband old; that this child was struck with sickness, and died; and that the prophet,
through his prayers, restored it to life:
so the king appointed unto her a certain officer; the word signifies an "eunuch":
him he ordered to attend upon her, and assist her, and see to it that she was put into the
possession of her house and land:
saying, restore all that was her's, and all the fruits of the field, since the day
that she left the land, even till now; not only her house and land, but all the rent,
profits, and dues arising from thence during the time of her absence: the Jews except the

30. rent of her house.
ELLICOTT, "(6) Told.—Related to him, i.e., the story. So in 2 Kings 8:4-5.
Officer.—Literally, eunuch (sârîs). (Comp. ote on Genesis 37:36; 1 Chronicles
28:1.)
Fruits.—Literally, revenues, produce in kind, which must have been paid out of the
royal stores. This seems to imply that her land had been annexed to the royal
domains.
PETT, "2 Kings 8:6
‘And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed to her a
certain officer, saying, “Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since
the day that she left the land, even until now.” ’
The king asked the woman about the matter, and then he called on a ‘high official’
to ensure the restoring to the woman of her house and lands, together with all the
produce grown over the seven years, which may well have gone to the crown. Due to
the famine it would not be a very large amount, although the fields may have been
extensive.
Hazael Murders Ben-Hadad
7 Elisha went to Damascus, and Ben-Hadad king
of Aram was ill. When the king was told, “The
man of God has come all the way up here,”
BAR ES, "The hour had come for carrying out the command given by God to Elijah
(marginal reference “e”), and by him probably passed on to his successor. Elisha,
careless of his own safety, quitted the land of Israel, and proceeded into the enemy’s
country, thus putting into the power of the Syrian king that life which he had lately
sought so eagerly 2Ki_6:13-19.
The man of God - The Damascenes had perhaps known Elisha by this title from the

31. time of his curing Naaman. Or the phrase may be used as equivalent to “prophet,” which
is the title commonly given to Elisha by the Syrians. See 2Ki_6:12. Compare 2Ki_5:13.
CLARKE, "Elisha came to Damascus - That he might lead Gehazi to repentance;
according to Jarchi and some others.
GILL, "And Elisha came to Damascus,.... On what account, and when, is not
certain, whether to convert Gehazi, as say the Jews (d); or to confirm Naaman in the true
religion he professed, for which he might be dismissed from his office, since another
man was made general of the Syrian army; or on account of the famine; or rather it may
be to anoint, or, however, to declare that Hazael would be king of Syria; see 1Ki_19:15,
and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; at the time he came thither, where his
palace was, and now a Mahometan temple; a very extraordinary building, according to
Benjamin the Jew (e):
and it was told him, saying, the man of God is come hither; the famous prophet
in Israel, Elisha, through whom Naaman his general had been cured of his leprosy, of
whom he had heard so much.
(d) T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 47. 1. (e) Itinerar. p. 55.
HE RY, "Here, I. We may enquire what brought Elisha to Damascus, the chief city
of Syria. Was he sent to any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel? It seems he was.
Perhaps he went to pay a visit to Naaman his convert, and to confirm him in his choice
of the true religion, which was the more needful now because, it should seem, he was not
out of his place (for Hazael is supposed to be captain of that host); either he resigned it
or was turned out of it, because he would not bow, or not bow heartily, in the house of
Rimmon. Some think he went to Damascus upon account of the famine, or rather he
went thither in obedience to the orders God gave Elijah, 1Ki_19:15, “Go to Damascus to
anoint Hazael, thou, or thy successor.”
II. We may observe that Ben-hadad, a great king, rich and mighty, lay sick. No honour,
wealth, or power, will secure men from the common diseases and disasters of human
life; palaces and thrones lie as open to the arrests of sickness and death as the meanest
cottage.
III. We may wonder that the king of Syria, in his sickness, should make Elisha his
oracle.
1. Notice was soon brought him that the man of God (for by that title he was well
known in Syria since he cured Naaman) had come to Damascus, 2Ki_8:7. “Never in
better time,” says Ben-hadad. “Go, and enquire of the Lord by him.” In his health he
bowed in the house of Rimmon, but now that he is sick he distrusts his idol, and sends to
enquire of the God of Israel. Affliction brings those to God who in their prosperity had
made light of him; sometimes sickness opens men's eyes and rectifies their mistakes.
This is the more observable, (1.) Because it was not long since a king of Israel had, in his
sickness, sent to enquire of the god of Ekron (2Ki_1:2), as if there had been no God in
Israel. Note, God sometimes fetches to himself that honour from strangers which is
denied him and alienated from him by his own professing people. (2.) Because it was not

32. long since this Ben-hadad had sent a great force to treat Elisha as an enemy (2Ki_6:14),
yet now he courts him as a prophet. Note, Among other instances of the change of men's
minds by sickness and affliction, this is one, that it often gives them other thoughts of
God's ministers, and teaches them to value the counsels and prayers of those whom they
had hated and despised.
JAMISO "2Ki_8:7-15. Hazael kills his master, and succeeds him.
Elisha came to Damascus — He was directed thither by the Spirit of God, in
pursuance of the mission formerly given to his master in Horeb (1Ki_19:15), to anoint
Hazael king of Syria. On the arrival of the prophet being known, Ben-hadad, who was
sick, sent to inquire the issue of his disease, and, according to the practice of the
heathens in consulting their soothsayers, ordered a liberal present in remuneration for
the service.
K&D 7-9, "Elisha Predicts to Hazael at Damascus the Possession of the Throne. -
2Ki_8:7. Elisha then came to Damascus at the instigation of the Spirit of God, to carry
out the commission which Elijah had received at Horeb with regard to Hazael (1Ki_
19:15). Benhadad king of Syria was sick at that time, and when Elisha's arrival was
announced to him, sent Hazael with a considerable present to the man of God, to inquire
of Jehovah through him concerning his illness. The form of the name ‫ל‬ ֵ‫הא‬ָ‫ז‬ ֲ‫ח‬ (here and
2Ki_8:15) is etymologically correct; but afterwards it is always written without .‫ה‬ ‫דם‬
‫ל־טוּב‬ ָ‫כ‬ְ‫ו‬ (“and that all kinds of good of Damascus”) follows with a more precise
description of the minchah - “a burden of forty camels.” The present consisted of
produce or wares of the rich commercial city of Damascus, and was no doubt very
considerable; at the same time, it was not so large that forty camels were required to
carry it. The affair must be judged according to the Oriental custom, of making a grand
display with the sending of presents, and employing as many men or beasts of burden as
possible to carry them, every one carrying only a single article (cf. Harmar, Beobb. ii. p.
29, iii. p. 43, and Rosenmüller, A. u. N. Morgenl. iii. p. 17).
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:7. Elisha came to Damascus — Either to the city so called, or
rather, as it seems from 2 Kings 8:9, to the kingdom of Damascus; as Samaria,
which properly was the name of a city, sometimes means the kingdom of which that
city was the capital. Some have thought that Elisha went thither to avoid the famine;
but it is more probable that he was sent by God, on the errand following. Ben-
hadad, the king of Syria, was sick — For neither honour, wealth, nor power will
secure men from the common diseases and disasters of human life: palaces and
thrones lie as open to the arrests of death as the meanest cottage. It was told him,
saying, The man of God is come hither — Which doubtless had rarely, if ever, been
the case before; and his having cured aaman had raised a great opinion of his
power with God in that country.
COFFMA , "That Elisha was honorably received in Damascus at that time might
have been due to his fame that resulted from the healing of aaman. Certainly,

33. something had changed from that situation in which Benhadad sought to capture
him (2 Kings 6:13ff). " ot only in Israel, but also in the neighboring nations, Elisha
was well known and respected as God's man."[8]
"And the king said unto Hazael" (2 Kings 8:8). This character should not be
confused with the father of Benhadad, who was called the son of Hazael (2 Kings
13:3). This Hazael was the "son of a nobody,"[9] who murdered Benhadad and
seized his throne.
"Hazael ... took a present with him ... forty camels' burden ... Shall I recover of this
sickness?" (2 Kings 8:9). "One camel's burden is six hundred pounds";[10] but,
"This affair must be judged according to Oriental custom of making a grand
display with the sending of presents, employing as many men or beasts of burden as
possible to carry them, each one of them carrying only a single article."[11]
"Shall I recover of this sickness?" That the king of Syria would bring such a
question before Elisha is a strong indication that the Gentiles, generally, throughout
that whole era, were aware of the True God's existence and of the worthlessness of
the pagan deities of the peoples.
The exact date of this event is not known; however, "The inscriptions of
Shalmanezer III, record his victory over Benhadad in 846 B.C. and another victory
over Hazael, whom he described as `a nobody who seized the throne,' in the year
842 B.C. This would have been during the reign of Jehoram in Judah, about three
years before Jehu seized the throne of Israel."[12]
A number of scholars suppose that Elisha anointed Hazael king over Syria on this
trip, but there is nothing here to support such a view. God had commanded Elijah
at Horeb to anoint Hazael (1 Kings 19:15); and there are two ways of understanding
what happened: (1) Either Elijah went to Damascus and anointed him without any
Scriptural record of it being recorded, or (2) Elijah transferred the obligation to
Elisha who anointed him without any record of it being placed in the Bible. LaSor
assumed that, "Elisha's doing so was the purpose of this visit."[13] Honeycutt also
wrote that, "The anointings, both of Hazael and of Jehu, were fulfilled by
Elisha."[14] The Lord has not revealed to us everything that happened, because
such information, if we had it, would be of no value. The purpose of the sacred
author was that of revealing the manner of God's triumph over paganism.
ELLICOTT, "(7) And Elisha came to Damascus.—In the fragmentary condition of
the narrative, why he came is not clear. Rashi suggests that it was to fetch back
Gehazi, who had fled to the Syrians (!), an idea based upon 1 Kings 2:39, seq. Keil
and others think the prophet went with the intention of anointing Hazael, in
accordance with a supposed charge of Elijah’s. (Comp. 1 Kings 19:15, where Elijah
himself is bidden to anoint Hazael). Ewald believes that Elisha retreated to
Damascene territory, in consequence of the strained relations existing between him
and Jehoram, owing to the latter’s toleration of idolatry. Obviously all this rests

34. upon pure conjecture. It is clear from 2 Kings 8:7 that Elisha’s visit was not
expected in Damascus, and further, that there was peace at the time between
Damascus and Samaria. We do not know how much of Elisha’s history has been
omitted between 2 Kings 7:20 and 2 Kings 8:7; but we may fairly assume that a
divine impulse led the prophet to Damascus. The revelation, of which he speaks in 2
Kings 8:10; 2 Kings 8:13, probably came to him at the time, and so was not the
occasion of his journey.
Ben-hadad . . . was sick.—According to Josephus, on account of the failure of his
expedition against Samaria (?).
The man of God.—As if Elisha were well known and highly esteemed in Syria.
Is come hither.—This certainly implies that Elisha had entered Damascus itself.
GUZIK, "B. A new king in Syria.
1. (2 Kings 8:7-9) Elisha is questioned by Ben-Hadad.
Then Elisha went to Damascus, and Ben-Hadad king of Syria was sick; and it was
told him, saying, “The man of God has come here.” And the king said to Hazael,
“Take a present in your hand, and go to meet the man of God, and inquire of the
LORD by him, saying, ‘Shall I recover from this disease?’ “ So Hazael went to meet
him and took a present with him, of every good thing of Damascus, forty camel-
loads; and he came and stood before him, and said, “Your son Ben-Hadad king of
Syria has sent me to you, saying, ‘Shall I recover from this disease?’ “
a. The man of God has come here: The leaders of Syria once tried to capture or kill
Elisha. Since God miraculously delivered the prophet so many times, he was now
respected and welcomed in the courts of the Syrian King. He was especially welcome
on account of the king’s illness.
b. Take a present in your hand: Wanting to know the outcome of his present illness,
the king of Syria asked the prophet - and with his extravagant gift did whatever he
could to prompt a favorable message.
i. “Whether the prophet received it or not, is not here mentioned; but it is most
probable that he did not, from his former practice, chapter 5, and because the
reasons which then swayed him were still of the same force.” (Poole)
ISBET, "BE HADAD
‘Benhadad the king of Syria was sick.’
2 Kings 8:7
The life and death of Benhadad has much to say to us—

35. I. Let us look at one of the two men who took part in that bedside scene which no
eye beheld but the all-seeing eye of God.—Benhadad was a man of vast power,
ruling over a wealthy and warlike country, a man who loved pleasure, and did not
know what it was to be obliged to deny himself in any luxury on which he set his
heart. He was a bitter enemy of God’s people; and as licentious as he was cruel. He
had as little belief in God as he had in virtue, for he was not only a scoffer at God’s
existence—he openly and daringly defied him. There can be no doubt of it—he had
by a long course of sin and self-indulgence become a hardened and thoroughly
depraved man: insomuch that God sent to tell him that for his persevering iniquity
he was ‘appointed to utter destruction.’
II. It is not in that light he appears in the chapter before us.—We do not see him in
his pride and reckless dissipation: we see him laid upon the bed of sickness—fearing
the approach of death. His uneasy mind turned for some help and comfort to the
man of God who was at that time in Damascus. His infidelity failed him then, as it
does so often fail in that awful moment.
III. It is indeed an affecting scene, and one that brings home to us some solemn
truths which none can deny, and yet all are prone to forget.—Benhadad had
everything that heart could wish of this world: he was not only a king, but a king of
kings, for he was lord over thirty-two vassal kings; he had tens of thousands of
soldiers in his armies—everything was at his service that power and wealth could
procure. Yet all these things could not keep off from him the day of sickness, nor
save him from the bed of pain and weakness. He had an enemy who was able to steal
through all his sentinels, and lay hands on him in the midst of all his luxurious
surroundings. He lived as if he were a god who could know neither weakness nor
pain; but he learnt that there are messengers of God who, like God Himself, are no
respecters of persons. Every one knows this, but how few seem to be influenced by
it!
IV. Another no less important truth unveiled to us in Benhadad’s sick-room is the
different view men take of religion when they feel death near at hand, from the view
they take of it often when they are well.—There was a time when Benhadad thought
he could do no better than scoff at God and at the people of God; but he was sick
and weak, and ready to die, so he felt that to have God’s man near him when he was
dying would be a good thing for him now he was going into God’s awful presence.
How often it is so! There are those who shun religious people when they are well as
if they were either fools or hypocrites, who are glad enough to see them when the
gates of Eternity are opening before them. Benhadad never thought of sending when
he was sick to the thirty-two kings who used to get drunk with him at midday, and
join him in what he then thought to be a jovial life. ay, he bethought him of the
poor wandering prophet whom he had then despised and scoffed at. Wonderful to
say, he even thought that he could be the better for such a man’s prayer! He had
hated the sight of him while he was well and strong. If he had only attended to what
Elisha said to him in God’s name when he was living, he would have had something
better than Elisha’s prayers when he was dying—he would have had the Presence of
God.

36. V. For we learn from that death-bed scene that a change of view about religion,
when the end is near, may mean anything but a change of heart towards God.—
Benhadad’s anxiety was more about the recovery of his health than about his soul.
His was not the cry of the jailer, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ but the concern of
one clinging to the world—Shall I recover of this disease? He could not bear to think
that he was going to die. He would beguile himself with the prospect of recovery
rather than prepare himself for the prospect of eternity. So it is generally in their
sickness with those who have lived for this world and lived in pleasure. The real
comfort they crave is the comfort of thinking they will get well again—a kind of
comfort which those around them are too often ready enough to impart, like Hazael,
who, to lull Benhadad’s fears, put a lie into Elisha’s lips, ‘Thou shalt surely
recover!’
—Rev. G. Despard.
PETT, "Verses 7-15
Benhadad Of Aram, Through His Servant Hazael, Seeks Elisha’s Assurance That
His Illness Is ot Fatal, But Elisha Discerns Dark Deeds Ahead At The Hands Of
Hazael (2 Kings 8:7-15).
This incident presumably occurred during a period of peace between Aram and
Israel. On hearing that Elisha had paid a visit to Damascus, Benhadad, the king of
Aram, who was in bed through illness, sent to find out from him whether he would
live or die. Elisha’s reply was that the illness itself was not fatal. But as he looked at
Hazael, the kings’ messenger, it was revealed to him that through Hazael’s hand the
king would die, and that Hazael would become king of Aram and would be no
friend to Israel. Hazael had as a young man been anointed by Elijah (1 Kings 19:15),
although probably not knowing what it was for. That would not, however, make
him a friend of Israel. The thought now planted in Hazael’s mind he assassinated
the king and reigned in his place.
That is one version of events. The full details of what happened are, however,
disputed, partly due to the ambiguity of the narrative, in which Elisha does not
actually say that Hazael will assassinate the king. But in our view the implication is
clearly there, and it ties in with what we learn of his character.
Analysis.
a And Elisha came to Damascus, and Benhadad the king of Aram was ill, and
it was told him, saying, “The man of God has come here” (2 Kings 8:7).
b And the king said to Hazael, “Take a present in your hand, and go, meet the
man of God, and enquire of YHWH by him, saying, “Will I recover from this
illness?” (2 Kings 8:8).
c So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good
thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him, and said,

37. “Your son Benhadad king of Aram has sent me to you, saying, “Will I recover from
this illness?” (2 Kings 8:9).
d And Elisha said to him, “Go, say to him, You will surely recover. However
YHWH has shown me that he will surely die” (2 Kings 8:10).
e And he set his face steadfastly on him, until he was ashamed, and the man of
God wept (2 Kings 8:11).
d And Hazael said, “Why are you weeping my lord? And he answered, Because
I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. Their strongholds will you
set on fire, and their young men will you slay with the sword, and will dash in pieces
their little ones, and rip up their women with child” (2 Kings 8:12).
c And Hazael said, “But what is your servant, who is but a dog, that he should
do this great thing?” And Elisha answered, “YHWH has shown me that you will be
king over Aram” (2 Kings 8:13).
b Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him,
“What did Elisha say to you?” And he answered, “He told me that you would surely
recover” (2 Kings 8:14).
a And it came about on the morrow, that he took the coverlet, and dipped it in
water, and spread it on his face, so that he died, and Hazael reigned instead of him
(2 Kings 8:15).
ote that in ‘a’ Benhadad the king of Aram was ill, and in the parallel he was dead
and Hazael reigned instead of him. In ‘b’ Benhadad wanted to know whether his
illness would prove fatal, and in the parallel he learned that it would not. In ‘c’
Hazael brings Elisha a splendid present from the king, and in the parallel he see
himself as but a ‘dead dog’. In ‘d’ Elisha sees in his prophetic mind what Hazael
will do to the king, and in the parallel he foresees what he will do to Israel. Centrally
in ‘e’ he fixed his penetrating gaze on Hazael and wept because of what he foresaw.
2 Kings 8:7
‘And Elisha came to Damascus, and Benhadad the king of Aram was ill, and it was
told him, saying, “The man of God has come here.” ’
When Elisha paid a visit to Damascus, presumably during a period of peace,
‘Benhadad the king of Aram was ill’. There is a problem here as to which king is
meant. As this was before Hazael became king this could not be Benhadad III, who
followed Hazael. On the other hand the Assyrian records seem to suggest that the
king prior to Hazael was named Hadad-ezer. That may, however, simply be because
the latter was his chosen name, with Ben-hadad being his throne name because all
kings of Aram were seen as being ‘the son of Hadad’ (compare how in Egypt every
Pharaoh was ‘Horus, the son of Osiris’, although not many took it as literally as
Egypt), or it may be because Hadadezer was followed for a short while by another
Benhadad who did not reign long enough to be mentioned in Assyrian records (see
note below). This incident therefore almost certainly precedes some of those already
described.
We do not know why Elisha came to Damascus. He may have been guided there by
YHWH in view of Elijah’s previous anointing of Hazael when Hazael was a young
man (1 Kings 19:15). It may indeed have been that anointing which was partly

38. responsible for the plans that were seemingly buzzing in Hazael’s brain. Elisha may
well have had a divine premonition that the time for its fulfilment was ripe, but if so
it is not mentioned here. Had Elisha’s purpose in Damascus been in response to a
plea from the king the present would have been sent previously. Thus his presence
in Damascus at this time must have been, from a human point of view, a
coincidence.
BI 7-15, "Elisha came to Damascus.
Striking characters
We have here—
I. A dying king.
1. This dying king was very anxious. “Shall I recover of this disease?” This was the
question he wanted Elisha to answer. Not, you may be sure, in the negative. Knowing
some of the wonders that Elisha had performed, he in all likelihood imagined he
would exert his miraculous power on his behalf, and restore him to life. All men
more or less fear death, kings perhaps more than others. If ungodly, they have more
to lose and nothing to gain. Observe,
2. His anxiety prompted him to do strange things.
(1) It was strange for him to ask a favour from the man whose death he had
ravenously sought. What a change is this! Dying hours reverse our judgments,
revolutionise our feelings, bring the lofty down.
(2) It was strange for him to ask a favour of a man whose religion he hated. Ben-
hadad was an idolater.
(3) It was strange for him to make costly presents to a poor lonely man. What is
the wealth, the grandeur, the crown, the sceptre of the mightiest monarch to him
when he feels himself dying? He will barter all away for a few short hours of life.
We have here—
II. A Patriotic Prophet. “And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him (Ben-hadad), Thou
mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.”
“There was no contradiction in this message. The first part was properly the answer, to
Ben-hadad’s inquiry. The second part was intended for Hazael, who, like an artful and
ambitious courtier, reported only as much of the prophet’s statement as suited his own
views.” We have here—
III. A self-ignorant courtier. “And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this great thing?” The conduct of this man as here recorded suggests two
general remarks.
1. The germs of evil may exist in the mind of a wicked man, of which he is utterly
unconscious.
2. By the force of circumstances these germs become developed in all their enormity.
(Homilist.)

39. 8 he said to Hazael, “Take a gift with you and go
to meet the man of God. Consult the Lord
through him; ask him, ‘Will I recover from this
illness?’”
BAR ES, "Hazael was no doubt a high officer of the court. The names of Hazael and
Benhadad occur in the Assyrian inscription on the Black Obelisk now in the British
Museum. Both are mentioned as kings of Damascus, who contended with a certain
Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and suffered defeat at his hands. In one of the battles
between this king and Benhadad, “Allah of Jezreel” is mentioned among the allies of the
latter. This same Shalmaneser took tribute from Jehu. This is the point at which the
Assyrian records first come in direct contact with those of the Jews.
CLARKE, "Take a present in thine hand - But what an immense present was this-
forty camels’ burden of every good thing of Damascus! The prophet would need to have a
very large establishment at Damascus to dispose of so much property.
GILL, "And the king said to Hazael,.... The captain general of his army:
take a present in thine hand, and go and meet the man of God, who, perhaps,
was not as yet come into the city, only into the region of Damascus: or rather "with
thee"; so the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and which Noldius (f) approves of, since
a burden of forty camels, 2Ki_8:9 could not be carried in the hand:
and inquire of the Lord by him, saying, shall I recover of this disease? he did
not desire him to pray the Lord that he might recover, only was curious to know whether
he should or not, see 2Ki_1:2.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:8. The king said, Go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the
Lord, &c. — In his health he bowed down in the house of Rimmon, but now he
sends to inquire of the God of Israel. It is not long since he sent a great force to seize
and treat Elisha as an enemy; yet now he courts and inquires of him as a prophet:
thus affliction brings those to God, who, in their prosperity, made light of him: it
opens men’s eyes, and rectifies their mistakes: and among other instances of the
change it produces in their minds, this is one, and not the least considerable, that it
often gives them other thoughts of God’s ministers, and teaches them to value those

40. whom they before hated and despised. Affliction, however, has not this good effect
upon all: it only blinds and hardens some. We lately saw even a king of Israel
sending, in his sickness, to inquire of the god of Ekron, as if there had been no God
in Israel. How does the conduct of this heathen, in similar circumstances, reprove
and condemn the idolatrous and incorrigible Israelite! Thus does God sometimes
fetch that honour to himself from strangers, which is denied him, and alienated
from him, by his own professing people.
ELLICOTT, "(8) Hazael.—See ote on 2 Kings 8:15. In 1 Kings 19:15; 1 Kings
19:17 the name is written Hăzâh’êl; here it is spelt with an etymological allusion,
Hăzâh’êl, i.e., “El hath seen” (foreseen). Hazael appears to have been the highest
officer in Ben-hadad s court; Josephus says, “the trustiest of his domestics.”
Take a present in thine hand.—Comp. umbers 22:7; 1 Samuel 9:7; 2 Kings 5:5; 1
Kings 14:3.
Go, meet the man of God.—Literally, go to meet him. This does not imply, as some
have supposed, that Elisha was still on the road to Damascus, nor even that he
happened to be at the time on his way to the palace, for how could Ben-hadad know
that? What is meant is “Go to the place where the prophet is to be found; seek an
interview with him.”
Enquire of the Lord by him.—A different construction is used in 2 Kings 1, 2.
By him.—Literally, from with him. (Comp. ote on 2 Kings 1:15.)
Shall I recover of this disease?—Comp. 2 Kings 1:2.
PETT, "2 Kings 8:8
‘And the king said to Hazael, “Take a present in your hand, and go, meet the man of
God, and enquire of YHWH by him, saying, “Will I recover from this illness?” ’
The king accordingly sent his courtier Hazael to Elisha with a rich present, in order
to enquire of YHWH whether he would recover from his illness. He had good cause
to know that Elisha was very much a recipient of the truth from YHWH. Perhaps
his own prophets had failed to come up with an answer.
9 Hazael went to meet Elisha, taking with him as a
gift forty camel-loads of all the finest wares of
Damascus. He went in and stood before him, and

41. said, “Your son Ben-Hadad king of Aram has sent
me to ask, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”
BAR ES, "Every good thing of Damascus - Probably, besides rich robes and
precious metals, the luscious wine of Helbon, which was the drink of the Persian kings,
the soft white wool of the anti-Libanus Eze_27:18, damask coverings of couches Amo_
3:12, and numerous manufactured articles of luxury, which the Syrian capital imported
from Tyre, Egypt, Nineveh, and Babylon. Forty camels were laden with it, and this
goodly caravan paraded the streets of the town, conveying to the prophet the splendid
gift designed for him. Eastern ostentation induces donors to make the greatest possible
show of their gifts, and each camel would probably bear only one or two articles.
Thy son Ben-hadad - A phrase indicative of the greatest respect, no doubt used at
the command of Benhadad in order to dispose the prophet favorably toward him.
Compare 2Ki_6:21.
CLARKE, "So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him,.... As
was usual when a prophet or seer was consulted, see 1Sa_9:7.
even of every good thing of Damascus; which was a very fruitful place, and had
abundance of gardens and orchards in it, which yielded excellent fruit, and of such it is
probable the present consisted, and which was large:
even forty camels' burden: which, as they are strong creatures, will bear a great deal.
Abarbinel thinks, bread, flesh, and wine, and fowls, were in the present, but not gold,
silver, and raiment, which the prophet had refused to take of Naaman; the Jews have a
fable, that there was a precious stone in it, worth all the good things of Damascus:
and came and stood before him, and said, thy son Benhadad, king of Syria,
hath sent me to thee, saying, shall I recover of this disease? he calls him his
son, in veneration of the prophet as a father, as such men were called.
GILL, "So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him,.... As was
usual when a prophet or seer was consulted, see 1Sa_9:7.
even of every good thing of Damascus; which was a very fruitful place, and had
abundance of gardens and orchards in it, which yielded excellent fruit, and of such it is
probable the present consisted, and which was large:
even forty camels' burden: which, as they are strong creatures, will bear a great deal.
Abarbinel thinks, bread, flesh, and wine, and fowls, were in the present, but not gold,
silver, and raiment, which the prophet had refused to take of Naaman; the Jews have a
fable, that there was a precious stone in it, worth all the good things of Damascus:

42. and came and stood before him, and said, thy son Benhadad, king of Syria,
hath sent me to thee, saying, shall I recover of this disease? he calls him his
son, in veneration of the prophet as a father, as such men were called.
HE RY, "2. To put an honour upon the prophet, (1.) He sends to him, and does not
send for him, as if, with the centurion, he thought himself not worthy that the man of
God should come under his roof. (2.) He sends to him by Hazael, his prime-minister of
state, and not by a common messenger. It is no disparagement to the greatest of men to
attend the prophets of the Lord. Hazael must go and meet him at a place where he had
appointed a meeting with his friends. (3.) He sends him a noble present, of every good
thing of Damascus, as much as loaded forty camels (2Ki_8:9), testifying hereby his
affection to the prophet, bidding him welcome to Damascus, and providing for his
sustenance while he sojourned there. It is probable that Elisha accepted it (why should
he not?), though he refused Naaman's. (4.) He orders Hazael to call him his son Ben-
hadad, conforming to the language of Israel, who called the prophets fathers. (5.) He
puts an honour upon him as one acquainted with the secrets of heaven, when he
enquires of him, Shall I recover? It is natural to us to desire to know things to come in
time, while things to come in eternity are little thought of or enquired after.
JAMISO "forty camels’ burden — The present, consisting of the rarest and most
valuable produce of the land, would be liberal and magnificent. But it must not be
supposed it was actually so large as to require forty camels to carry it. The Orientals are
fond of display, and would, ostentatiously, lay upon forty beasts what might very easily
have been borne by four.
Thy son Ben-hadad — so called from the established usage of designating the
prophet “father.” This was the same Syrian monarch who had formerly persecuted him
(see 2Ki_6:13, 2Ki_6:14).
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:9. And took a present with him, forty camels’ burden — By
this noble present, consisting of every good thing of Damascus, the king testified his
affection to the prophet, bid him welcome to Damascus, and provided for his
sustenance while he was there, and the sustenance of those that were with him: for
some have inferred, from the king’s sending him so very large a quantity of
provisions, beyond measure too much for a single person, that Elisha, besides his
servant, had several of the sons of the prophets with him. It is probable he accepted
this present; for if he had refused it, it is likely his refusal would have been noticed.
ELLICOTT, "(9) A present with him—i.e., in money. (Comp. 2 Kings 5:5, and see
the margin here.)
Even of every good thing.—Rather, and every kind of good thing; in addition to the
present of money. Damascus was a great centre of traffic between Eastern and
Western Asia. (Comp. Ezekiel 27:18; Amos 3:12.) Damask silk was originally
imported from Damascus, and the Damascene sword-blades were famous in
mediæval Europe.

43. Forty camels’ burden.—To be understood of an actual train of forty camels,
carrying the presents of Ben-hadad. The Orientals are fond of making the most of a
gift in this way. Chardin remarks, that “fifty persons often carry what a single one
could very well carry” (Voyage, ).
Came.—Or, went in, i.e., into the house where Elisha was.
Thy son Ben-hadad.—Comp. 2 Kings 13:14; 2 Kings 5:13; 2 Kings 4:12; 2 Kings
6:21. “Father” was a respectful mode of addressing the prophet.
PETT, "‘So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every
good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him, and
said, “Your son Benhadad king of Aram has sent me to you, saying, “Will I recover
from this illness?”
So Hazael went to meet Elisha taking a magnificent present from the king. We can
compare the size of the present which had been intended for Elisha when he was
asked to heal aaman (2 Kings 5:5). There is no good reason for suggesting that it is
exaggerated. It was recognised that outstanding ‘prophets’ did not come cheap and
required large payments for their services (compare Balaam), especially when such
important information was required, and the enquirer was a powerful king. The
gods in general were seen as greedy. ‘Forty’ may have represented ‘a large number’.
The camels would be loaded with goods received through trading, possibly obtained
from the Damascus street markets. With the gift came the request to learn about
whether the king would recover from his illness.
‘He stood before him’ as one in the presence of a superior. Great deference was due
to such an acknowledged prophet of widespread fame. ote how even the king is
described as ‘his son’, seeing the prophet as a father figure.
MACLARE 9-15, "THE STORY OF HAZAEL
This is a strange, wild story. That Damascene monarchy burst into sudden power,
warlike and commercial-for the two things went together in those days. As is usually the
case, Hazael the successful soldier becomes ambitious. His sword seems to be the real
sceptre, and he will have the dominion. Many years before this Elijah had anointed him
to be king over Syria. That had wrought upon him and stirred ambition in him. Elijah’s
other appointments, coeval with his own, had already taken effect, Jehu was king of
Israel, Elisha was prophet, and he only had not attained the dignity to which he had been
designated.
He comes now with his message from the king of Damascus to Elisha. No doubt he had
been often contrasting his own vigour with the decrepit, nominal king, and many a time
had thought of the anointing, and had nursed ambitious hopes, which gradually turned
to dark resolves.
He hoped, no doubt, that Ben-hadad was mortally sick, and it must have been a cruel,

44. crushing disappointment when he heard that there was nothing deadly in the illness.
Another hope was gone from him. The throne seemed further off than ever. I suppose
that, at that instant, there sprang in his heart the resolve that he would kill Ben-hadad.
The recoil of disappointment spurred Hazael to the resolution which he then and there
took. It had been gathering form, no doubt, through some years, but now it became
definite and settled. While his face glowed with the new determination, and his lips
clenched themselves in the firmness of his purpose, the even voice of the prophet went
on, ‘howbeit he shall certainly die,’ and the eye of the man of God searched him till he
turned away ashamed because aware that his inmost heart was read.
Then there followed the prophet’s weeping, and the solemn announcement of what
Hazael would do when he had climbed to the throne. He shrank in real horror from the
thought of such enormity of sin. ‘Is thy servant a dog that he should do such a thing?’
Elisha sternly answers: ‘The Lord hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.’
The certainty is that in his character occasion will develop evil. The certainty is that a
course begun by such crime will be of a piece, and consistent with itself.
This conversation with Elisha seems to have accelerated Hazael’s purpose, as if the
prediction were to his mind a justification of his means of fulfilling it.
How like Macbeth he is!-the successful soldier, stirred by supernatural monitions of a
greatness which he should achieve, and at last a murderer.
This narrative opens to us some of the solemn, dark places of human life, of men’s
hearts, of God’s ways. Let us look at some of the lessons which lie here.
I. Man’s responsibility for the sin which God foresees.
It seems as if the prophet’s words had much to do in exciting the ambitious desires
which led to the crime. Hazael’s purpose of executing the deed is clearly known to the
prophet. His ascending the throne is part of the divine purpose. He could find excuses
for his guilt, and fling the responsibility for firing his ambition on the divine messenger.
It may be asked-What sort of God is this who works on the mind of a man by exciting
promises, and having done so, and having it fixed in His purposes that the man is to do
the crime, yet treats it when done as guilt?
But now, whatever you may say, or whatever excuses Hazael might have found for
himself, here is just in its most naked form that which is true about all sin. God foresees
it all. God puts men into circumstances where they will fall, God presents to them things
which they will make temptations. God takes the consequences of their wrongdoing and
works them into His great scheme. That is undeniable on one side, and on the other it is
as undeniable that God’s foreseeing leaves men free. God’s putting men into
circumstances where they fall is not His tempting them. God’s non-prevention of sin is
not permission to sin. God’s overruling the consequences of sin is not His condoning of
sin as part of the scheme of His providence.
Man is free. Man is responsible. God hates sin. God foresees and permits sin.
It is all a terrible mystery, but the facts are as undeniable as the mystery of their co-
existence is inscrutable.
II. The slumbering possibilities of sin.
Hazael indignantly protests against the thought that he should do such a thing. There is
conscience left in him yet. His example suggests how little any of us know what it is in us
to be or to do. We are all of us a mystery to ourselves. Slumbering powers lie in us. We

45. are like quiescent volcanoes.
So much in us lies dormant, needing occasion for its development, like seeds that may
sleep for centuries. That is true in regard to both the good and the bad in us. Life reveals
us to ourselves. We learn to know ourselves by our actions, better than by mental self-
inspection.
All sin is one in essence, and may pass into diverse forms according to circumstances. Of
course characters differ, but the root of sin is in us all. We are largely good because not
tempted, as a house may well stand firm when there are no floods. By the nature of the
case, thorough self-knowledge is impossible.
Sin has the power of blinding us to its presence. It comes in a cloud as the old gods were
fabled to do. The lungs get accustomed to a vitiated atmosphere, and scarcely are
conscious of oppression till they cease to play.
All this should teach us-
Lessons of wary walking and humility. We are good because we have not been tried.
Lessons of charity and brotherly kindness. Every thief in the hulks, every prostitute on
the streets, is our brother and sister, and they prove their fraternity by their sin.
‘Whatever man has done man may do.’ ‘Nihil humanum alienum a me puto.’ ‘Let him
that is without sin cast the first stone.’
III. The fatal necessity by which sin repeats itself in aggravated forms.
See how Hazael is drifted into his worst crimes. His first one leads on by fell necessity to
others. A man who has done no sin is conceivable, but a man who has done only one is
impossible. Did you ever see a dam bursting or breaking down? Through a little crack
comes one drop: will it stop there-the gap or the trickle? No! The drop has widened the
crack, it has softened the earth around, it has cleared away some impediments. So
another and another follow ever more rapidly, until the water pours out in a flood and
the retaining embankment is swept away.
No sin ‘is dead, being alone.’ The demon brings seven other devils worse than himself.
The reason for that aggravation is plain.
There is, first, habit.
There is, second, growing inclination.
There is, third, weakened restraint.
There is, fourth, a craving for excitement to still conscience.
There is, fifth, the necessity of the man’s position.
There is, sixth, the strange love of consistency which tones all life down or up to one tint,
as near as may be. There comes at last despair.
But not merely does every sin tend to repeat itself and to draw others after it. It tends to
repeat itself in aggravated forms. There is growth, the law of increase as well as of
perpetuity. The seed produces ‘some sixty and some an hundredfold.’
And so the slaughtered soldiers and desolated homesteads of Israel were the sequel of
the cloth on Ben-hadad’s face. The secret of much enormous crime is the kind of relief
from conscience which is found in committing a yet greater sin. The Furies drive with
whips of scorpions, and the poor wretch goes plunging and kicking deeper and deeper in
the mire, further and farther from the path. So you can never say: ‘I will only do this one

46. wrong thing.’
We see here how powerless against sin are all restraints. The prophecy did not prevent
Hazael from his sins. The clear sense that they were sins did not prevent him. The
horror-struck shudder of conscience did not prevent him. It was soon gagged.
Hear, then, the conclusion of the whole matter. Christ reveals us to ourselves. Christ
breaks the chain of sin, makes a new beginning, cuts off the entail, reverses the
irreversible, erases the indelible, cancels the irrevocable, forgives all the faultful past,
and by the power of His love in the soul, works a mightier miracle than changing the
Ethiopian’s skin; teaches them that are accustomed to evil to do well, and though sins be
as scarlet, makes them white as snow. He gives us a cleansed past and a bright future,
and out of all our sins and wasted years makes pardoned sinners and glorified, perfected
saints.
10 Elisha answered, “Go and say to him, ‘You will
certainly recover.’ evertheless,[a] the Lord has
revealed to me that he will in fact die.”
BAR ES, "Translate - “Go, say unto him, Thou shalt certainly live: howbeit the Lord
hath showed me that he shall certainly die.” i. e.,” Say to him, what thou hast already
determined to say, what a courtier is sure to say (compare 1Ki_22:15), but know that the
fact will be otherwise.”
CLARKE, "Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed
me that he shall surely die - That is, God has not determined thy death, nor will it be
a necessary consequence of the disease by which thou art now afflicted; but this wicked
man will abuse the power and trust thou hast reposed in him, and take away thy life.
Even when God has not designed nor appointed the death of a person, he may
nevertheless die, though not without the permission of God. This is a farther proof of the
doctrine of contingent events: he might live for all his sickness, but thou wilt put an end
to his life.
GILL, "And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, thou mayest certainly
recover,.... That is, of the disease; and there was not only a probability that he might
recover of it, it not being a mortal one, but a certainty that he should not die of it, as he
did not, but die a violent death, which the prophet predicts in the next clause; though
some take these words not as a command, what he should say, but as a prediction of

47. what he would say; that he would go and tell him he should certainly recover, because he
would not discourage him, though the prophet assures him in the next clause that he
should die: there is a various reading of these words; we follow the marginal reading, but
the textual reading is, "say, thou shall not certainly recover", or "in living live"; which
agrees with what follows:
howbeit or "for"
the Lord hath showed me, that he shall surely die; though not of that sickness,
nor a natural death, but a violent one, and that by the hand of this his servant, though he
does not express it.
HE RY, "IV. What passed between Hazael and Elisha is especially remarkable.
1. Elisha answered his enquiry concerning the king, that he might recover, the disease
was not mortal, but that he should die another way (2Ki_8:10), not a natural but a
violent death. There are many ways out of the world, and sometimes, while men think to
avoid one, they fall by another.
2. He looked Hazael in the face with an unusual concern, till he made Hazael blush
and himself weep, 2Ki_8:11. The man of God could outface the man of war. It was not in
Hazael's countenance that Elisha read what he would do, but God did, at this time,
reveal it to him, and it fetched tears from his eyes. The more foresight men have the
more grief they are liable to.
JAMISO "Go, say ... Thou mayest certainly recover — There was no
contradiction in this message. This part was properly the answer to Ben-hadad’s inquiry
[2Ki_8:9]. The second part was intended for Hazael, who, like an artful and ambitious
courtier, reported only as much of the prophet’s statement as suited his own views
(compare 2Ki_8:14).
K&D, "According to the Chethîb ‫ּה‬‫י‬ ָ‫ח‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬, Elisha's answer was, “Thou wilt not live, and
(for) Jehovah has shown me that he will die;” according to the Keri ‫ּה‬‫י‬ ָ‫ח‬ ‫ּו‬‫ל‬, “tell him:
Thou wilt live, but Jehovah,” etc. Most of the commentators follow the ancient versions,
and the Masoretes, who reckon our ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ among the fifteen passages of the O.T. in which it
stands for the pronoun ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ (vid., Hilleri Arcan. Keri, p. 62f.), and some of the codices, and
decide in favour of the Keri. (1) because the conjecture that ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ was altered into ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ in
order that Elisha might not be made to utter an untruth, is a very natural one; and (2) on
account of the extreme rarity with which a negative stands before the inf. abs. with the
finite verb following. But there is not much force in either argument. The rarity of the
position of ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ before the inf. abs. followed by a finite verb, in connection with the
omission of the pronoun ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ after ‫ּר‬‫מ‬ ֱ‫,א‬ might be the very reason why ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ was taken as a
pronoun; and the confirmation of this opinion might be found in the fact that Hazael
brought back this answer to the king: “Thou wilt live” (2Ki_8:14). The reading in the text
‫ּא‬‫ל‬ (non) is favoured by the circumstance that it is the more difficult of the two, partly
because of the unusual position of the negative, and partly because of the contradiction

48. to 2Ki_8:14. But the ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ is found in the same position in other passages (Gen_3:4; Psa_
49:8, and Amo_9:8), where the emphasis lies upon the negation; and the contradiction
to 2Ki_8:14 may be explained very simply, from the fact that Hazael did not tell his king
the truth, because he wanted to put him to death and usurp the throne. We therefore
prefer the reading in the text, since it is not in harmony with the character of the
prophets to utter an untruth; and the explanation, “thou wilt not die of thine illness, but
come to a violent death,” puts into the words a meaning which they do not possess. For
even if Benhadad did not die of his illness, he did not recover from it.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:10. Say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit,
&c. — Here is no contradiction: for the first words contain an answer to Ben-
hadad’s question, Shall I recover? To which the answer is, Thou mayest,
notwithstanding thy disease, which is not mortal. The latter words contain the
prophet’s addition to that answer, which is, that he should die, not by the power of
his disease, but by some other cause. But it must be observed, that this is according,
not to the Hebrew text, but the marginal reading of the Jewish rabbins, who have
substituted the pronoun ‫,לו‬ lo, to him, for the adverb ‫,לא‬ lo, not. In the text it is, Go
say, Thou shalt not recover; or, as Dr. Waterland renders it, Thou shalt certainly
not live; for the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. Dr. Kennicott is
clearly of opinion that this is the true reading and sense of the passage. See his first
Dissert., p. 163. Houbigant, however, prefers our translation, and thinks that the
words contain a silent reproof from Elisha, who well knew that a courtier, like
Hazael, would certainly flatter his king: he therefore understands the meaning to be,
“Go thou, and, courtier-like, say to him, Thou wilt certainly recover; howbeit, the
Lord hath, shown me very much the contrary; he will surely die, and die by thy
traitorous hand.”
COFFMA ,"We find some of the comments scholars have made about this reply of
Elisha to the question of Benhadad very disgusting. Snaith declared that, "The
purpose of the oracle (the prophecy) was to lure Benhadad into false confidence,"
and that, "Elisha at once took steps to insure the death of Benhadad."[15] "Some
even attribute Hazael's foul crime to Elisha's instigation."[16] Such opinions are
wrong and sinful.
Harold Stigers gives us the proper understanding of what is written here. "Thou
mayest certainly recover (2 Kings 8:10). This means, Go, say to the king, as you have
already intended to do, `Thou shalt surely live'; however, the Lord has shown me
that he shall surely die (by your hand)."[17]
The very thing overlooked by those who miss the true interpretation here is, that
Elisha did OT say that, "Jehovah says the king will recover," because the Lord
did not say that, nor did Elisha declare that God did say it. He merely told Hazael,
the cruel assassin who stood in front of him, "Go ahead and assure him of his
recovery as you have already decided to do, but God has revealed to me that HE
WILL DIE." Those who speak of the prophet's "apparent lie" in this passage have

49. simply failed to read what is written.
The prophet gave only one answer to Benhadad through Hazael, namely, that he
would die, but Hazael concealed that answer from Benhadad, and then went ahead
and lied to him about his recovery just exactly as Elisha had said he would do. The
proof of this is evident in the shame of Hazael as he could not stand before the
withering gaze of God's prophet. "Elisha's fixed gaze upon Hazael surely revealed
to Hazael that his guilty purpose of usurping Benhadad's throne was certainly
known to Elisha."[18]
Hazael lied to his lord, promising him recovery, when Elisha had plainly told him,
"Thus saith the Lord, he shall surely DIE." The promise of recovery was never a
part of what the Lord said through Elisha. That lie originated entirely in the evil
heart of Hazael, as detected and exposed by Elisha.
"I know the evil that thou wilt do to the children of Israel" (2 Kings 8:12). The
terrible crimes mentioned here, which Elisha stated that Hazael would commit, were
in no sense offensive to that evil usurper. Hazael even referred to them as "a great
thing" (2 Kings 8:13).
"What is thy servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing" (2 Kings
8:13). "Hazael here should not have maligned the more noble brute than himself
(the dog), suggesting that any creature except man was capable of such
villainy."[19] This remark by Hazael should not be misunderstood. He was merely
saying that he was only a SLAVE of Benhadad and that he had no power to do such
things as Elisha had mentioned. Then Elisha plainly told him of the Divine prophecy
of his accession to the throne of Syria.
The horrible atrocities which Elisha here prophesied would mark Hazael's actions
against Israel are very similar to those terrible deeds mentioned by Amos in the first
two chapters of his prophecy. Such deeds were characteristic of the warfare of all
nations in that era; and we might add that, even today, there is no such thing as a
"kind" war.
COKE, "2 Kings 8:10. Go say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover, &c.— Go
say, Thou shalt certainly not live, &c. See Kennicott's first Dissert. p. 163.; but
Houbigant thinks that ours is the just translation, and that the words contain a
silent reproof from Elisha, who well knew that a courtier like Hazael would
certainly flatter his king; and therefore the meaning, according to this
interpretation, is, "Go THOU, and, courtier-like, say to him, you will certainly
recover; howbeit, the Lord hath shewn me very much the contrary; he will surely
die, and die by your traitorous hand." See 2 Kings 8:15 and Waterland's Script.
Vind. part 2: p. 122.
ELLICOTT, "(10) Unto him.—The reading of some Hebrew MSS., of the Hebrew
margin, and of all the versions, as well as of Josephus.

50. The ordinary Hebrew text has “not” (lô’, instead of lô), so that the meaning would
be, “Thou shalt not recover.” But (1) the position of the negative before the
adverbial infinitive is anomalous; and (2) Hazaeľs report of Elisha’s words, in 2
Kings 8:14, is without the negative particle. (See the ote there.) The Authorised
Version is, therefore, right.
Thou mayest certainly recover.—Rather. Thou wilt certainly live. Elisha sees
through Hazaeľs character and designs, and answers him in the tone of irony which
he used to Gehazi in 2 Kings 5:26, “Go, tell thy lord—as thou, the supple and
unscrupulous courtier wilt be sure to do—he will certainly recover. I know,
however, that he will assuredly die, and by thy hand.” Others interpret, “Thou
mightest recover” (i.e., thy disease is not mortal); and make the rest of the propheťs
reply a confidential communication to Hazael. But this is to represent the prophet as
deceiving Benhadad, and guilty of complicity with Hazael, which agrees neither
with Elisha’s character nor with what follows in 2 Kings 8:11-12. The Syriac and
Arabic, with some MSS., read, “thou wilt die” for “he will die.”
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 8:10-13) Elisha’s enigmatic revelation.
And Elisha said to him, “Go, say to him, ‘You shall certainly recover.’ However the
LORD has shown me that he will really die.” Then he set his countenance in a stare
until he was ashamed; and the man of God wept. And Hazael said, “Why is my lord
weeping?” He answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of
Israel: Their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with
the sword; and you will dash their children, and rip open their women with child.”
So Hazael said, “But what is your servant; a dog, that he should do this gross
thing?” And Elisha answered, “The LORD has shown me that you will become king
over Syria.”
a. Go, say to him, “You shall certainly recover.” However the LORD has shown me
that he will really die: God gave Elisha insight into more than the health of the king
of Syria. He also saw the inevitable and ultimately God-ordained political
machinations that would unfold.
i. Elisha rightly said that the king would certainly recover from his illness, and he
did. However, he also saw that the same servant he spoke with at that moment
would engineer an assassination and take the throne.
ii. This is how Elisha’s statement was true. The king certainly did recover from his
illness, and he really did die soon - but not from the illness.
b. He set his countenance in a stare . . . I know the evil that you will do: This was a
dramatic, personal confrontation between this prophet and the high official of the
king of Syria. Elisha stared at him so because he had prophetic knowledge of future
events, and how this man would trouble Israel in the future.

51. i. “The prophet gazed long and fixedly into the eyes of Hazael. It would seem that he
saw far more in the soul of the man than any other had seen, perhaps more than the
man himself was conscious of.” (Morgan)
c. And the man of God wept: God told Elisha more about the coming situation than
he wanted to know. He showed the prophet that the messenger of the king (Hazael),
after he took the throne from the present king of Syria, would do evil to the children
of Israel.
i. Elisha’s prophetic calling and gift was at times more of a burden than a blessing.
He could clearly see what would befall Israel through Hazael, but he was powerless
to prevent it.
ii. “The nearer we live to God, the more we deserve to be known as men and women
of God, the more will our tears flow for the slain of the daughters of our people.”
(Meyer)
iii. “His tears were in themselves signs of his understanding of the necessity for those
severe judgment which must fall upon the guilty nation; but they were the outcome
of his deep love for his people.” (Morgan)
d. But what is your servant; a dog, that should do this gross thing? Perhaps Hazael
had planned this assassination and simply acted ignorant at Elisha’s announcement.
Perhaps he had not yet planned it, but did not know the evil capabilities in his own
heart.
i. Either way, his offence was inappropriate. He should have taken this warning as
an opportunity to confront himself and to do right, instead of turning an accusation
back upon Elisha.
ii. “Our ignorance of the depravity of our own hearts is a startling fact, Hazael did
not believe that he was bad enough to do any of the things here anticipated. . . . I
appeal to you, Christian men and women, if anyone had told you that you would
have loved your Savior so little as you have done; if any prophet had told you, in the
hour of your conversion, that you would have served him so feebly as you have
done, would you have believed it!” (Spurgeon)
e. The LORD has shown me that you will become king over Syria: It may be asked if
Elisha should have told Hazael this; perhaps he set in motion a self-fulfilling
prophecy and actually inspired the assassination of the king of Syria.
i. However, there are many reasons for thinking that Elisha did exactly the right
thing when he said this to Hazael.
· Elisha did not tell Hazael how the king would die; he did not reveal that it
would be through assassination.

52. · Elisha did not tell Hazael how he would become the next king of Syria; he
did not tell Hazael to assassinate the king.
· Elisha went against his own compassionate and patriotic interests in telling
Hazael this, making it more likely that he did it at God’s prompting.
· Elisha perhaps hoped that this amazing prophecy would touch Hazael’s
heart and turn him away from the evil he could later commit against Israel.
ii. As it turned out, God knew the actions of Hazael, but He did not make Hazael do
it. “It was absolutely foretold that Hazael would be king of Syria. The prophet knew
the fact right well, and he clearly descried the means; else, why should he look into
Hazael’s face, and weep? God foreknew the mischief that he would do when he
came to the throne; yet that foreknowledge did not in the least degree interfere with
his free agency.” (Spurgeon)
PETT, "‘And Elisha said to him, “Go, say to him, You will surely live. However,
YHWH has shown me that he will surely die.” ’
Elisha’s reply was twofold. Firstly it indicated that the illness was not life
threatening, but secondly it indicated that nevertheless he would die in some other
way, something which will shortly be explained. Elisha was replying to the king’s
question as to whether his illness was a mortal illness, and his official reply was
therefore ‘no’. We cannot fault him for leaving it with Hazael to decide whether to
tell him that nevertheless he would die in another way.
There is a problem with the MT text here in that the original (the kethib) has ‘you
will not live’ while the qere has ‘you will surely live’. The original text had no
vowels and the original ‘l’ could signify ‘lo’ (not), but may in fact have been
intended as ‘lu’ which would remove the negative. MT thus opts for either/or. What
follows supports the qere in that his death was not due to his illness, although 2
Kings 8:14 may have been Hazael’s lie. Whichever is the correct translation of the
text the fact is finally stated that he would die, even if not from his illness.
BI, "Thou mayest certainly recover.
Ignorance of the future
The subject which I propose to discuss is the moral effect of ignorance of the future.
I. The avidity with which men seek to know the future. People are almost always ready to
believe that something unusually good is to befall them; that their lot is to be
exceptional; that their future is somewhere to be discovered by divination, by the lines
on their hands, by the courses of the heavenly bodies. Take your stand by the fortune-
teller, to whom has betaken herself a young girl, who, in her ignorance and simplicity,
wants to know what human lot is coming to her; whether she is to marry or not; whether
her husband is to be rich or poor; what is his complexion, the colour of his hair and eyes,

53. his occupation, and all those minutiae about him with which her teeming fancy busies
itself. Recall the little simple devices, such as pulling in pieces a daisy as certain
sentences are repeated, to which children and young folks resort; they all arise from a
curiosity about the future, and an impression that lodged somewhere in the earth, or air,
in daisy or constellation, is the secret that we wish to know. There is no doubt about the
influence of good and evil supernatural agencies in our lives; there is no doubt, too, that
the events of our lives are closely watched by the inhabitants of two worlds. If good
spirits, why not bad? There are two ways in which a man may confront the future; one,
looking into God’s face, trusting in God’s promises, asking the support of the Everlasting
Arms; and the other, turning to invoke the spirits of darkness; making a league with the
devil to get counsel and help from the infernal world. And I look upon all this desire to
penetrate the veil of mystery which encompasses the future—except as we walk by faith
with the Invisible One, as we believe in God and link our destiny with God by keeping
His laws—as immoral and unchristian.
II. Ignorance of the future, if that future is to be disastrous, is always a blessing to us;
while, if it is to be advantageous, it is an inspiration. And it is between this possible
disaster and advantage that men make all the progress, whether intellectual or spiritual.
In all motion which is artificially produced, such as the movement of a carriage or land,
or on rails, or the movement of a vessel through the water, there are always two
elements; two forces acting and reacting. There is that which propels—the motive power;
and that which resists it, and the result is motion. When the driving-wheels of a
locomotive do not take hold of the rail—that is, when the rail is covered with frost or ice
so that there is no resistance to their revolution—there can be no progress: the great iron
sinewed horse is but a plaything, whirling his wheels like a top. These two elements are
in the flight of the bird: the stroke of the wing and the resistance of the air. When
inventors are making efforts to find some machine which will navigate the air, they seek
first lightness. But it is the weight of the bird, as well as the stroke of the wing, that gives
it power to make such beautiful evolutions in the air. The air is to the body of the bird
what the water is to the hull of the vessel—a medium of resistance. As the wheels of the
steamer, as the screw of the propeller, as the oar or the paddle of the rower is resisted by
the water, progress is made. It is just so in human life. The patriarch Job says: “What!
shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” It is
encountering a mixture of good and evil that makes character. It is the contingency of
good and evil; the uncertainty whether it shall be one or the other, that is the mainspring
of human action. People ask, why did not God make man so that he could not sin? It is
like asking why God did not make matter so that an object could move without meeting
resistance; why God did not make the bird so that it could fly without breasting the
powers of the air. Walking is only falling forward and regaining one’s self. The regaining
prevents the accident. The babe begins with the first motion, but is not yet competent to
the second. And no man walks with God without finding a leverage for his soul in the evil
that is in the world; only he wants none of it in him. In one sense we are forewarned
respecting the future. We have general principles given us. These principles are often
cast into the form of maxims. For example, we say that “Honesty is the best policy,” with
primary reference to business; that let a man make ever so much money by dishonest
dealing, he is injuring his business all the time; he is only getting rope to hang himself.
The young lad who is studying at school hears this; he does not think it applies to his
relations to his teacher and his books, but it does. When, in after life, he confronts
business questions or business interests, and finds he cannot solve queries which were
solved by his neglected text-books, or his faithful teacher, he discovers it. It is no time to
dismount and tighten the saddle-girth when the battle is on us. There is not one of us

54. who would not have been a sadder man in life to know beforehand the calamities that
came to him the last twelvemonths. Let him take up his cross daily, it is not to-morrow’s
cross that we can take up to-day, even if we would take it up. And what is called
borrowing trouble is taking up to-morrow’s cross—always an imaginary one—before
to.morrow comes. The Saviour says, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,”
meaning that if we manage to grapple with the evil of to-day and overcome that, it is all
God expects of us; it is victory. And then, on the other hand, the certainty of good
fortune is always enervating. God helps the men who help themselves. They fall into the
line of His purposes; they see the tide which, taken at its flood, leads on to fortune. Tell a
young man that at the age of forty he will be worth a million dollars, and you have done
him an injury.
III. Ignorance of the future is a protection against temptation to employ indirect and
sinful methods of securing what we have been assured will take place. Take this case of
Hazael to illustrate the temptation that comes to a man who knows that he is to occupy a
high position. You would say he would argue in this manner: Well, if I am to be King of
Syria, let the God, whose prophet predicts it, make me king; I will not lift a finger; least
of all will I try to find a short cut to the throne. This was the way Macbeth deliberated:—
“If chance will make me king,
why chance may crown me,
Without my stir.”
A man’s aspirations and capacities are often prophecies of what God means to do by
him. If he should say to himself, “I deserve such and such position, and it matters not
how I get it”; if then he should address himself to the work of supplanting such another
occupant of the place, or aspirant for it, he may secure the position indeed, but he has
introduced into his cup of life that which will embitter it for ever. There is no moral
greatness in having place. Place without fitness for it; place with the recollection of
dishonour or misdirection in seeking it, is really a disgrace to a man. Hazael became
King of Syria as Macbeth became King of Scotland, by attempting to accomplish by
crime what was already written down in the future. But what was Hazael as King of
Syria, what was Macbeth as King of Scotland, with the predecessor of each assassinated
to make open the path to the throne? The very night of Duncan’s death, while he still lay
there, the murder undiscovered, and there came some one knocking at the castle gate,
Macbeth says:—
“Wake Duncan with thy knocking;
I would thou could’st!”
For example: there is an achievement, a possession that I wish, I think I deserve it, have
fitness for it, could honour my Maker if I were gratified in my desire, could benefit my
fellow-men. Now comes the test of my character. If I am willing to fulfil the conditions of
merit, to serve God where He has placed me, up to my best ability; to wait His time for
recognition and promotion; if promotion should come, then it has sought me; I have
entered into no unholy alliances, I have not broken the golden rule. I have coveted no
man’s silver, gold, or place. If, on the other hand, I say to myself, God intended this for
me, and I mean to have it, and I begin to clamber over the heads of people, as men
sometimes try to get out of a crowd, I carry with me the sense of my own unworthiness.
IV. Ignorance of the future on our part does not interfere with God’s certainty
respecting it. It should bring us to confide in that certainty. Only certainty somewhere
can bring us security. It is usual to put this in the other way, as though God’s certainty

55. respecting a future event might possibly prevent the exercise of our freedom when
putting out our force to compass or defeat it. But in man’s sphere, man is just as free as
God is in His sphere. And without some certainty, what is the use of freedom? Hazael is
to be King of Syria. This should content him, But being an unscrupulous man, and the
King of Syria being sick, and in that particular to him, his confidential servant, an easy
victim, as Duncan came conveniently—the devil’s opportunity—to the castle of Macbeth,
Hazael spreads a wet cloth over the king’s face, smothers him, and he dies, and the
vacant throne is ready for himself. The certainty that he was to be King of Syria did not
affect his conduct. Mark that. His knowledge of the certainty did. It tempted him to
compass, by foul means, that which, if he had waited, would have happened so, as we
express it. God is no less in the future events of this nation than he was in the future
events of the Syrian kingdom, or the kingdom of Israel; Hazael was no more certain,
historically certain, certain in the mind of God to succeed Ben-hadad than some man is
to succeed the present President. But the certainty of God is on another plane from the
contingency that is in the affairs of men. The storm of rain and sleet which encases the
woods as with armour of silver, which makes every branch like a spear which the winds
poise and tilt as though for some encounter in knight-errantry, was predicted by the
weather bureau twenty-four hours before it came; was fore-known and fore-recorded
and published to the nation. But the certainty did not affect the action of the atmosphere
combinations needful to produce the storm. The atmospheric forces north, south, east,
west, were held in hand or let loose according as was needful to the result. Up in His own
sphere God presides, insuring human freedom, touching the springs of action, carrying
out His own plans, making all things work together for the good of His children and for
His own glory. Our ignorance of the future does not disturb His affairs. God makes the
wrath of man to praise Him, and the remainder of wrath He restrains. He lets wicked
men go just as far as they need to prove their freedom, and then He stops them and takes
the advantage, not of what they thought to do, but of what they did. This is the most
wonderful kind of alchemy. (J. E. Rankin, D. D.)
11 He stared at him with a fixed gaze until Hazael
was embarrassed.Then the man of God began to
weep.
BAR ES, "That is, “And he (Elisha) settled his conntenance, and set it (toward
Hazael), until he (Hazael) was ashamed.” Elisha fixed on Hazael a long and meaning
look, until the latter’s eyes fell before his, and his cheek flushed. Elisha, it would seem,
had detected the guilty thought that was in Hazael’s heart, and Hazael perceived that he
had detected it. Hence the “shame.”

56. CLARKE, "He settled his countenance steadfastly - Of whom does the author
speak? Of Hazael, or of Elisha? Several apply this action to the prophet: he had a
murderer before him and he saw the bloody acts he was about to commit, and was
greatly distressed; but he endeavored to conceal his feelings: at last his face reddened
with anguish, his feelings overcame him, and he burst out and wept.
The Septuagint, as it stands in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, makes the
text very plain: Και ᅛστη Αζαηλ κατα πρωσοπον αυτου, και παρεθηκεν ενωπιον αυτου δωρα,
ᅛως ᇽσχυνετο· και εκλαυσεν ᆇ ανθρωπος του Θεου, And Hazael stood before his face, and he
presented before him gifts till he was ashamed; and the man of God wept.
The Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus, are nearly as the Hebrew. The
Aldine edition agrees in some respects with the Complutensian; but all the versions
follow the Hebrew.
GILL, "And he settled his countenance steadfastly,.... Refrained himself as much
as possible, that he might not weep, as some Jewish writers interpret it; or, as others, he
turned his face on one side, and covered it with his hands, that Hazael might not see him
weep; or rather he set his face on Hazael, and looked at him so wistly:
until he was ashamed; that is, Hazael; the prophet looked him out of countenance:
and the man of God wept; at the thought of what calamities the man before him, he
looked on, would be the cause of in Israel, as the following words show.
JAMISO "he settled his countenance stedfastly until he was ashamed —
that is, Hazael. The steadfast, penetrating look of the prophet seemed to have convinced
Hazael that his secret designs were known. The deep emotions of Elisha were justified by
the horrible atrocities which, too common in ancient warfare, that successful usurper
committed in Israel (2Ki_10:32; 2Ki_13:3, 2Ki_13:4, 2Ki_13:22).
K&D, "Elisha then fixed Hazael for a long time with his eye, and wept. ‫וגו‬ ‫ד‬ ֵ‫מ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ַ ַ‫ו‬
literally, he made his face stand fast, and directed it (upon Hazael) to shaming. ‫ּשׁ‬ ‫ד־‬ ַ‫ע‬ as
in Jdg_3:25; not in a shameless manner (Thenius), but till Hazael was embarrassed by
it.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:11. He settled his countenance steadfastly — Elisha fixed his
eyes on Hazael, and looked upon him so earnestly, so long, and with such a settled
countenance, that Hazael was ashamed, as apprehending that the prophet discerned
or suspected something of an evil and shameful nature in him. The Hebrew words,
however, rendered till he was ashamed, are ambiguous, and may be indifferently
referred either to the prophet or to Hazael: but they seem more properly to belong
to the latter, because it follows by way of distinction, The man of God wept.

57. COKE, "2 Kings 8:11. And he settled his countenance— "He [Hazael] keeping his
countenance, continued with the same look for some time, while the man of God
wept." Hazael pretended surprise at the answer of Elisha, desirous to conceal from
him the satisfaction which he had in the intelligence of his king's death. Houbigant.
ELLICOTT, "(11) And he settled his countenance stedfastly.—Literally, and he
(Elisha) made his face stand, and set (it upon Hazael).
Until he was ashamed.—Literally, unto being ashamed. This may mean either in
shameless fashion or until Hazael was disconcerted. We prefer the latter. Hazael,
conscious that Elisha had read his; thoughts aright, shrank from that piercing gaze.
(Comp. 2 Kings 2:17.)
PETT, "‘And he set his face steadfastly on him, until he was ashamed, and the man
of God wept.’
As the conversation was proceeding Elisha was receiving fresh information from
YHWH and he consequently began to stare at Hazael severely to such an extent that
Hazael was ashamed (there is no good reason for seeing Elisha as being in a
‘prophetic trance’). This would tie in with the idea that Hazael already had his
assassination plans in mind and was feeling guilty. Then Elisha burst into weeping.
12 “Why is my lord weeping?” asked Hazael.
“Because I know the harm you will do to the
Israelites,” he answered. “You will set fire to their
fortified places, kill their young men with the
sword, dash their little children to the ground,
and rip open their pregnant women.”
BAR ES, "The evil that thou wilt do - The intention is not to tax Hazael with
special cruelty, but only to enumerate the ordinary horrors of war, as it was conducted
among the Oriental nations of the time. Compare the marginal references.

58. CLARKE, "I know the evil that thou wilt do - We may see something of the
accomplishment of this prediction, 2Ki_10:32, 2Ki_10:33; 2Ki_13:3, 2Ki_13:7.
GILL, "And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord?.... Imagining it was for the death
of Benhadad he had predicted, for which he could see no reason; of the title, "my lord",
see 1Ki_18:7.
and he answered, because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children
of Israel; which he foresaw by a spirit of prophecy; and Israel being his own people, he
sympathized in their calamities before they came:
their strong holds wilt thou set on fire; which should be taken by him, see 2Ki_
10:32
and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword; in battle:
and wilt dash their children; against rocks and stones, or stone walls, or upon the
ground, floor, or pavement, as was usual in war (g), see Psa_137:9,
and rip up their women with child: which was the height of barbarity and cruelty.
Ben Gersom and Ben Melech interpret this of breaking down the walls of fortified cities,
built strong, like hills and mountains; but this is supposed in the first clause.
HE RY, "3. When Hazael asked him why he wept he told him what a great deal of
mischief he foresaw he would do to the Israel of God (2Ki_8:12), what desolations he
would make of their strong-holds, and barbarous destruction of their men, women, and
children. The sins of Israel provoked God to give them up into the hands of their cruel
enemies, yet Elisha wept to think that ever Israelites should be thus abused; for, though
he foretold, he did not desire the woeful day. See what havock war makes, what havock
sin makes, and how the nature of man is changed by the fall, and stripped even of
humanity itself.
K&D, "When Hazael asked him the cause of his weeping, Elisha replied: “I know the
evil which thou wilt do to the sons of Israel: their fortresses wilt thou set on fire (‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ ַ‫ח‬ ֵ ִ‫,שׁ‬
see at Jdg_1:8), their youths wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children
to pieces, and cut asunder their women with child” ( ַ‫ע‬ ֵ ִ , split, cut open the womb). This
cruel conduct towards Israel which is here predicted of Hazael, was only a special
elaboration of the brief statement made by the Lord to Elijah concerning Hazael (1Ki_
19:17). The fulfilment of this prediction is indicated generally in 2Ki_10:32-33, and 2Ki_
13:3.; and we may infer with certainty from Hos_10:14 and Hos_14:1, that Hazael really
practised the cruelties mentioned.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:12. I know the evil thou wilt do unto the children of Israel —
It was not in Hazael’s countenance that Elisha read what he would do; but God did

59. at this time reveal it to him, and gave him such a clear and full view of it, that it
greatly affected him. The sins of Israel provoked God to give them up into the hands
of their cruel enemies: yet Elisha wept to think that ever Israelites should be so
abused as he foresaw they would be by Hazael. For though he foretold, he did not
desire, the woful day. Their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, &c. — See what havoc
and destruction war makes! what destruction sin makes! and how the nature of man
is changed by the fall, and stripped even of humanity itself! Wilt dash their children
— That dashing young children against the stones was one piece of barbarous
cruelty which the people of the East were apt to run into, in the prosecution of their
wars, is plainly intimated Psalms 137:8-9. or was this inhuman practice out of use
among nations pretending to more politeness; for, according to the remains of
ancient fame, the Grecians, when they became masters of Troy, were so cruel as to
throw Astyanax, Hector’s son, a child in his mother’s arms, headlong from one of
the towers of the city. The ripping up of women with child is the highest degree of
brutal cruelty; but there is reason to believe that Hazael, in his war with the
Gileadites, (2 Kings 10:32-33,) verified this part of the prophet’s prediction
concerning him; for, what Amos, complaining of his cruelty to this people, calls
thrashing Gilead with thrashing instruments of iron, both the Seventy and Arabic
versions read, He sawed the pregnant women with iron saws. — Le Clerc and
Calmet.
COKE, "2 Kings 8:12. And will dash their children, &c.— That dashing young
children against the stones was one piece of barbarous cruelty which the people of
the east were apt to run into in the prosecution of their wars, is plainly intimated
Psalms 137:8-9. or was this inhuman practice quite out of use among nations
pretending to more politeness; for, according to the remains of ancient fame, the
Grecians, when they became masters of Troy, were so cruel as to throw Astyanax,
Hector's son, a child in his mother's arms, headlong from one of the towers of the
city. The ripping up of women with child, is the highest degree of brutal cruelty; but
there is reason to believe that Hazael, in his war with the Gileadites, ch. 2 Kings
10:32-33 verified this part of the prophet's prediction concerning him; for what
Amos, complaining of his cruelty to this people, calls threshing Gilead with
threshing-instruments of iron, both the LXX and Arabic versions read, He sawed
the big-bellied women with iron saws. Le Clerc and Calmet.
ELLICOTT, "(12) The evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel.—Fulfilled
in 2 Kings 10:32-33; 2 Kings 13:3-4. The cruelties enumerated here were the
ordinary concomitants of warfare in that age. (Comp. Amos 1:3-4; Amos 1:13;
Hosea 10:14; Hosea 13:16; 2 Kings 15:16.)
Set on fire.—Literally, send into the fire (Judges 1:8).
Young men.—Chosen warriors.
Dash.—Dash in pieces.

60. PETT, "‘And Hazael said, “Why are you weeping my lord? And he answered,
Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. Their strongholds
will you set on fire, and their young men will you slay with the sword, and will dash
in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child.” ’
Hazael was not sure what to make of all this and asked Elisha why he was weeping.
ote the courteous ‘my lord’. Prophets had to be treated rightly. Elisha’s reply was
to explain to Hazael what he had seen in his own heart. He had received knowledge
from YHWH that in the future Hazael would become an enemy of Israel and would
invade and oppress Israel in the cruellest way. The descriptions do not, however,
make Hazael out to be particularly cruel. What is described were the normal
methods of warfare. But see Amos 1:3-5.
SIMEO , "ELISHA PREDICTS THE ATROCIOUS ACTS OF HAZAEL
2 Kings 8:12. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I
know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel.
TO reconcile Divine foreknowledge with the contingency of human events is a
difficulty, which probably will never be solved in this present state of our existence.
Yet, if it cannot be explained, it may be illustrated in some measure, and in such a
way as to afford considerable satisfaction to the mind. In the history of which our
text is a part, there is a circumstance which reflects some light upon it. Benhadad,
king of Syria, was ill; and, hearing that Elisha was come into his county, he sent his
servant Hazael, with very large and munificent presents, to inquire whether he
should recover of his disease. The question being asked by Hazael, Elisha told him,
that his master “might certainly recover;” but yet “should surely die [ ote: ver.
10.].” Here we see the termination of the disorder doubtful in one view, but certain
in another: he might recover, because his constitution was strong enough to
withstand the disorder; but he should not recover, because God foresaw that a
measure would be resorted to, which would render the disorder fatal. Thus it is also
with our spiritual maladies: they may, with the use of God’s appointed remedies, be
healed; but God knows infallibly whether we shall make use of those remedies, and,
consequently, sees already what the event will be: in his eyes, it is as certain as if it
had already taken place; but his view of it does not at all affect its contingency with
respect to us.
ot intending to prosecute this subject any farther, we merely glance at it, as
introductory to that on which the issue of the king’s disorder turned. There was in
the heart of Hazael a root of evil, which would induce him to destroy the king, in
order to gain possession of his throne: and that root springing up, would bring forth
such terrible fruits, as could not be contemplated without the most pungent sorrow.
This the prophet saw, and deeply lamented; insomuch, that Hazael, astonished at
the fixedness of the prophet’s countenance, and at the tears which he shed, asked
him with great emotion, “Why weepeth my lord?” The prophet told him, that he

61. wept at the prospect of the horrible cruelties, which, however incapable of
committing them he might now think himself, he would certainly ere long commit.
This is the point to which we would now call your attention: and it is well calculated
to shew us,
I. How unconscious we are of our own depravity—
Hazael could not conceive it possible that the prophet’s predictions respecting him
should ever be fulfilled —
[Doubtless the predicted evils were very terrible [ ote: ver. 12.]: nor do we wonder
that Hazael should ask so pointedly, “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
great thing [ ote: This is supposed by some to mean, ‘How can so insignificant a
creature as I am, do such great things?’ But the common interpretation seems the
more natural, more especially as the situation he occupied under Benhadad
rendered the performance of such things not so very impracticable, if he should ever
be disposed to do them.]?” But he was a stranger to his own heart, and ignorant of
the effect which a change of circumstances may produce in our dispositions and
conduct — — — The event soon verified all that the prophet had spoken concerning
him: for, immediately on his return to his master, he gave a false report of the
prophet’s answer, and (probably under a pretence of using the best means for his
recovery) adopted a measure, which he had reason to expect would speedily put a
period to his existence. Having by these means succeeded to the throne, he soon
waged war with Israel, and committed all those shocking cruelties, at the very
mention of which he had once shrunk back with horror [ ote: ver. 15 and 2 Kings
13:3; 2 Kings 13:7.].]
Thus also do we question the representations which God gives respecting us—
[These are doubtless very humiliating, both in the Old Testament and the ew
[ ote: Jeremiah 17:9; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:10-19; Romans 8:7.]
— — — And we are ready to account them libels upon human nature. If we have
been moral and sober hitherto, we have no conception that we could ever be induced
to “run to the same excess of riot” as others have done. But may we not all find in
ourselves the seeds of those iniquities, which in others have obtained their full
growth? Have we not seen too, in many instances, that persons who once thought
themselves as superior to temptation as we now do, have sunk into the grossest
habits of vice, and astonished the world with their iniquities? We can know but little
of ourselves, if we have not learned to ascribe to God alone whatever difference
there may be found between us and others [ ote: 1 Corinthians 4:7.].]
Let us learn then from the prophet,
II. What ought to he the frame of our minds in relation to it—
If we have not been left by God to perpetrate the more heinous crimes to which we

62. have been tempted, still it will be proper for us to consider what our frame should
be,
1. In reference to our depravity, so far as we have discovered it—
[Elisha wept at the contemplation of the future crimes of Hazael: and should not we
weep at the evils of our own hearts, yea at the evils which we have actually
committed? Verily, the best of us have done enough to humble us in the dust, and to
make us weep with the deepest self-abasement. Let us look back and think of our
past conduct towards God as our Sovereign, towards Jesus as our Redeemer, and
towards the Holy Spirit, who has been striving with us all our days — — — Is here
no cause for tears? If Prophets and Apostles wept so bitterly for others who kept not
God’s law, should not we for ourselves [ ote: Psalms 119:136; Jeremiah 13:17;
Romans 9:1-3; Philippians 3:18.]? Yes, the best of us, as well as the worst, needs to
“go on his way weeping,” and can only hope to “reap in joy,” when he shall have
humbly “sown in tears”— — —]
2. In reference to that which is yet hid from our eyes—
[Much, very much, there is in us, which we have never yet seen: either we have
never been brought into situations to call it forth, or God has mercifully withheld us
from perpetrating all that was in our hearts. But our hearts are altogether corrupt;
and therefore we should tremble, yea and “work out our salvation with fear and
trembling,” even to our latest hour: “we should not be high-minded, but fear;”
“watching continually and praying, that we may not enter into temptation.” The
confidence of Peter, as well as that of Hazael, may be a lesson to us. To God then
must we look to “keep us by his power,” even to Him who alone “can keep us from
falling, and present us faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”]
That we may yet further improve this subject, let us learn,
1. To be thankful for God’s grace—
[What is the reason that we have not been as vile as the most abandoned of
mankind? Are we made of any better materials than they? or have we in ourselves
any more strength than they? o: we owe it entirely to the distinguishing grace of
God. It is He who has “hedged up our way,” and even in many instances “built a
wall against us,” that we might not fall into those temptations which would have
utterly overwhelmed us: “He kept us, though we knew him not;” and “by his grace
alone we are what we are.” O let us adore and magnify him for all his goodness
towards us; and when we see others wallowing in iniquity, remember who alone has
made us to differ from them!]
2. To be submissive to his providence—
[It may be that God has been pleased to disappoint us in some things which we have
set our heart upon; and we have been grieved and vexed at the dispensation. But

63. how little do we know what would have been the effect of success! Perhaps the
attainment of our wishes would have operated as Hazael’s advancement did on him,
and we should have long before this time have been even monsters in iniquity. At all
events we have reason to believe that what we have lost was only like thick clay,
which would have impeded us greatly in our Christian course. Perhaps God has
seen fit to lay upon us some heavy affliction. Are we sure it was not necessary to lead
us to deeper views of our own corruption, and to a more entire dependence on the
Lord Jesus? We may be sure at least that our afflictions have been sent, as the
pruning-knife, to lop off our luxuriant branches, and to make us more fruitful in the
fruits of righteousness to God’s praise and glory.]
3. To pant after his glory—
[It is in heaven alone that we shall be free from sin. Whilst we are in the body, we
are exposed to the assaults of that roaring lion, that seeketh to devour us. True it is,
we have God’s promises to trust unto; but true it is also that we have wicked and
deceitful hearts; and if we had attained as much as ever the Apostle Paul did, we
must still, like him, “keep under our body, and bring it into subjection, lest by any
means, after having preached to others, we should be cast away ourselves.” Let us
then “look for, and haste unto, the coming of the day of Christ,” even that blessed
day, when all sin shall be purged from our hearts, and “all tears be wiped from our
eyes.”]
13 Hazael said, “How could your servant, a mere
dog, accomplish such a feat?”
“The Lord has shown me that you will become
king of Aram,” answered Elisha.
BAR ES, "But what, is thy servant a dog? - This is a mistranslation, and
conveys to the English reader a sense quite different from that of the original. Hazael’s
speech runs thus - “But what is thy servant, this dog, that he should do this great thing?”
He does not shrink from Elisha’s words, or mean to say that he would be a dog, could he
act so cruelly as Elisha predicts he will. On the contrary, Elisha’s prediction has raised
his hopes, and his only doubt is whether so much good fortune (“this great thing”) can
be in store for one so mean. “Dog” here, as generally (though not always) in Scripture,
has the sense of “mean,” “low,” “contemptible.”

64. CLARKE, "But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great things
- I believe this verse to be wrongly interpreted by the general run of commentators. It is
generally understood that Hazael was struck with horror at the prediction; that these
cruelties were most alien from his mind; that he then felt distressed and offended at the
imputation of such evils to him; and yet, so little did he know his own heart, that when
he got power, and had opportunity, he did the whole with a willing heart and a ready
hand. On the contrary, I think he was delighted at the prospect; and his question rather
implies a doubt whether a person so inconsiderable as he is shall ever have it in his
power to do such great, not such evil things; for, in his sight, they had no turpitude. The
Hebrew text stands thus: ‫הזה‬ ‫הגדול‬ ‫הדבר‬ ‫יעשה‬ ‫כי‬ ‫הכלב‬ ‫עבדך‬ ‫מה‬ ‫כי‬ ki mah abdecha hakkeleb, ki
yaaseh haddabar haggadol hazzeh? “But, what! thy servant, this dog! that he should do this
great work!” Or, “Can such a poor, worthless fellow, such a dead dog, [ᆇ κυων ᆇ τεθνηκως,
Sept.], perform such mighty actions? thou fillest me with surprise.” And that this is the
true sense, his immediate murder of his master on his return fully proves. “Our common
version of these words of Hazael,” as Mr. Patten observes, “has stood in the front of
many a fine declamation utterly wide of his real sentiment. His exclamation was not the
result of horror; his expression has no tincture of it; but of the unexpected glimpse of a
crown! The prophet’s answer is plainly calculated to satisfy the astonishment he had
excited. A dog bears not, in Scripture, the character of a cruel, but of a despicable
animal; nor does he who is shocked with its barbarity call it a Great deed.” - David
Vindicated.
GILL, "And Hazael said, but what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do
this great thing?.... What dost thou take me to be, a vile, impudent, fierce, and cruel
creature, as a dog, to be guilty of so great inhumanity and barbarity as this? or what is
thy servant? a dog, a mean abject creature, of no power and authority, incapable of doing
such great things spoken of? to which sense not only what is predicted of him, said to be
great, inclines, but what follows:
and Elisha answered, the Lord hath showed me that thou shall be king over
Syria; and that thou shalt have power enough to do this; this declaration, according to
Ben Gersom, was the anointing of him, predicted 1Ki_19:15.
HE RY, "4. Hazael was greatly surprised at this prediction (2Ki_8:13): What, says
he, Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? This great thing he looks
upon to be, (1.) An act of great power, not to be done but by a crowned head. “It must be
some mighty potentate that can think to prevail thus against Israel, and therefore not I.”
Many are raised to that dominion which they never thought of and it often proves to
their own hurt, Ecc_8:9. (2.) An act of great barbarity, which could not be done but by
one lost to all honour and virtue: “Therefore,” says he, “it is what I shall never find in my
heart to be guilty of: Is thy servant a dog, to rend, and tear, and devour? Unless I were a
dog, I could not do it.” See here, [1.] What a bad opinion he had of the sin; he looked
upon it to be great wickedness, fitter for a brute, for a beast of prey, to do than a man.
Note, It is possible for a wicked man, under the convictions and restraints of natural
conscience, to express great abhorrence of a sin, and yet afterwards to be well reconciled
to it. [2.] What a good opinion he had of himself, how much better than he deserved; he
thought it impossible he should do such barbarous things as the prophet foresaw. Note,
We are apt to think ourselves sufficiently armed against those sins which yet we are

65. afterwards overcome by, as Peter, Mat_26:35.
K&D, "But when Hazael replied in feigned humility, What is thy servant, the dog (i.e.,
so base a fellow: for ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶⅴ see at 1Sa_24:15), that he should do such great things? Elisha
said to him, “Jehovah has shown thee to me as king over Aram;” whereupon Hazael
returned to his lord, brought him the pretended answer of Elisha that he would live
(recover), and the next day suffocated him with a cloth dipped in water. ‫ר‬ ֵ ְ‫כ‬ ַ‫,מ‬ from ‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָⅴ,
to plait or twist, literally, anything twisted; not, however, a net for gnats or flies (Joseph.,
J. D. Mich., etc.), but a twisted thick cloth, which when dipped in water became so thick,
that when it was spread over the face of the sick man it was sufficient to suffocate him.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:13. Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog? &c. — The
expression is used in Scripture to signify vile and unworthy, as in 2 Samuel 3:8; 2
Samuel 9:8; and fierce, barbarous, and inhuman, Psalms 22:16; Psalms 22:20;
Psalms 59:6. That he should do this great thing — So he terms it, as being, 1st, A
thing that supposed great power, and not to be done but by a crowned head: as if he
had said, It must be some mighty potentate that must prevail thus against Israel,
and therefore not I. Accordingly, the Hebrew may be rendered, What! thy servant, a
dog! that he should do this great thing! 2d, An act of great barbarity, which could
not be done but by a person lost to all honour and virtue. This is the sense in which
Hazael’s words have been generally understood; and it seems evidently the true
sense. He felt, at this time, no inclination to be so barbarous and cruel as the
foregoing words of Elisha implied, and he wondered that the prophet should
suppose him capable of ever acting in such a manner. Is thy servant a dog, to rend,
and tear, and devour? Unless I were a dog I could not do it. He was evidently
startled at the mention of the cruelties which the prophet foretold he should
perpetrate, and thought it impossible he should ever be guilty of them. Thus we are
very apt to think ourselves sufficiently secure against the commission of those sins
which yet we are afterward overcome by, and practise. The Lord hath showed me
that thou shalt be king over Syria — And then, when thou shalt have the power,
thou wilt have the will to commit these enormities and barbarities, and actually wilt
commit them. Those who are little and low in the world, cannot imagine how strong
the temptations of power and prosperity are, to which if they ever arrive, they will
find how deceitful their hearts were, and how much more corrupt than they
suspected.
COKE, "2 Kings 8:13. Hazael said, But what, &c.— When the prophet with tears
foretold to Hazael what calamities he should hereafter bring upon Israel, his
ambition instantly took fire, and he cried out with transport, "What! thy servant! a
dog! that he should do the great [word] deed!" This is the literal translation of the
passage. That of our Bible has stood in the front of many a fine declamation utterly
wide of the real sentiment of Hazael. His exclamation was not the result of horror;
his expression has no tincture of it, but of the unexpected glimpse of a crown. The
prophet's answer is plainly calculated to satisfy the astonishment that he had

66. excited: a dog bears not in Scripture the character of a cruel, but of a despicable
animal; nor does he who is shocked with barbarity call it a GREAT deed. We may
also observe, that it is evident from this transaction, that Hazael was now entirely
ignorant of his designation to the throne of Syria, and consequently could not have
been anointed by Elijah, 1 Kings 19:15. We must therefore take the command, in a
figurative sense, to denote no more than God's purpose or determination that
Hazael should succeed to the throne of Syria, to execute the designs of his
providence upon the people of Israel, as Cyrus for the same reason is called the
Lord's anointed; Isaiah 45:1 though he was never properly anointed by God: or, if
we take it in a literal sense, we must suppose some reason why Elijah waved the
execution of that command, which probably might be his foresight of the many
calamities that Hazael, when advanced to the crown, would bring upon Israel.
ELLICOTT, "(13) But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great
thing?—Rather, (Thou canst not mean it;) for what is the dog thy servant that he
should do, &c. Hazael answers in a tone of pretended amazement and self-
depreciation. The exaggerated humility of his language betrays the hypocrite.
The Lord hath shewed me.—Comp. 1 Kings 19:15, where this same fact was
revealed to Elijah. Literally, Jehovah hath made me see thee king. How Hazael took
this announcement we are not told. Bähr says, “Startled by the revelation of his
secret plans, Hazael turned away without answering the earnest words of the
prophet.”
ISBET, "BEWARE!
‘Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?’
2 Kings 8:13
It is a common saying that we can never tell to what we may come. He who is now
the greatest criminal was once an innocent child, and the greatest saint may one day
become the worst of sinners. There is no reason to suppose that Hazael spoke
insincerely when, on Elisha’s foretelling the cruelties he would one day inflict on the
children of Israel, he exclaimed with horror, ‘But what! is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this great thing?’ As much as to say, ‘What do you take me for; shall I,
who am gentle and kind and who hate cruelty, ever sink so low? o! thy servant is
not a dog.’ And yet he did commit these cruelties when the acquisition of the
kingdom of Syria had developed germs of wickedness which before temptation
revealed them he did not know that he possessed. The lesson we are to learn from
this history is that it is very easy to fall—that, indeed, it is impossible not to fall if we
live away from the Fountain of all goodness, the Source of all strength.
Let any one consider the character of the first and last temptation in a series of
temptations. The first time the temptation occurs to us to commit some pleasant but
sinful act, there is a shudder and a horror and a feeling of impossibility. ‘I cannot,
cannot do it,’ we say. ‘Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?’ The
next time the tempting thought comes to our mind it is treated with greater civility,

67. it is a more welcome guest. We begin now to reason with it, instead of dashing it
from us, which would have been the wisest course. Then we ask ourselves, is it really
so bad after all? How can this be such a very great sin when every day thousands
whom the world calls respectable commit it? At last the evil thought passes into the
evil act.
I. This is every day illustrated by the liar.—We know what horror the child who has
been trained to love truth feels when first the temptation arises in his mind to
shelter himself from punishment by telling a lie. ‘How can I do this great wickedness
and sin against God?’ If he yields to the temptation, he is ashamed and full of
remorse because the brightness of his truthful soul has been tarnished by a first lie.
And then when years of untruthfulness have passed over his head he begins to
consider a truthful man almost a fool, believing as he does that deceit and
untruthfulness are the ordinary unavoidable means of gaining our ends in the
world. At last he arrives at the liar’s last stage, which is to believe his own lies.
II. Or take an illustration from the easy descent into the hell of drunkenness.—Some
of the most gifted of our race have been drunkards, and there are at present about
600,000 confirmed drunkards in Great Britain. Do you think they became
drunkards the moment they tasted alcohol? o, the time was when many of them
looked upon drunkenness with the same abhorrence that Hazael felt for cruelty. ‘Is
thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?’ The first time they tasted
intoxicating liquor, as children, they probably disliked it very much; but boys
fancied that it was a manly thing to drink, and when they ceased to be boys they did
not like to resist the apparent good fellowship of friendly glasses. Or some sorrow
drove them to drown their senses in the drunkard’s cup of forgetfulness. There is
only one way by which any man ever became a drunkard, and that is by growing
fond of alcohol, at first in moderate drinking—day by day a little increased, year by
year a little multiplied by the solitary becoming the frequent, and the frequent the
habitual, and the habitual the all-but-inevitable transgression.
‘We are not worst at once: the course of evil
Begins so slowly and from such slight source,
An infant’s hand might stem the breach with clay:
But let the stream grow wider, and philosophy,
Aye, and religion too, may strive in vain
To stem the headlong current.’
But indeed all sin approaches in the same gradual way.
Rev. E. J. Hardy.
Illustrations
(1) ‘How easily do self-indulgent habits come upon us, and how surely do they lead
to great crimes. George Eliot gives in Romola the picture of a man—good, generous,
handsome, with all the appliances and means of doing good—who “because he tried
to slip away from everything that was unpleasant, and cared for nothing so much as
his own safety, came at last to commit some of the basest deeds such as make men

68. infamous.” So true is it that
Small habits well pursued betimes
May reach the dignity of crimes.’
(2) ‘The holy man who exclaimed as he saw a criminal led to execution: “There goes
me but for the grace of God,” was not exaggerating, but only speaking from
observation and experience.’
(3) ‘As our Lord wept over the fate of Jerusalem, so the prophet wept as he foresaw
the evils which Hazael would inflict on his people. But how little we know ourselves.
Hazael could not stand the steadfast eye of the prophet, and asked in amazement
what he took him to be, that he could prognosticate such a future. We may well
appropriate the Apostle’s words, “Lord, is it I?” for there is no limit to the lengths
of sin to which we may be led, apart from the grace of God.’
PETT, "‘And Hazael said, “But what is your servant, who is but a dog, that he
should do this great thing?” And Elisha answered, “YHWH has shown me that you
will be king over Aram.” ’
Hazael sought to convince Elisha that he had no such ideas in mind. He pointed out
that he was only a humble servant (‘a dog’), not one who could do great exploits. He
may, however, simply have been prevaricating, and may already have had such
ideas in his heart. Elisha, however, bluntly declared to him that YHWH had shown
him that Hazael would become king of Aram.
BI, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?
Self-deception
No doubt the Syrian was perfectly sincere in this question. He had seen the tears which
roiled down the aged prophet’s wrinkled face as he thought of the woes which, by the
strong right hand of the rough soldier, would come to his beloved people. He had heard
the startling announcement that he should go forth on a mission of destruction, swift,
terrible, and unsparing, and his mind could not admit the idea that his heart could
become thus ruthless, or his arm thus potent. He was but a captain of the Syrian host,
living only on the favour of his master, and he could not understand how he could have
the power to effect such wondrous deeds. He was not yet dead to the common feelings of
humanity, and could not think that thus wantonly, thus brutally, thus recklessly, he
could plant his iron heel on all most sacred and tender in human life. Yet he went away
from the prophet straightway to enter on his career of ambition and blood. The next day
saw him standing as an assassin by the bedside of the master who had loaded him with
favours,—the next he was sitting as a proud usurper on the throne—and, step by step, he
rushed on in that downward course of crime that had been sketched out for him,
verifying every word that the man of God had uttered, and filling up the measure of
those iniquities which drew down the stroke of judgment. Thus miserably was Hazael
self-deceived. Probably he had never spent a solitary hour in studying his heart, and thus
ignorant of himself, he cherished a confidence in himself and his own virtue, the utter
folly of which was soon manifest. Was his case an exceptional one? Nothing is more
common than such mistakes of men as to their own character, their special dangers,

69. their power of resistance to evil. Men who have wonderful acquirements and extensive
knowledge, who can discuss the problems of philosophy, and are familiar with all the
discoveries of science, nay, who are great students of human character, and the
influences by which it is formed; men who, in fact, pride themselves upon their
acquaintance with human nature, display the most wretched ignorance, and fall into the
most miserable errors in relation to themselves. There are none of us, perhaps, wholly
exempt from the evil, though in the case of some it is more fully developed; but wherever
it is, it must be a source of weakness to the soul. To believe we are strong where we are
lamentably feeble,—to knew nothing as to the sin which easily besets us, and to be
unprepared to resist its attacks,—to cherish assurance of easy victory when we are laying
ourselves open to certain defeat, is surely no slight injury to the soul. It exposes to
dangers against which we ought ever to be on the watch. Of this self-deception, its
causes and results, it is our purpose to speak here, hoping to draw from the case of
Hazael lessons of solemn and impressive warning.
I. Let us mark its causes. Men do not care to know themselves, and therefore do not
study their own hearts. They want know every thing and every one but themselves. They
would fain tear away the veil of mystery, and learn the wonders of the spiritual, traverse
the Universe, measure the Infinite, and understand the Eternal. But they care not for
knowing that which concerns them most—the true character of their own souls. Self-
examination is a duty which we are always able to put off. The results of negligence’ are
not at once apparent to ourselves, while others are scarcely able to detect them at all, and
thus it is too often postponed to what we deem the more urgent pressure of other calls. It
shares the common fate of work that may be done at any time—no time is fixed for it at
all. So long as all goes prosperously without, as there is no violent shock to disturb the
too complacent estimate we are apt to form of ourselves and our own performances, or
so long as we are occupied in the active duties of the world or the Church, there is but
little opportunity, and less disposition for us to turn the thoughts in upon ourselves with
the view of ascertaining the true state of our own hearts. Very often does affliction thus
become a blessing to our souls. It compels retirement,—it affords leisure for thought, Pit
shuts out from us a thousand influences that bewilder and mislead,—it disposes to
careful searching of heart. Just in the same proportion are times of unbroken prosperity
dangerous, from their inevitable tendency to hurry the spirit on in a whirl of perpetual
excitement and pleasure,—to intoxicate it with high thoughts of its own capacities and
achievements,—to induce a sense of security at the very hour that the danger may be
most imminent, and the necessity for stern, manly resistance greatest. But we must not
forget that with all our efforts to know ourselves,—however sincerely they may be
commenced, and however diligently prosecuted—there are influences which will deceive
and baffle our most careful scrutiny. We can scarcely conceal from ourselves the fact that
circumstances often reveal to a man himself, and to others what he really is, and that in a
good as well as bad sense. There are powers which sometimes lie undeveloped in the
mind just because there have not been opportunities for their display, until some sudden
circumstance arise to call them forth, and the man rises to the grandeur of the occasion.
So, even in our own experience, we have often seen hours of affliction call forth heroic
qualities of heart, which in brighter and happier days lay inactive. There are often depths
of depravity in human hearts unsuspected and unrevealed till some temptation, perhaps
more subtle or more powerful than ordinary, or coming possibly at a time of special
weakness, serves to disclose the sad secret. The enemy has planned an assault with
consummate craft, he comes in some unguarded hour, and then there start up, wormed
into sudden life, passions that had lain utterly dormant, and men are drawn into sins
from the very mention of which at other moments they would have recoiled with horror.

70. Hazael might have passed through life with the reputation of a bravo captain, a loyal
subject, a faithful friend; others would never have dreamed of the fierce passions that
were surging within his breast, and seeking some outlet, had not temptation assailed
him, and revealed the cruelty, the ambition, the lust which converted him into a traitor,
a murderer, a monster. So may it be with us. These hearts are both deceitful and
desperately wicked, and their deceit is shown chiefly in hiding their wickedness. Ever are
they blinding us to the existence of the evils we have most to dread, and persuading us
that we possess some good which has no reality but in the fancies of our own deluded
pride and self-confidence. They are like treacherous pools grown over with rich verdure,
that conceals the dark deep waters of death that lie below. Experience is truly the
sternest of teachers; there are no lessons so valuable as his; none, perhaps, that are so
likely to be remembered. Yet here he is continually found powerless. Our hearts find a
thousand excuses. Pride induces forgetfulness, and so we fall into the same error, to
expiate it by the same penalty. It seems to require a thousand warnings to make us feel
what Solomon teaches, himself having learned it only by a discipline the most humbling,
“He that trusteth his own heart is a fool.” There is, too, a blinding influence in self-love,
which aids the deception of which we speak. The standards by which, for the most part,
we judge ourselves are very different from those which we apply to other men. To all this
Satan ministers by the craft with which he ever seeks to work out his purposes. He is like
a skilful general who does not at once unmask his batteries and attack the fortress in its
strongest points, but, on the contrary, makes gradual approaches, accustoms his troops
to victory, and depresses his foes by slight advantages gained at weak places in the lines
of defence, meanwhile husbanding his resources and concealing his preparation, until
the time comes to spring the mine and lay low the citadel. Rarely is it his policy to seduce
at once to some heinous transgression.
II. The result. It is here in the case of Hazael, and it has been seen in multitudes besides.
Men, unconscious of their own feebleness, blind to the dangers which surround them,
assured of their own security, and infatuated by that wretched self-love which makes
them believe that they cannot sink to the same depths of sin as others, go on until they
are betrayed into some act of wickedness which covers them with shame. It was thus
with Peter. Little could he calculate the results of that self-dependence which he was
nurturing within his breast; he could never lose his love or forfeit his loyalty to the
Master to whom his heart was so strongly attached. The Lord warned him in common
with others. Or take the case of Lot: a young man, full of life, energy, and spirit, he was
about to part from his honoured uncle, having chosen the fair city of Sodom for his
residence. True, the people were very wicked, but the land was very rich. True, he must
dwell in the midst of much that would vex his righteous soul. But what of that? there was
money to be made—his herds would increase—he would be a great man, and that with
him, as with too many still, was the grand, the deciding point—he need not be partaker
in the sins of those among whom he dwelt; he worshipped God, and could worship Him
in Sodom even as elsewhere. Is it not ever so? Tell that fierce, passionate, wayward
youth, who will grow up to be the murderer: “Those unguarded lusts, to which thou art
giving the reins, will drive thee to foulest crime, and involve thee in most terrible
destruction—thou art sowing the wind, but shalt reap the whirlwind—thy heart will
become the abode of every vile principle—thy life one dark catalogue of sins against God
and man—thy death will be one of ignominy and shame.” Would not his answer be: “Is
thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?” Or he who is now railing against the
truth of God, as if it were a lie. There was an hour when he dared not have spoken thus.
Had you stood by him when first he listened to the demon voice that whispered in his
ear the suggestions of doubt, or when he lisped forth in stammering accents his own first

71. defiance of the Gospel; when first he joined in the laugh against the truth, fancying
himself clever, and bold, and brave, because he had ventured to shock what he called the
prejudices of some earnest servant of God, by holding up to contempt what he deemed
most sacred—had you as an anxious friend given him then the faithful warning, “Beware;
thou art taking the first step on a downward path; thou shalt go on and on to a contempt
of all religion; thou shalt become a poor miserable sceptic, having no faith in thine own
wretched creed, yet labouring to draw others to an acceptance of it”—he would have
laughed you to scorn. “What! am I not to think for myself? must I walk in the old ruts,
and receive the old dogmas, and utter the old shibboleth? because I am not a slave of
prejudice am I become an infidel?” “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?”
There is here to-day a young man just losing the early fervour of his profession—that
first love which seemed once to be so intense that nothing would ever check or damp it.
He is growing more careless; some wound to his self-love, or some idle fancy, has driven
him from a post of Christian labour; he is just beginning to cast off restraints by which
he has hitherto been held. Had you the gift of inspiration could you hold him up before
himself as he will be by and by, a cold, heartless, profitless professor, whose religion is to
him little more than a burden, content with a formal attendance on a Sabbath morning
at the house of God—would he not start back with horror from the vision, and exclaim,
“Oh no! I cannot come to that state of wretched lukewarmness; I do not choose to be
bound as others are; I like to take my own course, but I would not sink to such a level as
that.” There is a man wholly wrapt up in the world. He never thinks, talks, works for
anything else. He might as well, nay, far better, have no soul—he treats it with such utter
indifference. Was he always thus? Ah, no! There was a time when he trembled—kindled
with emotion—felt that one day or other he would be a Christian. He fancied he could
pause at his own pleasure; he never thought it was possible for him to sink into the
selfish unfeeling worldling that he now is. If this be the true account of human nature, if
such be the weakness of our own heart, how manifest the folly and guilt of that pharisaic
spirit in which so many indulge—justifying themselves and condemning their brethren.
Then how does the whole show us the need of that great provision which God has made!
Such being our hearts, thus wayward, thus deceitful, thus ignorant, what need for that
Holy Ghost who alone can give wisdom, strength, holiness! (J. G. Rogers, B. A.)
Hazael: evil detected
The first mention of Hazael is in the First Book of Kings (1Ki_19:15), where we are told
that Elijah after his return from Horeb anointed him to be a king. The next time he is
spoken of it is as a Prime Minister to the King of Syria, and a messenger sent to the
prophet. Strangely enough, Ben-hadad sends to make inquiry of one who is a servant of
the God repudiated by his own nation. The king wishes to know whether he will recover
from his illness. He sends a present by the hand of Hazael. Some selfish design was
detected therein by the prophet. The prophet, in reply to the inquiry, says that Ben-
hadad may, in the ordinary course of things, recover, but he soon sees that a fatal end is
at hand; he suspects a sinister design in the messenger. Shuddering awe steals over the
prophet. Tears begin to flow down the cheeks, but no word comes from the lips. A vision
is before Elisha’s eyes. Hazael waits. At length he asks, “Why weepeth my lord?” Then
the prophet foretells what Hazael himself will do, desolating lands and destroying the
defenceless. Hazael exclaims, “Am I a dog, that I should do this great thing?”—meaning
either that he was not so low down as to do such evil, or that he, a mere dog, could not
accomplish so much. This in harmony with the revised rendering, The probable
intention was to repudiate the opinion formed of him by the prophet as being evil and

72. unworthy. He half suspected the tears had reference to the evil he would do, and yet he
seems not to have acknowledged to himself how powerful were the germs of evil in him
for working wrong to others, and especially how treacherous were his secret plottings
against the king.
1. The wicked propensities in our hearts are oft hidden from us. We are ignorant of
the capabilities for evil and for good that lie in us. Hazael knew not his own heart. He
would not have acknowledged that he was so ambitious, unscrupulous, or
murderous. We have all a realm of mystery within. There are many offshoots in the
dark passages of the heart. Few dare to lift the thick veil that hangs over some of
them. We have secret rooms, only revealed by the moving of sliding panels. The
panels are sometimes not easily distinguishable. We are deceived in ourselves. We
are not born utterly depraved, but our natures, like a silent machine, turn out
incessantly sins of various shades and degrees of enormity. One piece of ploughed
ground in winter appears as brown and free from weeds as another, but let the rains
descend and the spring sunshine rest upon it, then up will come the weeds choking
the young crop of grain. So with hearts. One man may be like another for a time, but
soon circumstances will show what evil is hidden in the soul of one and goodness
developed in the other. Both may be ignorant of what can be developed. Irwine the
common-sense vicar said to his former pupil Donnithorne: “A man can never do
anything at variance with his own nature. He carries within him the germs of his
most exceptional action; and if we wise people make eminent fools of ourselves on
any particular occasion, we must endure the legitimate conclusion that we carry a
few grains of folly to our ounce of wisdom.”
2. If certain evils existent in germs in our souls were revealed, we should possibly
deny their presence. We are like Hazael, unwilling to have a poor or bad opinion of
ourselves. We see our portrait reflected in the camera, but we go away and
“straightway” forget what manner of men we are. That amiable-looking boy at school
would repudiate the possibility of his ever breaking a mother’s heart by his wildness
and gambling. That proud bridegroom would repudiate the possibility of his ever
speaking harshly or treating brutally that trusting, orange-blossom-crowned girl
whose rounded arm rests on his, and whose full eyes reflect his love. The “I will
cherish” becomes at times the “I have crushed.” That cultured man, noble in mien
and lofty in position, would repudiate the suggestion that his little weakness would
one day bring him down to the level of the poor fellow, who with tattered garb and
blotched face hangs round the corner public waiting to earn a copper by holding a
horse. Circumstances are so powerful in developing changes of mind we little
conceived. The evil course we enter upon is like getting on a trolly on the inclined
plane; if we once lose power over it, we go rushing down to destruction at a rate
constantly accelerated.
3. All the hidden sin of the soul can be revealed by God. Elisha was enabled to reveal
Hazael to himself. God gave him the power. God’s knowledge of us is not the result of
observation and judgment, as man gains knowledge of his fellow, but is absolute
knowledge. Christ when on earth needed not that any should testify of men, for He
“knew what was in man.” Without attempting to prove to men that they were
sinners, He held up the torch of truth before the conscience, and made men convict
themselves; as when Peter said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”; or
when the young ruler went away sadly because he had great possessions; or when
accusers of a weak woman sunk away from Him who said, “He that is without sin let
him cast the first stone at her.” As a skilful musician can place his fingers on the keys
and bring out sweetest music or reveal the defects of the instrument, so Christ

73. touched the human soul and revealed its hidden truth or sounded its discordant
notes. He shows us that to be sinful is bad enough, but that to be hardened and
unabashed therein is frightful.
4. When the sinful state is revealed, alas! warning is not always taken. Hazael should
have taken the words of the prophet as an intimation that he was to be merciful to
others and to himself. But, however he may shake and shudder at the image of
himself presented, he turns not away from the evil. The “means to do ill deed made
ill deeds done.” Every man has need to be watchful. The cable is not stronger than
the weakest link, nor the character than the hidden meanness. The secret sin does
not grow in a day, though it may germinate in a moment. A Scotch preacher
beautifully illustrated this by referring to the tiny seed dropped by the passing bird
into a crevice of a rock, and which, sprouting, grew, and in process of years by its
mighty roots moved the massive rock until it toppled over into the loch. So we must
beware of the trifling thought of sin. We must search by the power of God’s Spirit.
Let us be sincere in the searching, and firm in the eviction of the hidden evil. Is it evil
temper, cheating, backbiting, murdering character, sly tippling or open drunkenness,
harshness and cruelty? Away wit]i it, in God’s strength! (F. Hastings.)
“Is thy servant a dog?”
Hazael came to the prophet to inquire whether his master would recover from his
sickness. The answer is ambiguous. So far as the disease itself was concerned, he might
recover. Yet his days were numbered; and the purpose to kill him was already being
formed in the heart of his hitherto faithful servant. The prophet saw before him not only
the king’s enemy, but also the man who would one way inflict dire evils upon Israel. The
thought of the horrors about to come to his people made the man of God weep. Hazael
asks the cause of his sorrow. Elisha tells him frankly, and in the plainest terms, what was
in the no very distant future. Hazael starts back with horror when he sees in this
prophetic mirror the image of his own baseness. “Is thy servant a dog?” The prophet
seems to evade the question; and yet in his reply we have the full and complete
explanation, if not to Hazael, at least to us, of all that occurred. “The Lord hath showed
me that thou shalt be king over Syria.” Is this man, then, a base and guilty hypocrite? Is
he a man who hides under the cloak of pretended affection for his master and reverence
for humanity his fiendish designs? The answer we give to these questions will determine
for us the use to be made of this portion of sacred history. I am willing to take the man’s
own estimate of himself as being, on the whole, the best and the truest. I believe for the
moment he was really appalled at the description of his future life; and that when he
uttered this exclamation, he was unable to realise it possible that he should ever be guilty
of the deeds named by the prophet. How, then, you may say, are we to account for the
fact that he actually did all that Elisha foretold, if he was not a hypocrite? There are some
who think the subsequent murder an accident, so far as Hazael was concerned. I fear this
theory is destitute of proof. At all events, we have the record of his dealings with Israel
fully corroborating the statements of the prophet.
I. Hazael failed to take into account the influence of circumstances upon human
character. There is a doctrine of circumstances utterly at variance, not only with the
teachings of Scripture, but also with the experience and deepest convictions of
mankind—a doctrine which asserts, or appears to assert, that circumstances make men,
and that the only difference between the noblest saint and the basest criminal is a
difference simply in the structure of the brain, and the character of the surroundings.

74. Some men teach this, but no man believes it, or acts upon it, either in his feelings
respecting his own deeds, or his judgments of the moral character of the actions of his
friend. But we must, while rejecting a doctrine so monstrous, yet remember that, in a
very real sense, circumstances have a power over character and life.
II. Circumstances bring men into new temptations never felt before. Hazael, King of
Syria, or even with the throne within his reach, would be a very different person from
Hazael, the honoured servant of his master. Hazael’s language must not be regarded as
hypocritical, but as the language of one who had not sounded the depths of his own
character, and who knew nothing of the changes the altered circumstances would bring
to him.
III. My text seems to suggest that much of what passes for virtue amongst us may
simply be vice not manifested by circumstances. How much do women who are
sometimes boastful owe to the fact that the world is harder in its judgments on their sins
than in the case of the other sex! How much to the fact that they are more protected by
circumstances! Let conscience utter its voice! Not always because you were holier or
truer to God than your brother; but because you were never exposed to his temptations,
because in the providence of God you have been more protected from yourself or others.
The rich man knows nothing of the temptations of the man hard pressed by
circumstances, and hence his hard and unjust censures. The poor man, protected by his
very poverty, knows not the temptations of those nursed in the lap of wealth; hence,
when he hears of the sins of the other, he flatters himself on his superiority. He owes it
not to his moral heroism, but to his surroundings. I have spoken much of the power of
circumstances. Let no man think he is the creature of his surroundings. By God’s grace
he may rise above them and triumph over them, making his very passions minister to his
success, and making his enemies his benefactors. (J. Fordyce.)
“Is thy servant a dog?”
In the theory of the people of those times, some of the gods could do some things, and
other gods could do some other things. There were special gods, just as there are special
physicians—physicians for the eye; physicians for the ear; physicians for nervous
diseases; physicians for surgical operations; physicians for every separate department of
healing. Though each may do something of everything, yet each has some specialty. And
so it was with these gods. There were gods of hills, and gods of valleys, and gods of this
nation, and gods of that nation, they thought. According to their notion there was a great
variety in the talents and capacities of these gods. Therefore, when any man had any
enterprise to accomplish, or any sickness to be cured, he naturally sought the aid of a
particular sort of god, as we naturally seek a certain kind of practitioner when we are
afflicted with a disease. It is not at all strange, therefore, when Ben-hadad lay sick, and
heard that Elisha was there, that he should have said to himself, “I will try his God.”
“The king said unto Hazael” (who seems to have been his prime minister in general),
“Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the Lord, by
him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease?” That was Oriental. Gifts were not then
considered wrong, and whenever anybody wanted anything it was quite natural that he
should take something with him and get it by purchase; but such things in modern times
take on a different aspect. This venerable old prophet, well advanced in years, fixed his
eyes upon this miscreant with such a piercing glance that the man’s face became
confused, and his colour went and came. It was the most penetrating speech possible.
“And Hazael said, Why weepeth my Lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil

75. that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and
their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up
their women with child. And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this great thing?” It does not seem that the fact that he was to be the King of Syria
disturbed him. Nor was it this that agitated the prophet. It was the sight of the great
cruelty that would follow under his hand when he came to the throne. The prophet saw,
rising in vision before him, wasted provinces; he saw blood flowing down like rivers of
water; he saw rapine and cruelty most barbarous on every side of him. It was the sight of
these terrific national disasters that brought tears to the eyes of the prophet; and it was
the horror of such an administration as was pictured to him that seemed to strike Hazael
with surprise and revolt. “So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said
to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldst surely
recover.” Well, it was almost true; but that which is almost true is a lie. He told the king
a part of what Elisha had said, but he did not tell him the rest. He did not say, “The
prophet declared that thou shalt surely die, although thou mayest recover.” He did not
tell him that the prophet said that he might recover—that there was nothing in the way
of his recovery so far as his disease was concerned. His declaration was, plainly, “He says
that thou shalt recover.” The king was very sick; he was too feeble to help himself; and
perhaps when he was in a slumber Hazael said within himself, “I won’t kill him; I will
just put a wet cloth over his face.” So he dipped the cloth in water and laid it over the
face of the king, who was unable in his extreme weakness to throw it off, and was
suffocated. “It is such an easy way,” Hazael might have said, “for him to die! I have not
shed his blood, thank God. I did not even choke him. I might have done it; but I did not.
I kept my hands off from the Lord’s anointed. I only laid a wet cloth on his face; and if he
could not breathe it was not my fault. Every man must look out for himself.” He might
have reasoned in this way; but it is not likely that he did, because he probably had not
conscience enough to make it necessary. Having in this mild manner disposed of the
king, he became the ruler in his place; and as to what his reign was we are not left in
doubt. We know that he swept through the land, and carried his armies across Palestine,
and clear into the territory of the Philistines. We know that he laid siege to Jerusalem,
and was bought off from it by a present of all the golden vessels contained in the temple.
We know that, in his despotic career, all his victories were stained with blood. We know
that there was no end to the destruction of property which he caused. We know that not
one-half of the wickedness which he performed was foretold by the prophet. We know
that he destroyed men, women, and children without stint. And though we have not a
complete history of the wrongs which he committed, we know that a monster who would
do what we are informed that he did do would not leave anything undone, in the way of
cruelty, which it was in his power to do. Now, you will take notice that at the time when
Hazael came to the prophet, and this vision of his cruelty was made known to him, he
must have had a genuine revulsion from it. It is probable that when the prophet told him
what he saw it shocked him. I think it quite likely that when the prophet told him that he
should reign instead of the king, he said within himself, “Yes, that is what I have been
after; that is what I meant to do”; but when the prophet showed him what should be the
character of his administration, I have no doubt that he said, believing what he said, “I
am not capable of any such thing as that.” He was not yet in power. He was still an
under-officer. He had never been tested. He did not know what supremacy would work
in him. He had not had the responsibility of a kingdom laid upon his shoulders. He did
not know how he would be affected by the indulgence which would come with the
control of unbounded wealth. He did not know what would be the growth of pride in
him. He did not know what would be his appetite for praise. He did not know how his
vanity would be wrought upon. He did not know what fury would be kindled in him by

76. opposition. He did not know what despotic measures he might be compelled by
circumstances to adopt. He doubtless felt as we often do in regard to things which we see
others do, when it seems to us impossible that we should ever do them although we are
made up of the same stuff that they are; and when his future was disclosed to him, when
the veil was rent, and he saw himself as he was to be, at the various stages of his
subsequent history, he shuddered at the sight of it: and he said, “Do you count me a
dog?” and there was no other name so low as that in the Orient. “A dog,” “A dead dog,”
“A dog’s head,” these seem to have been the terms that measured the utmost contumely
and contempt; and he said, “Am I a dog, that you prophesy these things concerning me?”
It was absolutely impossible that he should do them, it seemed to him; and yet he went
on and did them. There may be a question as to whether the prophet was right in laying
before Hazael a statement of the things which were to be fulfilled, that would be in the
nature of yeast, and raise up in him ambitions which could make him faithless to his
king; but it does not appear that the plan of destroying the monarch and occupying his
throne was then for the first time in Hazael’s mind. The prophet did not bring this plan
to pass by tampering with his fidelity in holding out to him the prospect of the sceptre
and the crown. The natural tendency of disclosing the prophet’s vision to Hazael, if
Hazael had been an honest man, instead of inducing him to such a career as lay before
him, would have been to set him to watching himself, that he might prevent the
fulfilment of so dishonouring a prophecy. This case is full of material for inspiration.
One of the first points that I wish to make in connection with the brief history is, that no
one can say beforehand what will be the effect on him of a given situation or a given
temptation. A man may be able to say: “I shall not sin by avarice: I may be put in
circumstances where I shall break down through self-indulgence; but I shall not break
down through avarice. I may be overcome by various appetites; but avarice is not one of
them.” A man may know himself to be safe in that particular regard. Many a man can
say: “Whatever may overcome me in the way of sinfulness, it is not going to be cruelty.”
Many a man is justified in saying: “I know that no circumstances will ever make me
brutal, although there may be circumstances that will make me wicked.” But, as a
general thing, men know so little about themselves that it would not be safe for any man
to say: “I can tell how I should act in any situation where I may be placed; I know that no
temptations can get an entrance into my heart; I know how this, that, and the other
influence would affect me; I know how I should act if I had power.” As when men look
forward into life they are ignorant of what they would do if they were in such and such
situations, or if such and such things were given them; so when men look forward into
life they can form no just estimate of what they would do in avoiding evil One man says:
“Nothing could ever make me a drunkard.” Another man says: “I do not think anything
in the world could make me a thief.” Neither of them knows how he might be wrought
upon until he has been under temptation and trial. Lord Clive, when he got back to
England, and was thinking of his administration in India, and reflecting how, after
having conquered the provinces, he went into the treasure-house of the rajahs, and saw
gold without measure (there silver was counted as nothing; it was always at a discount),
and beheld baskets full of rubies and diamonds, was reported to have said: “My God! I
tremble when I think of the temptation that I was under. I wonder that I came out
honest.” In looking back upon it, and thinking of it, he felt as though tie would not like to
go through the same experience again. He feared that it would not be safe to trust
himself the second time under those circumstances. This is the testimony of a full-grown
man in regard to an extreme instance of liability to temptation, and you cannot tell, until
you have been tried, what you would do in a given situation. Men do not know what
effect flattery will have on them. Here is a bank of snow that lies quietly and stubbornly
over against the north wind, all through January, all through February, and during the

77. fore part of March; and it says, “Do you suppose I would give way to the mild and weak
influence of spring after having resisted the chilling blasts and pinching frosts of
winter?” And yet the sun comes smiling, and laughing, and tickling, and flattering, little
by little; and the bank changes its mind; and gradually it sinks, and sinks; and by and by
it is all gone. A man might just as well undertake to say what he would do if he were
overtaken by a plague, as to say what he would do if he were placed under such and such
circumstances of life. How can a man standing on the cool mountains of Vermont tell
what he would do if he had the yellow fever in New Orleans?:No man can tell, judging
from the present, what he will do if he is situated so and so in the untried future. But one
thing we know: that in regard to all the more generous sentiments and feelings,
pondering upon them, thinking about them, rather tends to enable us to attain them;
and that, on the other hand, in regard to all the inflammatory sides of human nature—
the appetites and passions—pondering them tends to strengthen them. The mere
holding of illicit and unlawful things in a man’s mind is itself a preparation for his
bondage to them. It is not safe for a man to carry about mere thoughts of evil. It is not
safe for a man to imagine what he would do if he had a chance to steal, and to turn the
subject over in his mind. I have no doubt that Hazael thought a good deal about this
matter of succession; and I have no doubt the moment there was a chance—especially
the moment the prophet told him there was a chance—for him to become king he was
prepared to execute the plan which beforehand lie had revolved in his mind and held in
suspense there. I have no doubt that he said to himself a good many times, “Why should
Ben-hadad be on the throne any more than I? He is no better than I am. He is not so
capable as I am. I do not know why a sick king should rule any more than a well general.
It would not be a bad thing for me to put him out of the way and take his place. And if I
did, what would happen? What would I do with his family? Not that I have any idea of
doing any such thing; but in case I should do it what would be the outcome?” And when
a man has thought of a thing in that way once, and twice, and many times, pursuing it
day and night, then after a time it pursues him, and there is a preparation in him for the
execution of such deeds as he has contemplated in case that exigencies arise which
afford him the opportunity. And it is not safe for any man to ponder vice, crime,
anything that corrupts the fibre, the integrity, the purity of his soul. No man knows what
is the fermentation that will go on through his passions, when they are fired in the
direction of evil—for there is a fermentation that goes on through the passions. I can
describe it by no better name than that. We hear it spoken of in philosophy as a ruling
idea—as a monomania. We see manifestations of them in many directions throughout
life. Many men come under the influence of this fermentation, and it heats them; they
think of it till they get hot under it. Many men in regard to the passions open a lurid
imagination, and bring in torrid thoughts, and their soul reeks and ferments. Men are
murderers, and adulterers, and thieves, and drunkards, and gluttons in the realm of the
imagination. And so it is with men in regard to the warfare of life. They suppose that
others are going to break down, but that they themselves are safe; they think that there
is no danger so far as they are concerned; and yet a whole magazine which they are
carrying about with them, being set on fire, explodes, and pours out upon them elements
of destruction. Go to the gaol, and you will find there persons imprisoned for crime who
in the beginning did not think that they should ever become culprits, and who, if the idea
ever occurred to them, said, “I never shall become one.” It is probable that there is not
one in a hundred of those who are in gaol for crime, and whose life is smirched for ever,
that, when young, looked forward to any such career as he has gone through. (H. W.
Beecher.)

78. The devil’s tinder-box
I. The fact that a man has a natural abhorrence of a certain sin is no guarantee that he
will not commit that very sin. Hazael is true to human nature. Sin is insidious, and one
sin is evolved out of another sin. Sin sometimes is like a snowball that is rolled down hill
where the snow is deep. It grows very fast. Beware of the beginnings of sin, for there is
no tropical growth that can develop so rapidly as a sin which springs up in the hot-bed of
a heart that is untrue to God.
II. A good disposition and a general desire to do right is no guarantee that one will not
end his career in outbreaking sin. Hazael was undoubtedly a suave, pleasant-humoured,
amiable man. Ben-hadad had been a great king, and a very good judge of men, and
Hazael’s conduct had been such that his master put implicit trust in him. Hazael was
politic and amiable and all things to all men, but no one suspected him of definite
purpose to do an evil thing, and it is not probable that he had such purposes.
III. Definite principles of righteousness are the only guarantee that one will maintain a
good career to the end. Lacking these, Hazael was overthrown. Lacking these, you will be
overthrown. You are like a ship that has had an accident at sea and, uncontrolled, has
been drifting about at the mercy of wind and wave; but some skilled engineer has gone
down among the chaos of broken machinery and mended it, and the captain, with the
wheel in his hands again, and with all the force of the great engines in the heart of the
vessel answering his command, goes bravely forward in the teeth of the gale. The man or
the woman with a genuine desire to be good, but with no definite committal, drifts about
at the mercy of circumstances. But on the day when you give your heart to Christ, permit
Him to come into your heart and take command, you begin a career that is steadily
onward, doing right whatever the circumstances or the conditions that may surround
you.
IV. We should beware of the character of our secret meditations. Beware of the things
you think about when you are alone, when you are day-dreaming; the things you allow to
come back into the mind and sun themselves in the warmth of your imagination and
desire. Why should you be so careful as to the character of these things? Now that is a
most important question, for I am sure it is a very insidious temptation to people who
have many good desires and good impulses, people who would shrink from any open
proposition to do evil, to assume that there is no harm in allowing the imagination and
musing-room of the soul to harbour unlawful guests. Yet see what it did for Hazael. That
prophecy was like a flash of lightning into the devil’s tinder-box that was in Hazael’s
mind and heart. If his mind and heart had been pure and good he would never have
dreamed of not waiting until God opened the way for him to be king. But his imagination
and heart were all primed, and the devilish fuse was laid, and it needed only the lighted
match to transform this man Hazael, whom everybody supposed, and who thought
himself to be, an amiable good kind of a man, into a liar and a murderer.
V. External circumstances over which we have no control are often a potent factor in our
lives. The coming of Elisha to Damascus and his prophecy concerning Ben-hadad and
Hazael, were factors which brought Hazael’s career to a focus. Something may happen
to-morrow which you know nothing about now, which may cause you to commit a sin
which you would not to-night believe to be possible. (L. A. Banks, D. D.)

79. On the character of Hazael
In this passage of history, an object is presented which deserves our serious attention.
We behold a man who, in one state of life, could not look upon certain crimes without
surprise and horror; who knew so little of himself, as to believe it impossible for him
ever to be concerned in committing them; that same man, by a change of condition,
transformed in all his sentiments, and, as he rose in greatness, rising also in guilt; till at
last he completed that whole character of iniquity which he once detested. Hence the
following observations naturally arise.
I. Sentiments of abhorrence at guilt are natural to the human mind. Hazael’s reply to the
prophet, shows how strongly he felt them. This is the voice of human nature, while it is
not as yet hardened in iniquity. Some vices are indeed more odious to the mind than
others. Providence has wisely pointed the sharpest edge of this natural aversion against
the crimes which are of most pernicious and destructive nature; such as treachery,
oppression, and cruelty. But, in general, the distinction between moral good and evil is
so strongly marked, as to stamp almost every vice with the character of turpitude.
Present to any man, even the most ignorant and untutored, an obvious instance of
injustice, falsehood, or impiety; let him view it in a cool moment, when no passion
blinds, and no interest warps him; and you will find that his mind immediately revolts
against it, as shameful and base, nay, as deserving punishment. Hence, in reasoning on
the characters of others, however men may mistake as to facts, yet they generally praise
and blame according to the principles of sound morality. With respect to their own
character, a notorious partiality too generally misleads their judgment. But it is
remarkable, that no sinner ever avows directly to himself, that he has been guilty of
gross and downright iniquity. Such power the undeniable dignity of virtue, and the
acknowledged turpitude of vice, possesses over every human heart. These sentiments are
the remaining impressions of that law which was originally written on the mind of man.
II. That such is man’s ignorance of his own character, such the frailty of his nature, that
he may one day become infamous for those very crimes which at present he holds in
detestation. This observation is too well verified by the history of Hazael; and a thousand
other instances might be brought to confirm it. Though there is nothing which every
person ought to know so thoroughly as his own heart, yet from the conduct of men it
appears, that there is nothing with which they are less acquainted. Always more prone to
flatter themselves than desirous to discover the truth, they trust to their being possessed
of every virtue which has not been put to the trial; and reckon themselves secure against
every vice to which they have not hitherto been tempted. As long as their duty hangs in
speculation, it appears so plain, and so eligible, that they cannot doubt of performing it.
The suspicion never enters their mind, that in the hour of speculation, and in the hour of
practice, their sentiments may differ widely. Their present disposition they easily
persuade themselves will ever continue the same; and yet that disposition is changing
with circumstances every moment. The man who glows with the warm feelings of
devotion imagines it impossible for him to lose that sense of the Divine goodness which
at present melts his heart. He whom his friend had lately saved from ruin, is confident
that, if some trying emergency shall put his gratitude to proof, he will rather die than
abandon his benefactor. He who lives happy and contented in frugal industry, wonders
how any man can give himself up to dissolute pleasure. Were any of those persons
informed by a superior spirit, that the time was shortly to come when the one should
prove an example of scandalous impiety, the other of treachery to his friend, and the
third of all that extravagant luxury which disgraces a growing fortune; each of them
would testify as much surprise and abhorrence as Hazael did, upon hearing the
predictions of the Prophet. Sincere they might very possibly be in their expressions of

80. indignation; for hypocrisy is not always to be charged on men whose conduct is
inconsistent. Hazael wan in earnest, when he resented with such ardour the imputation
of cruelty. In such cases as I have described, what has become, it may be inquired, of
those sentiments of abhorrence at guilt, which were once felt so strongly? Are they
totally erased? or, if in any degree they remain, how do such persons contrive to satisfy
themselves in acting a part which their minds condemn? Here, there is a mystery of
iniquity which requires to be unfolded. Latent and secret is the progress of corruption
within the soul; and the more latent, the more dangerous is its growth. No man becomes
of a sudden completely wicked. Guilt never shows its whole deformity at once; but by
gradual acquaintance reconciles us to its appearance, and imperceptibly diffuses its
poison through all the powers of the mind’ Every man ham some darling passion, which
generally affords the first introduction to vice. One vice brings in another to its aid. By a
sort of natural affinity they connect and entwine themselves together; till their roots
come to be spread wide and deep over all the soul. When guilt rises to be glaring,
conscience endeavours to remonstrate. But conscience is a calm principle. Passion is
loud and impetuous; and creates a tumult which drowns the voice of reason. It joins,
besides, artifice to violence; and seduces at the same time that it impels. For it employs
the understanding to impose upon the conscience. It devises reasons and arguments to
justify the corruptions of the heart. The common practice of the world is appealed to.
Nice distinctions are made. Men are found to be circumstanced in so peculiar a manner,
as to render certain actions excusable, if not blameless, which, in another situation, it is
confessed, would have been criminal. By such a process as this, there is reason to
believe, that a great part of mankind advance from step to step in sin, partly hurried by
passion, and partly blinded by self-deceit, without any just sense of the degree of guilt
which they contract. It is proper, however, to observe, that though our native sentiments
of abhorrence at guilt may be so born down, or so eluded, as to lose their influence on
conduct, yet those sentiments belonging originally to our frame, and being never totally
eradicated from the soul, will still retain so much authority, as, if not to reform, at least,
on some occasions, to chasten the sinner. It is only during a course of prosperity, that
vice is able to carry on its delusions without disturbance. But, amidst the dark and
thoughtful situations of life, conscience regains its rights; and pours the whole bitterness
of remorse on his heart, who has apostatised from his original principles. We may well
believe that, before the end of his days, Hazael’s first impressions would be made to
return.
III. That the power which corruption acquires to pervert the original principles of man
is frequently owing to a change of their circumstances and condition in the world. How
different was Hazael the messenger of Benhadad, from Hazael the king; he who started
at the mention of cruelty, from him who waded in blood! Of this sad and surprising
revolution, the Prophet emphatically assigns the cause in these few words; The Lord
hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria. That crown, that fatal crown, which
is to be set upon thy head, shall shed a malignant influence over thy nature; and shall
produce that change in thy character, which now thou canst not believe. Whose
experience of the world is so narrow, as not to furnish him with instances similar to this,
in much humbler conditions of life? So great is the influence of a new situation of
external fortune; such a different turn it gives to our temper and affections, to our views
and desires, that no man can foretell what his character would prove, should Providence
either raise or depress his circumstances in a remarkable degree, or throw him into some
sphere of action, widely different from that to which he has been accustomed in former
life. The seeds of various qualities, good and bad, lie in all our hearts. But until proper
occasions ripen and bring them forward, they lie there inactive and dead. They are

81. covered up and concealed within the recesses of our nature; or, if they spring up at all, it
is under such an appearance as is frequently mistaken, even by ourselves. This may, in
one light, be accounted not so much an alteration of character produced by a change of
circumstances, as a discovery brought forth of the real character which formerly lay
concealed. Yet, at the same time, it is true that the man himself undergoes a change. For
opportunity being given for certain dispositions, which had been dormant, to exert
themselves without restraint, they of course gather strength. By means of the
ascendancy which they gain, other parts of the temper are borne down; and thus an
alteration is made in the whole structure and system of the soul. He is a truly wise and
good man, who, through Divine assistance, remains superior to this influence of fortune
on his character, who having once imbibed worthy sentiments, and established proper
principles of action, continues constant to these, whatever his circumstances be;
maintains, throughout all the changes of his life, one uniform and supported tenor of
conduct; and what he abhorred as evil and wicked in the beginning of his days, continues
to abhor to the end. The instance of Hazael’s degeneracy leads us to reflect, in particular,
on the dangers which arise from stations of power and greatness; especially when the
elevation of men to these has been rapid and sudden. Few have the strength of mind
which is requisite for bearing such a change with temperance and self-command. From
the whole view which we have now taken of the subject, we may, in the first place, learn
the reasons for which a variety of conditions and ranks was established by Providence
among mankind. This life is obviously intended to be a state of probation and trial. No
trial of characters is requisite with respect to God, who sees what is in every heart, and
perfectly knows what part each man would act, in all the possible situations of fortune.
But on account of men themselves, and of the world around them, it was necessary that
trial should take place, and a discrimination of characters be made; in order that true
virtue might be separated from false appearances of it, and the justice of Heaven be
displayed in its final retributions; in order that the failings of men might be so
discovered to themselves, as to afford them proper instruction, and promote their
amendment; and in order that their characters might be shown to the world in every
point of view, which could furnish either examples for imitation or admonitions of
danger. In the second place, We learn, from what has been said, the importance of
attending, with the utmost care, to the choice which we make of our employment and
condition of life. It has been shown, that our external situation frequently operates
powerfully on our moral character; and by consequence that it is strictly connected, not
only with our temporal welfare, but with our everlasting happiness or misery. He who
might have passed unblamed, and upright, through certain walks of life, by unhappily
choosing a road where he meets with temptations too strong for his virtue, precipitates
himself into shame here, and into endless ruin hereafter. In the third place, We learn
from the history which has been illustrated, never to judge of true happiness, merely
from the degree of men’s advancement in the world. Always betrayed by appearances,
the multitude are caught by nothing so much as by the show and pomp of life. They
think every one blest who is raised far above others in rank. (H. Blair, D. D.)
Benhadad and Hazael-Elisha in tears
The cure of Naaman the Syrian was long remembered in Damascus. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Ben-hadad the king, although an idolater—finding himself in the grasp of
a disease that threatened his life—should have been anxious to consult the prophet
Elisha. The answer of the prophet was ambiguous. So far as the disease itself was
concerned, the king might recover; but the purpose to kill him was already in the heart

82. of his very commissioner. The man of God bursts into a flood of tears. The fairest lands
and cities of Israel, Hazael would utterly destroy. The hope of Israel—her young men—
would be ruthlessly slain. And there were other nameless and almost incredible
barbarities. The courtier is rooted to the earth with horror. He repudiates the image of
the prophetic mirror. At the thought of such crimes, he recoils from his own future self.
“Is thy servant a dog?” he exclaims in indignation, “to commit such a mass of iniquities?”
Elisha makes no reply, save this; he would be soon king of Syria, and then he left Hazael
to infer the rest.
1. Let me remark, to a heart not wholly corrupted, such self-repudiation as this of
Hazael is natural. Are we to look on this Syrian prince, as he stands in the presence
of Elisha, merely as a hypocrite? I think not. I believe his recoil from his future guilt,
as here narrated, was perfectly genuine. I believe that when he uttered the words, “Is
thy servant a dog?” he was quite unable to realise that he could ever be the author of
the crimes predicted. The story, therefore, is true to nature. Suppose Cain had been
told he would one day lift his club against his brother and fell him to the ground,
would he not have said, and said with quite as much passionate feeling as Hazael, “Is
thy servant a dog?” Can we doubt that David would have uttered the same language,
had any one predicted his conduct in the matter of Uriah? I believe the time was
when Judas even would have started back, in deprecating protest and shuddering
terror, asking in relation to the awful crime he afterwards committed, “Is thy servant
a dog?” This is only the voice of human nature, not yet hardened in iniquity. When
no passion blinds him and no interest warps the feelings of his heart, the most
ignorant and untutored man will often revolt from sin and crime.
2. Although to a heart not wholly corrupted, such self-repudiation as this of Hazael
is natural, man’s ignorance of his own character is such that he may one day be guilty
of the very sins which for the present he believes to be impossible. Elisha was right;
Hazael was wrong. He did not know his own heart. “Though I should die with thee,
yet will I not deny thee.” We know who said that. Christ knew Peter better than Peter
knew himself. “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.” Let us pause
here and gather up a few solemn lessons for ourselves.
(1) First of all, let us beware of what is evil in its first beginnings. That solid,
fossilised rock is only the result of successive accretions of loose sand; and a
character like Hazael’s is only the result of the action and power of principles of
evil permitted to grow up and develop in the soul, without hindrance or check.
Life nowhere grows by freaks. That infant needs pure air and nourishing food.
Even so with every malign influence and wicked way; feed them, and they will
grow.
(2) Once again. Let us beware of what is evil in its propelling rower. Hazael went
quickly to ruin. It is the story of many a prodigal. I am willing, however, to admit
that a change of circumstances and condition may, in a very real sense, have an
important power over human character and life. I do not believe that man is the
creature of circumstances, that it is circumstances that make men, and that the
only difference between the noblest saint and the basest criminal is a difference
simply in the structure of the brain, and the nature of their position in life. At the
same time, circumstances have often a real influence on human character. Had
Hazael never been flattered by Ben-hadad—for in the opinion of many he
supplanted Naaman—had he never been brought within the circle of a court, the
unsanctified ambition might never have possessed him to seize a crown; and had
he not seized the crown—holding the royal stirrup, so to speak, the very moment

83. he was grasping the royal sceptre—he would never have been the man of blood he
afterwards became. Our experience of life must be narrow indeed, if we cannot
recall kindred illustrations. Take Robert Burns:
Oh! had he stayed by bonnie Doon,
And learned to curb his passions wild,
We had not mourned his early fate,
Nor pity wept o’er Nature’s child.
Southey, speaking of the first Napoleon, has this remark: “He had given indications of
his military talents at Toulon; he had also shown a little of a remorseless nature at Paris
in his earlier years; but the extent either of his ability or his wickedness was at this time
known to none, and perhaps not even suspected by himself.” New circumstances bring
new temptations. That lad, brought up in the quiet of the country, enters on a city life. In
a few years the old habits, in fact the very old ways of thinking and looking at things, are
all changed. Be gentle in your judgments upon others; be severe, most severe, in your
judgments upon yourself. (H. T. Howat.)
Hazael: a revealer of human nature
I. The sense of virtue in human nature. When the prophet with tears told Hazael the
heartless cruelties he would perpetrate—he seemed to have such a sense of virtue within
him that he was shocked at the monstrosity, and said, “What! is thy servant a dog?” We
need not suppose that he feigned this astonishment, but that it was real, and that it now
produced a revulsion at the cruelties he was told he would soon perpetrate. Every man
has a sense of right within him; indeed, this sense is an essential element in our
constitution, the moral substance of our manhood, the core of our nature, our moral
ego; it is what we call conscience.
II. The evil possibilities of human nature. This man, who was shocked at the idea of
perpetrating such enormities at first, actually enacted them a few hours afterwards. The
elements of the devil are in every man, though he may not know it. The vulture eggs of
evil are in all depraved hearts; it only requires a certain heat of the outward atmosphere
to hatch’ them into life. The virtue of many men is only vice sleeping. The evil elements
of the heart are like gunpowder, passive, until the spark of temptation falls on them. The
greatest monsters in human history were at one time considered innocent and kind.
“Many a man,” says a modern author, “could he have a glimpse in innocent youth of
what he would be twenty or thirty years after, would pray in anguish that he might be
taken in youth before coming to that.” What is the moral of this? The necessity of a
change of heart.
III. The self-ignorance of human nature. How ignorant of himself and his heart was
Hazael when he said, “Is thy servant a dog that he should do this great thing?” Men do
not know what they are. Self-ignorance is the most common of all ignorance; the most
culpable of all ignorance; the most ruinous of all ignorance.
IV. The resilient velocity of human nature. To-day this man seemed in sympathy with
the just and the good, to-morrow his whole nature is aflame with injustice and cruelty;
to-day he soars up with the angels, to-morrow he revels with the torturing fiends. Souls
can fall from virtue swiftly as the shooting stars. One hour they may blaze in the
firmament, the next lie deep in the mud. (Homilist.)

84. The progressive power of sin
Two meanings are possible to these words. They may indicate a horror of what the
prophet had revealed, and a shrinking from such baseness; or, simply a feeling that such
bloody deeds are possible only for a king, and that he was no king, but a dog, rather.
Both interpretations have this in common, that a look into the future reveals surprising
things. No man’s life turns out exactly as he expects, often the reverse. The prophet’s
eyes were opened by God to behold the career of Hazael; he saw him murder his king,
ascend the throne, and at the head of devastating armies overrun Israel, and give the
land up to pillage and blood. Hazael starts back in surprise, if not in horror; he has not
the power to do it, if he would; perhaps he means he would not if he could. But it all
proved true, nevertheless; and Hazael’s experience is, for Substance, that of men in these
days. No sinner knows what he may be left to do. The characters and destinies of men
are surprises even to themselves. The least sin, if unchecked by repentance and
amendment, will grow into the greatest.
I. See how habits are formed. When one act is followed by another of the same sort, it is
as when foot follows foot, and a path is beaten. A single drop, distilling from the mossy
hillside, does not make a stream, but let drop follow drop, and the stream will flow, and
gather force and volume, till it hollows the valleys, chisels the rocks, and feeds the ocean.
So habits, strong as life, come from little acts following one another, drop by drop,
“Every one is the son of his own works,” says Cervantes, and Wordsmith, more
beautifully still, “The child is the father of the man.”
II. See how one sin begets another. Just as the graces come, not alone—there were three
of them, the ancients said, so one virtue leads another by the hand; and music lingers in
the echo, which sometimes is softer than the parent voice. So, too, in the inverse
kingdom of evil, one wrong necessitates another, to hide it, or accomplish its ends It is a
small thing to lie, when one has committed a crime which will not bear the light; and a
common thing to add to one crime another greater than itself. “Dead men tell no tales,”
and when the telling of tales cannot be prevented otherwise, the silence of the grave is
invoked; and the man becomes a murderer, who before was only too cowardly to have a
less sin known. Sin is like the letting out of waters, at first a trickling stream a finger
might stop, at last a flying flood sweeping man and his works alike into ruin. Sin is a fire;
at first a spark a drop might extinguish, at last a conflagration taking cities on its wings,
and melting primeval rocks into dust.
III. Consider, also, what complications grow out of the providence of God. If nothing
new happened, a man might, in some measure, control his sin; but the new and
unexpected is always taking place, and therefore the sinner must do something else,
something he did not expect and did not wish to do, but the doing of which is
necessitated by what has occurred; anal failure in this is failure in all. Men do not leap at
a bound into crime; they are pushed into it by a force from behind. They would often
stop if they could—they even mean to—but they are launched into a current, which,
without their aid, widens and deepens, and, peradventure, becomes a Niagara. There are
two lessons to be learned:
1. Fear to sin. It is the fundamental lesson of life. “Stand in awe and sin not.” Beware
of doctrines, the practical effect of which is to make you think less of the evil of sin.
Let Sinai and Calvary be your teachers. The laws of God in this world are terribly
severe. Expect at least as much in the world to come. The love of God does not

85. prevent an infinite amount of suffering in tiffs life; it is presumption to believe it will
in the next. The love of God is no indiscriminate indulgence; it is not less love for the
law than for those who fall beneath its infraction. The world of to-day proves it; the
world in all ages does.
2. Another lesson. Behold your eternal future in the moving present. As the oak is in
the acorn, and the river in the fountain, so the man is in the child, and so eternity is
in time. So eternal destinies are ripening as fruits of time. (W. J. Buddington, D. D.)
The prophet’s tears
What wonder that Elisha wept? Who would not weep if he could see what is coming
upon his country? Whose heart would not pour out itself in blood to know what is yet to
be done in the land of his birth or the country of his adoption? If the men of long ago
could have seen how civilisation would be turned into an engine of oppression, how the
whole land would groan under the burden of drunkeries and breweries, and houses of
hell of every name; if they could have seen how the truth would be sold in the market-
place, and how there would be no further need of martyrdom, surely they would have
died the violent death of grief. The heart can only be read in the sanctuary. You cannot
read it through journalism, or criticism, or political comment, or combinations of any
kind which exclude the Divine element; to know what Hazael will do, let Elisha read him.
The journalist never could have read him; he might have called him long-headed,
intrepid, sagacious, a statesman; but the prophet said, “Their strongholds wilt thou set
on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children,
and rip up their women with child:” thy course is a course of havoc. It is only in the
sanctuary that we know what things really are. When the pulpit becomes a very tower of
God, a very fort of heaven, then the preacher will be able to say, as no other man can say,
what the heart is, and what the heart will do under circumstances yet to be revealed. But
whence has the preacher this power? He has it as a Divine gift. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Startling
My subject, as suggested by the words before us, is the common and too often fatal
ignorance of men as to the wickedness of their own hearts.
I. Let us expose and expound this ignorance. Our ignorance of the depravity of our own
hearts is a startling fact, Hazael did not believe that he was bad enough to do any of the
things here anticipated. “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” He
might have been conscious enough that his heart was not So pure but it might consent to
do many an evil thing; yet crimes so flagrant as those the prophet had foretold of him, he
thought himself quite incapable of committing. Ah, the ignorance of Hazael is ours to a
greater or less degree! God only knows the vileness of the human heart. There is a depth
beneath, a hidden spring, into which we cannot pry. In that lower depth, there is a still
deeper abyss of positive corruption which we need not wish to fathom. God grant that
we may know enough of this to humble us, and keep us ever low before Him!
II. But now I turn to the practical use of our subject, looking at it in two ways.
what it forbids and what it suggests. The depravity of our nature forbids, first of all, a
venturing or presuming to play and toy with temptation. When a Christian asks, “May I
go into such a place?”—should he parley thus with himself? “True, temptation is very

86. strong there, but I shall not yield. It would be dangerous to another man, but it is safe to
me. If I were younger, or less prudent and circumspect, I might be in jeopardy; but I
have passed the days of youthful passion. I have learned by experience to be more
expert; I think, therefore, that I may venture to plunge, and hope to swim where younger
men have been carried away by the tide, and less stable ones have been drowned.” All
such talking as this cometh of evil, and gendereth evil. Proud flesh vaunteth its purity,
and becomes a prey to every vice. Let those who feel themselves to be of a peculiarly
sensitive constitution not venture into a place where disease is rife. If I knew my lungs to
be weak, and liable to congestion, I should shrink from foul air, and any vicious
atmosphere. If you know that your heart has certain proclivities to sin, why go and tempt
the devil to take advantage of you? But, again, knowing how vile we are by nature,
knowing indeed that we are bad enough for anything, let us take another caution. Boast
not, neither in any wise vaunt yourselves. Presume not to say, “I shall never do this; I
shall never do that.” Never venture to ask, with Hazael, “Is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this great thing?” My experience has furnished me with many proofs that the
braggart in morality is not the man to be bound for. Above all, avoid those men who
think themselves immaculate, and never fear a fall If there be a ship on God’s sea the
captain of which declares that nothing can ever sink her, stand clear, get into the first
leaky boat to escape from her, for she will surely founder. Give a ship the flag of
humility, and it is well; but they that spread out the red flag of pride, and boast that they
are staunch and trim, and shall never sink, will either strike upon a rock or founder in
the open sea.
III. And let this fact, that we do not know our own baseness, teach us not to be harsh, or
too severe, with those of God’s people who have inadvertently fallen into sin. Be severe
with their sin; never countenance it; let your actions and your conduct prove that you
hate the garment spotted with the flesh, that you abhor the transgression, cannot endure
it, and must away with it. Yet ever distinguish between the transgressor and the
transgression. Think not that his soul is lost because his feet have slipped. Imagine not
that, because he has gone astray, he cannot be restored. If there must be a church
censure passed upon him, yet take care that thou dost so act that he, in penitence of
spirit, may joyously return. Be thou as John was to Peter.
IV. Leaving now this point of caution, let us consider, by way of counsel, what positive
suggestions may arise. H we be thus depraved, and know not the full extent of our
depravity what then should we do? Surely, we should daily mourn before God because of
this great sinfulness. Full of sin we are, so let us constantly renew our grief. We have not
repented of sin to the full extent, unless we repent of the disposition to sin as well as the
actual commission of sin. We should deplore before God, not only what we have done,
but that depravity which made us do it.
V. And when thou hast done, take heed that thou walkest every day very near to God,
seeking daily supplies of His grace. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
14 Then Hazael left Elisha and returned to his
master. When Ben-Hadad asked, “What did
Elisha say to you?” Hazael replied, “He told me

87. that you would certainly recover.”
BAR ES, "Hazael omitted the clause by which Elisha had shown how those words
were to be understood. He thus deceived his master, while he could flatter himself that
he had not uttered a lie.
GILL, "So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master,.... Benhadad king
of Syria:
who said to him, what said Elisha to thee? concerning his recovery, which was the
thing uppermost in his mind, and he was eagerly desirous to know how it would be:
and he answered, he told me that thou shouldest surely recover; which was
false; for he only said that he "might", and not that he should; and he concealed what he
also declared, that though he might recover of his disease, yet that he should surely die
in another way.
HE RY 14-15, "5. In answer to this Elisha only told him he should be king over
Syria; then he would have power to do it, and then he would find in his heart to do it.
Honours change men's tempers and manners, and seldom for the better: “Thou
knowest not what thou wilt do when thou comest to be king, but I tell thee this thou wilt
do.” Those that are little and low in the world cannot imagine how strong the
temptations of power and prosperity are, and, if ever they arrive at them, they will find
how deceitful their hearts were and how much worse than they suspected.
V. What mischief Hazael did to his master hereupon. If he took any occasion to do it
from what Elisha had said the fault was in him, not in the word. 1. He basely cheated his
master, and belied the prophet (2Ki_8:14): He told me thou shouldst certainly recover.
This was abominably false; he told him he should die (2Ki_8:10), but he unfairly and
unfaithfully concealed that, either because he was loth to put the king out of humour
with bad news or because hereby he might the more effectually carry on that bloody
design which he conceived when he was told he should be his successor. The devil ruins
men by telling them they shall certainly recover and do well, so rocking them asleep in
security, than which nothing is more fatal. This was an injury to the king, who lost the
benefit of this warning to prepare for death, and an injury to Elisha, who would be
counted a false prophet. 2. He barbarously murdered his master, and so made good the
prophet's word, 2Ki_8:15. He dipped a thick cloth in cold water, and spread it upon his
face, under pretence of cooling and refreshing him, but so that it stopped his breath, and
stifled him presently, he being weak (and not able to help himself) or perhaps asleep:
such a bubble is the life of the greatest of men, and so much exposed are princes to
violence. Hazael, who was Ben-hadad's confidant, was his murderer, and some think,
was not suspected, nor did the truth ever come out but by the pen of this inspired
historian. We found this haughty monarch (1 Kings 20) the terror of the mighty in the
land of the living, but he goes down slain to the pit with his iniquity upon his bones,
Eze_32:27.

88. BE SO , "2 Kings 8:14. He told me that thou shouldest surely recover — This was
abominably false. He told him he should die, 2 Kings 8:10; but Hazael unfairly and
unfaithfully concealed that, either because he was loath to put the king out of
humour with bad news, or because he thought he should thereby the more easily put
in execution the design which he had already formed against his life, finding he was
to be his successor, and which he was eager to see accomplished. Elisha’s prediction
might give Satan an occasion of suggesting this villany to his mind; but, as Mr. Scott
justly observes, “it was not the cause of his crime, and forms no excuse for it. Had he
been of David’s disposition, he would have waited in the path of duty till the Lord
had performed his word in that manner which pleased him.” Thus he soon began to
manifest the rapaciousness and cruelty of the dog, of which he desired to be thought
incapable.
COFFMA , ""He took the coverlet ... and spread it on his face, so that he died" (2
Kings 8:15). "The noun translated `coverlet' is otherwise unknown";[20] and the
opinions of scholars that it was "a mosquito net"[21] or maybe "a pillow"[22] are of
no consequence. Whatever it was, it was an effective instrument by which Hazael
suffocated Benhadad, the king of Syria.
GUZIK, "3. (2 Kings 8:14-15) The assassination of the King of Syria.
Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him, “What did
Elisha say to you?” And he answered, “He told me you would surely recover.” But it
happened on the next day that he took a thick cloth and dipped it in water, and
spread it over his face so that he died; and Hazael reigned in his place.
a. He told me you would surely recover: Which he certainly did or would have, had
not the wicked Hazael committed murder.
i. “He represents the prophet’s answer by halves, that by his master’s security he
might have the fitter opportunity to execute his treasonable design.” (Poole)
b. So that he died: Hazael took an evil inference from Elisha’s prophecy and seized
the throne. He should have taken the prophet’s announcement as a warning to
check his own heart; instead he acted on that evil - and was fully responsible for his
own actions.
i. “The predestination of God does not destroy the free agency of man, or lighten the
responsibility of the sinner. It is true, in the matter of salvation, when God comes to
save, his free grace prevails over our free agency, and leads the will in glorious
captivity to the obedience of faith. But in sinning, man is free, - free in the widest
sense of the term, never being compelled to do any evil deed, but being left to follow
the turbulent passions of his own corrupt heart, and carry out the prevailing
tendencies of his own depraved nature.” (Spurgeon)

89. ii. “An ancient Assyrian inscription, called the Berlin inscription, says, ‘Hazael the
son of nobody, seized the throne.’ This designation indicates that he was an usurper
with no dynastic line.” (Dilday)
PETT, "‘Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him,
“What did Elisha say to you?” And he answered, “He told me that you would surely
recover.” ’
On Hazael arriving back at court the king asked him what Elijah had said, and
keeping his own counsel Hazael merely informed him that Elisha had said that his
illness would not prove fatal, and that he would live and not die of his illness.
15 But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked
it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so
that he died.Then Hazael succeeded him as king.
BAR ES, "A thick cloth - Probably, a cloth or mat placed between the head and the
upper part of the bedstead, which in Egypt and Assyria was often so shaped that pillows
(in our sense) were unnecessary.
The objection that Elisha is involved in the guilt of having suggested the deed, has no
real force or value. Hazael was no more obliged to murder Benhadad because a prophet
announced to him that he would one day be king of Syria, than David was obliged to
murder Saul because another prophet anointed him king in Saul’s room 1Sa_16:1-13.
CLARKE, "A thick cloth - The versions, in general, understand this of a hairy or
woollen cloth.
So that he died - He was smothered, or suffocated.
GILL, "And it came to pass on the morrow,.... In such haste was Hazael to be
king, as the prophet said he would be:
that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face,
so that he died; not that Benhadad took or ordered such a cloth to be dipped and laid
on his own face, to allay the violent heat in him; but Hazael did this, and perhaps under
such a pretence; but his real design was to strike in the heat, or suffocate him; for such a
thick cloth, one of the bedclothes, made of goats' hair, as is supposed, being dipped in

90. water, would suck in a great deal; and being laid on his face, would press hard, and he
not able to throw it off, it would let in much water into his mouth and nostrils, and
suffocate him, without leaving any marks of violence, which might render his death
suspicious:
and Hazael reigned in his stead; having an interest in the army, of which he was
general, and perhaps had done some exploits which had recommended him to the regard
of the people.
JAMISO "took a thick cloth, etc. — a coverlet. In the East, this article of
bedding is generally a thick quilt of wool or cotton, so that, with its great weight, when
steeped in water, it would be a fit instrument for accomplishing the murderous purpose,
without leaving any marks of violence. It has been supposed by many doubtful that
Hazael purposely murdered the king. But it is common for Eastern people to sleep with
their faces covered with a mosquito net; and, in some cases of fever, they dampen the
bedclothes. Hazael, aware of those chilling remedies being usually resorted to, might
have, with an honest intention, spread a refreshing cover over him. The rapid occurrence
of the king’s death and immediate burial were favorable to his instant elevation to the
throne.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:15. And spread it on his face — Pretending, it may be, to cool
his immoderate heat with it, but applying it so closely that he choked him therewith;
the king being weak, and unable to help himself, or perhaps asleep. By this artifice
he prevented his crying out, and his death would appear to be natural, there being
no signs of violence upon his body. Such a bubble is the life of the greatest men, and
so exposed are princes to treachery and outrage. We found this haughty monarch (1
Kings 20:1-10) the terror of the mighty in the land of the living; but now he goes
down slain into the pit, with his iniquity upon his bones, Ezekiel 32:25. And Hazael
reigned in his stead — Being, it is likely, in great favour, both with the people and
the soldiery, and not suspected of the murder of Ben- hadad; and he leaving no son
to succeed him in the government.
COKE, "2 Kings 8:15. He took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water— He did this
that no signs of violence might appear upon him; for had the murder been in the
least suspected, Hazael could not so easily have acceded to the throne; because,
according to the account of Josephus, Ben-hadad was a man of such reputation
among the people of Syria and Damascus, that, as his memory was celebrated
among them with divine honours, his death, no doubt, had it been known to have
been violent, would have been fully revenged upon the murderers. History makes
mention of other princes who have died in the same manner. The emperor Tiberius,
according to Suetonius, was in his last sickness choked in his bed by a pillow
crammed into his mouth, or, as Tacitus has it, was smothered under a vast load of
bed-clothes; and king Demetrius, the son of Philip, as well as the emperor Frederick
II. was hurried out of the world in the same way. See Calmet, and Joseph. Antiq. lib.
ix. c. 2.

91. REFLECTIO S.—1st, We have here,
1. The advice of Elisha to his kind hostess at Shunem. He warned her to remove
betimes to some neighbouring country, because of the approaching famine; and,
Philistia being near, she there fixed her abode. ote; (1.) Men's sins provoke God's
judgments, and his own unfaithful Israel shall feel the scourge heavier than even
their idolatrous neighbours. (2.) The prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth
himself.
2. As soon as the famine was over, she hasted home, and, to her grief, either found
her land seized by the officers for the crown, as forfeited for her leaving the
kingdom; or the person entrusted with it refused to give up possession. For want of
a friend with the king, which once she thought she should never need, see chap. 2
Kings 4:13 she is constrained to apply to him herself for redress; and so providence
graciously ordered it, that at this very instant he was discoursing with Gehazi,
Elisha's servant, about his miracles, and this very woman and her son were the
subject, who now opportunely appear to confirm his narrative. Gehazi's being still
Elisha's servant shews that this event preceded the cure of aaman, and the siege of
Samaria. ote; (1.) A strange coincidence of events, exactly suited to accomplish our
desires, proves often to a demonstration the finger of an overruling Governor. (2.)
God can raise us up friends, in our difficulties, where we least expected them.
3. The king, having heard from the woman herself the confirmation of Gehazi's
report, orders an officer to put her in possession of her estate, and see that every
farthing of the profits of it, from the day when she left it, be faithfully accounted for.
ote; (1.) If the ears of kings are open to the cries of the oppressed, how much more
will the King of kings hear their prayers and help them. (2.) The glory of a
government is the righteous and impartial administration of justice.
2nd, What brought Elisha to Damascus is uncertain; what he did there, we are
informed.
1. He is consulted by Ben-hadad concerning the event of his sickness. The king of
Syria was no sooner apprized of his being there, than the report of his former
miracles weighed more with him than all his idol gods, and he places greater
confidence in the prophet of the Lord, than in all the priests of Damascus. With
great respect he addresses him, sends his prime minister to be his messenger, and
orders a magnificent present, as a token of his regard. ote; (1.) Sickness and death
pay no compliments to crowned heads. (2.) Many on their death-beds send to God's
ministers, who, all their lives long, paid little or no regard to them. (3.) The sinner
that lieth sick is usually more solicitous to know, Shall I recover? than to inquire,
What shall I do to be saved?
ELLICOTT, "(15) He took—i.e., Hazael, the nearest subject. Ewald objects that if
Hazael were meant, his name would not occur where it does at the end of the verse.

92. But the objection does not hold, for in relating who succeeded to the throne, it was
natural to give the name of the new king. Further, a considerable pause must be
understood at “he died.” The Judæan editor of Kings then appropriately concludes:
“So Hazael reigned in his stead.” The mention of the name significantly reminds us
that Elisha had designated Hazael as the future king. Besides, after the words “and
he died,” it would have been more ambiguous than usual to add, “and he reigned in
his stead.”
A thick cloth.—Rather, the quilt, or coverlet. So the LXX., Vulg., Targum, and
Arabic. The Syriac renders “curtain;” and, accordingly, Gesenius and others
translate, “mosquito net.” The Hebrew term (makbçr) means, etymologically,
something plaited or interwoven. It is not found elsewhere, but a word of the same
root occurs in 1 Samuel 19:13. It is clear from the context that the makbçr must
have been something which when soaked in water, and laid on the face, would
prevent respiration.
Josephus says Hazael strangled his master with a mosquito net. But this and other
explanations, such as that of Ewald, do not suit the words of the text. The old
commentator, Clericus, may be right when he states Hazaeľs motive to have been ut
hominem facilius suffocaret, ne vi interemptus videretur. And, perhaps, as Thenius
supposes, the crown was offered to Hazael as a successful warrior. (Comp. 2 Kings
10:32, seq.) When Duncker (Hist. of Antiq., 1:413) ventures to state that Elisha
incited Hazael to the murder of Ben-hadad, and afterwards renewed the war against
Israel, not without encouragement from the prophet as a persistent enemy of
Jehoram and his dynasty, he simply betrays an utter incapacity for understanding
the character and function of Hebrew prophecy. The writer of Kings, at all events,
did not intend to represent Elisha as a deceiver of foreign sovereigns and a traitor to
his own; and this narrative is the only surviving record of the events described.
Hazael reigned in his stead.—On the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser II. (B.C. 860-
825), now in the British Museum, we read: “In my 18th regnal year for the 16th
time I crossed the Euphrates. Haza’ilu of the land of Damascus came on to the
battle: 1,121 of his chariots, 470 of his horsemen, with his stores, I took from him.”
And again: “In my 21st year for the 21st time I crossed the Euphrates: to the cities
of Haza’ilu of the land of Damascus I marched, whose towns I took. Tribute of the
land of the Tyrians, Sidonians, Giblites, I received.”
PETT, "‘And it came about on the morrow, that he took the blanket, and dipped it
in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died, and Hazael reigned instead of
him.’
But on the next day he carried into action the plans that he had in mind. Possibly he
was moved to act so quickly because he was afraid that Elisha might reveal his plans
to the king. So on the next day, while the king was sleeping, he dipped a blanket
made of twisted cloth in water, making it breath-proof, and then held it over the
king’s face until he died. The fact that he then became king instead of the dead king
demonstrates that he had previously laid his plans carefully and had ensured that

93. he would have general support. It was not a spur of the moment decision.
(Some have translated as ‘one (someone) took the blanket ---’ signifying person or
persons unknown, and that is possible, but the general indication of the text is that
the one who did so was Hazael who was probably one of the few who could enter the
king’s bedchamber alone).
ote On The Identification Of Ben-hadad.
The Assyrian records (the annals of Shalmaneser) tell us that ‘Hadadezer --- met his
fate’ and that ‘Hazael --- the son of a nobody (i.e. a commoner) took the throne.’
This indicates that this incident occurred between c. 845 and 841 BC. It does not,
however, indicate that Hazael slew Hadadezer, thus it is quite possible that someone
succeeded to Hadadezer, taking the name of Benhadad, and was himself shortly
afterwards assassinated by Hazael, his reign not being long enough to figure in the
Assyrian annals. The coming of a new king to the throne, which was a period when
things were disrupted, often led to a coup attempt. Alternately as we have seen
Benhadad may have been the throne name of Hadadezer.
Shalmaneser fought again with Hazael and Aram in c. 837 BC, forcing him to pay
huge tribute, and there is no further mention of Hazael in the Assyrian records until
Adad-nirari III cowed the now ageing Hazael into submission in c. 805-802 BC.
As Elisha foresaw Hazael was a constant aggressor against Israel (2 Kings 8:28; 2
Kings 9:15; 2 Kings 10:32; 2 Kings 13:3; 2 Kings 13:22; see also Amos 1:3-5), and
also against Judah from whom at one stage he stripped all its treasures, being
‘bought off’ when he planned to besiege Jerusalem (2 Kings 12:18).
Jehoram King of Judah
16 In the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of
Israel, when Jehoshaphat was king of Judah,
Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began his reign as
king of Judah.

94. BAR ES, "The passage is parenthetic, resuming the history of the kingdom of Judah
from 1Ki_22:50.
2Ki_8:16
The opening words are - “In the fifth year of Joram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, and of
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah;” but they contradict all the other chronological notices of
Jehoshaphat 1Ki_22:42, 1Ki_22:51; 2Ki_3:1; 2Ch_20:31, which give him a reign of at
least twenty-three years. Hence, some have supposed that the words “Jehoshaphat being
then king of Judah,” are accidentally repeated. Those, however, who regard them and
2Ki_1:17 as sound, suppose that Jehoshaphat gave his son the royal title in his 16th year,
while he advanced him to a real association in the empire seven years later, in his 23rd
year. Two years afterward, Jehoshatphat died, and Jehoram became sole king.
CLARKE, "In the fifth year of Joram - This verse, as it stands in the present
Hebrew text, may be thus read: “And in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of
Israel, [and of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah], reigned Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of
Judah.” The three Hebrew words, ‫יהודה‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫,ויהושפט‬ and of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,
greatly disturb the chronology in this place. It is certain that Jehoshaphat reigned
twenty-five years, and that Jehoram his son reigned but eight; 1Ki_22:42; 2Ki_8:17;
2Ch_20:31; 2Ch_21:5. So that he could not have reigned during his father’s life without
being king twenty years, and eight years! These words are wanting in three of Kennicott’s
and De Rossi’s MSS. in the Complutensian and Aldine editions of the Septuagint, in the
Peshito Syriac, in the Parisian Heptapler Syriac, the Arabic, and in many copies of the
Vulgate, collated by Dr. Kennicott and De Rossi, both printed and manuscript; to which
may be added two MSS. in my own library, one of the fourteenth, the other of the
eleventh century, and in what I judge to be the Editio Princeps of the Vulgate. And it is
worthy of remark that in this latter work, after the fifteenth verse, ending with Quo
mortuo regnavit Azahel pro eo, the following words are in a smaller character, Anno
quinto Joram filii Achab regis Israhel, regnavit Joram filius Josaphat rex Juda.
Triginta, etc. We have already seen that it is supposed that Jehoshaphat associated his
son with him in the kingdom; and that the fifth year in this place only regards Joram
king of Israel, and not Jehoshaphat king of Judah. See the notes on 2Ki_1:17.
GILL, "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel,.... Who
began his reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, 2Ki_3:1.
Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah; as he continued to be two years more; for
this must be in the twenty third year of his reign, and he reigned twenty five years, 1Ki_
22:42.
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign; according to
Dr. Lightfoot (h), there were three beginnings of his reign; "first", when his father went
with Ahab to Ramothgilead, when be was left viceroy, and afterwards his father
reassumed the kingdom; the "second" time was, when Jehoshaphat went with the kings
of Israel and Edom against Moab; and this is the time here respected, which was in the
fifth of Joram king of Israel; and the "third" time was, at the death of his father; but
knew his father was living.
HE RY, "We have here a brief account of the life and reign of Jehoram (or Joram),

95. one of the worst of the kings of Judah, but the son and successor of Jehoshaphat, one of
the best. Note, 1. Parents cannot give grace to their children. Many that have themselves
been godly have had the grief and shame of seeing those that came forth out of their
bowels wicked and vile. Let not the families that are thus afflicted think it strange. 2. If
the children of good parents prove wicked, commonly they are worse than others. The
unclean spirit brings in seven others more wicked than himself, Luk_11:26. 3. A nation is
sometimes justly punished with the miseries of a bad reign for not improving the
blessings and advantages of a good one.
JAMISO "2Ki_8:16-23. Jehoram’s wicked reign.
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat ... began to reign — (See on 2Ki_3:1). His
father resigned the throne to him two years before his death.
K&D 16-17, "Reign of Joram of Judah (cf. 2 Chron 21:2-20). - Joram became king in
the fifth year of Joram of Israel, while Jehoshaphat his father was (still) king, the latter
handing over the government to him two years before his death (see at 2Ki_1:17), and
reigned eight years, namely, two years to the death of Jehoshaphat and six years
afterwards.
(Note: The words ‫ה‬ ָ‫הוּד‬ְ‫י‬ ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מ‬ ‫ט‬ ָ‫פ‬ ָ‫ּושׁ‬‫ה‬‫י‬ִ‫ו‬ have been improperly omitted by the Arabic and
Syriac, and by Luther, Dathe, and De Wette from their translations; whilst Schulz,
Maurer, Thenius, and others pronounce it a gloss. The genuineness of the words is
attested by the lxx (the Edit. Complut. being alone in omitting them) and by the
Chaldee: and the rejection of them is just as arbitrary as the interpolation of ‫ת‬ ֵ‫,מ‬
which is proposed by Kimchi and Ewald (“when Jehoshaphat was dead”). Compare
J. Meyer, annotatt. ad Seder Olam, p. 916f.)
The Chethîb ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫ּנ‬‫מ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ is not to be altered, since the rule that the numbers two to ten
take the noun in the plural is not without exception (cf. Ewald, §287, i.).
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:16. Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat began to reign —
Jehoram was first made king or viceroy by his father, divers years before this time,
at his expedition to Ramoth-gilead, which dominion of his ended at his father’s
return. But now Jehoshaphat, being not far from his death, and having divers sons,
and fearing some competition among them, makes Jehoram king the second time, as
David did Solomon upon the like occasion. See note on chap. 2 Kings 1:17.
COFFMA , ""It was the religious solidarity of the Judean kings with the apostasy
of orthern Israel"[23] that led to the inclusion of the record of their reigns just
here. The lamp of truth burned very dimly in Israel at this time, in both kingdoms.
Only by God's direct intervention was it kept burning. That intervention was
planned in this chapter and executed in 2 Kings 9.
"Joram ... Jehoram" (2 Kings 8:16). "These names are the same, Joram being
merely an abbreviation of the other."[24] The Jehoram of Israel was generally

96. referred to as Joram. Only a very brief record of the reign of Jehoram in Judah is
given here, but there is a much fuller account of all his wickedness in 2 Chronicles
21.
"It is confusing that these two Jehorams reigned simultaneously in Israel and Judah
for about three years."[25]
"For he had the daughter of Ahab to wife" (2 Kings 8:18). This evil woman, of
course, was the daughter of Jezebel. "That disastrous political marriage which
Jehoshaphat unwisely allowed,"[26] was the instrument by which Satan almost
removed faith in Jehovah from the chosen people. Athaliah, here called the
daughter of Ahab (and Jezebel) is also called "the granddaughter of Omri" (2 Kings
8:26 RSV), and "the daughter of Omri" (2 Kings 8:26 KJV). The words "son" and
"daughter" are used nine different ways in the Bible, and one of the meanings is
"descendant of" (Matthew 1:1). Snaith mentioned these variations, referring to
"daughter of Omri" as incorrect;[27] but, of course, in the light of Biblical usage
throughout the Holy Scriptures, all of these designations are absolutely correct!
"He did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah" (2 Kings 8:18). Of course, when
we discuss 2 Chronicles 21, we shall understand more fully the implications of this.
"One of the worst of Jehoram's terrible sins was his ruthless murder of his six
brothers merely for the purpose of seizing their wealth (2 Chronicles 21:4)."[28]
To be sure, the gross wickedness of Jehoram would have resulted in the total
destruction of him and his dynasty, "If the Lord had not promised to preserve a
shoot to the royal family for David's sake."[29] The nature of this promise to David
is revealed in 2 Samuel 7:13-16, in which the Lord said, "If thy children forsake my
Law, and walk not in my statutes, I will visit their offenses with the rod, and their
sin with scourges, but I will not utterly take away, nor suffer my truth to fail. My
covenant I will not break." In this very chapter, we shall see evidences of the rod,
and of the scourges. Also, see 2 Chronicles 21:12-19.
ELLICOTT, "(16) In the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab.—See ote on 2 Kings
1:17.
The name Joram is an easy contraction of Jehoram. In this verse and in 2 Kings
8:29 the king of Israel is called Joram, and the king of Judah Jehoram; in 2 Kings
8:21; 2 Kings 8:23-24 Joram is the name of the king of Judah. In 2 Kings 1:17 and 2
Chronicles 22:6, both kings are called Jehoram.
Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah.—Literally, and Jehoshaphat king of Judah;
so that the meaning is, “In the fifth year of Joram . . . and of Jehoshaphat.” Were
the reading correct, it would be implied that Jehoram was for some reason or other
made king or co-regent in the lifetime of his father, just as Esarhaddon united his
heir Assurbanipal with himself in the government of Assyria. But the clause should
be omitted as a spurious anticipation of the same words in the next line. So some

97. Hebrew MSS., the Complut., LXX., the Syriac, and Arabic, and many MSS. of the
Vulg. The clause as it stands is an unparalleled insertion in a common formula of
the compiler, and there is no trace elsewhere of a co-regency of Jehoram with his
father. Ewald, after Kimchi, would turn the clause into a sentence, by adding the
word mêth, “had died:” “ ow Jehoshaphat the king of Judah had died,” an utterly
superfluous remark.
EBC, "(1) JEHORAM BE -JEHOSHAPHAT OF JUDAH
B.C. 851-843
(2) AHAZIAH BE -JEHORAM OF JUDAH
B.C. 843-842
2 Kings 8:16-29
"Bear with the Turk, no brother near the throne."
-POPE.
THE narrative now reverts to the kingdom of Judah, of which the historian, mainly
occupied with the great deeds of the prophet in Israel, takes at this period but little
notice.
He tells us that in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab, his namesake and
brother-in-law, Jehoram of Judah, began to reign in Judah, though his father,
Jehoshaphat, was then king.
The statement is full of difficulties, especially as we have been already told {2 Kings
1:17} that Jehoram ben-Ahab of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram
ben-Jehoshaphat of Judah, and {2 Kings 13:1} in the eighteenth year of
Jehoshaphat. It is hardly worth while to pause here to disentangle these complexities
in a writer who, like most Eastern historians, is content with loose chronological
references. By the current mode of reckoning, the twenty-five years of
Jehoshaphat’s reign may merely mean twenty-three and a month or two of two
other years; and some suppose that, when Jehoram of Judah was about sixteen, his
father went on the expedition against Moab, and associated his son with him in the
throne. This is only conjecture. Jehoshaphat, of all kings, least needed a coadjutor,
particularly so weak and worthless a one as his son; and though the association of
colleagues with themselves has been common in some realms, there is not a single
instance of it in the history of Israel and Judah-the case of Uzziah, who was a leper,
not being to the point.
The kings both of Israel and of Judah at this period, with the single exception of the
brave and good Jehoshaphat, were unworthy and miserable. The blight of the

98. Jezebel marriage and the curse of Baal worship lay upon both kingdoms. It is
scarcely possible to find such wretched monarchs as the two sons of Jezebel-Ahaziah
and Jehoram in Israel, and the son-in-law and grandson of Jezebel, Jehoram and
Ahaziah, in Judah. Their respective reigns are annals of shameful apostasy, and
almost unbroken disaster.
Jehoram ben-Jehoshaphat of Judah was thirty-two years old when he began his
independent reign, and reigned for eight deplorable years. The fact that his
mother’s name is (exceptionally) omitted seems to imply that his father Jehoshaphat
set the good example of monogamy. Jehoram was wholly under the influence of
Athaliah, his wife, and of Jezebel, his mother-in-law, and he introduced into Judah
their alien abominations. He "walked in their way, and did evil in the sight of the
Lord." The Chronicler fills up the general remark by saying that he did his utmost
to foster idolatry by erecting bamoth in the mountains of Judah, and compelled his
people to worship there, in order to decentralize the religious services of the
kingdom, and so to diminish the glory of the Temple. He introduced Baal-worship
into Judah, and either he or his son was the guilty builder of a temple to Baalim, not
only on the "opprobrious mount" on which stood the idolatrous chapels of Solomon,
but on the Hill of the House itself. This temple had its own high priest, and was
actually adorned with treasures torn from the Temple of Jehovah. So bad was
Jehoram’s conduct that the historian can only attribute his non-destruction to the
"covenant of salt" which God had made with David, "to give him a lamp for his
children always."
But if actual destruction did not come upon him and his race, he came very near
such a fate, and he certainly experienced that "the path of transgressors is hard."
There is nothing to record about him but crime and catastrophe. First Edom
revolted. Jehoshaphat had subdued the Edomites, and only allowed them to be
governed by a vassal; now they threw off the yoke. The Jewish King advanced
against them to "Zair"-by which must be meant apparently either Zoar, {2 Kings
11:18; 2 Chronicles 21:11; 2 Chronicles 24:7} through which the road to Edom lay,
or their capital, Mount Seir. There he was surrounded by the Edomite hosts; and
though by a desperate act of valor he cut his way through them at night in spite of
their reserve of chariots, yet his army left him in the lurch. Edom succeeded in
establishing its final independence, to which we see an allusion in the one hope held
out to Esau by Isaac in that "blessing" which was practically a curse.
The loss of so powerful a subject-territory, which now constituted a source of
danger on the eastern frontier of Judah, was succeeded by another disaster on the
southwest, in the Shephelah or lowland plain. Here Libnah revolted, {Joshua 10:29-
39} and by gaining its autonomy contracted yet farther the narrow limits of the
southern kingdom.
The Book of Kings tells us no more about the Jewish Jehoram, only adding that he
died and was buried with his fathers, and was succeeded by his son Ahaziah. But the
Book of Chronicles, which adds far darker touches to his character, also heightens
to an extraordinary degree the intensity of his punishment. It tells us that he began

99. his reign by the atrocious murder of his six younger brothers, for whom, following
the old precedent of Rehoboam, Jehoshaphat had provided by establishing them as
governors of various cities. As his throne was secure, we cannot imagine any motive
for this brutal massacre except the greed of gain, and we can only suppose that, as
Jehoram ben-Jehoshaphat became little more than a friendly vassal of his kinsmen
in Israel, so he fell under the deadly influence of his wife Athaliah, as completely as
his father-in-law had done under the spell of her mother Jezebel. With his brothers
he also swept away a number of the chief nobles, who perhaps embraced the cause
of his murdered kinsmen. Such conduct breathes the known spirit of Jezebel and of
Athaliah. To rebuke him for this wickedness, he received the menace of a
tremendous judgment upon his home and people in a writing from Elijah, whom we
should certainly have assumed to be dead long before that time. The judgment itself
followed. The Philistines and Arabians invaded Judah, captured Jerusalem, and
murdered all Jehoram’s own children, except Ahaziah, who was the youngest. Then
Jehoram, at the age of thirty-eight, was smitten with an incurable disease of the
bowels, of which he died two years later, and not only died unlamented, but was
refused burial in the sepulchers of the kings. In any case his reign and that of his
son and successor were the most miserable in the annals of Judah, as the reigns of
their namesakes and kinsmen, Ahaziah ben-Ahab and Jehoram ben-Ahab, were also
the most miserable in the annals of Israel.
Jehoram was succeeded on the throne of Judah by his son Ahaziah. If the
chronology and the facts be correct, Ahaziah ben-Jehoram of Judah must have been
born when his father was only eighteen, though he was the youngest of the king’s
sons, and so escaped from being massacred in the Philistine invasion. He succeeded
at the age of twenty-two, and only reigned a single year. During this year his
mother, the Gebirah Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and
granddaughter of the Tyrian Ethbaal, was all-supreme. She bent the weak nature of
her son to still further apostasies. She was "his counselor to do wickedly," and her
Baal-priest Mattan was more important than the Aaronic high priest of the despised
and desecrated Temple. ever did Judah sink to so low a level, and it was well that
the days of Ahaziah of Judah were cut short.
The only event in his reign was the share he took with his uncle Jehoram of Israel in
his campaign to protect Ramoth-Gilead from Hazael. The expedition seems to have
been successful in its main purpose. Ramoth-Gilead, the key to the districts of
Argob and Bashan, was of immense importance for commanding the country
beyond Jordan. It seems to be the same as Ramath-Mizpeh; {Joshua 13:26} and if
so, it was the spot where Jacob made his covenant with Laban. Ahab, or his
successors, in spite of the disastrous end of the expedition to Ahab personally, had
evidently recovered the frontier fortress from the Syrian king. Its position upon a
hill made its possession vital to the interests of Gilead; for the master of Ramah was
the master of that Trans-Jordanic district. But Hazael had succeeded his murdered
master, and was already beginning to fulfill the ruthless mission which Elisha had
foreseen with tears. Jehoram ben-Ahab seems to have held his own against Hazael
for a time; but in the course of the campaign at Ramoth he was so severely wounded
that he was compelled to leave his army under the command of Jehu, and to return

100. to Jezreel, to be healed of his wounds. Thither his nephew Ahaziah of Judah went to
visit him; and there, as we shall hear, he too met his doom. That fate, the Chronicler
tells us, was the penalty of his iniquities. "The destruction of Ahaziah was of God by
coming to Joram."
We have no ground for accusing either king of any want of courage; yet it was
obviously impolitic of Jehoram to linger unnecessarily in his luxurious capital, while
the army of Israel was engaged in service on a dangerous frontier. The wounds
inflicted by the Syrian archers may have been originally severe. Their arrows at this
time played as momentous a part in history as the cloth-yard shafts of our English
bowmen which "sewed the French ranks together" at Poictiers, Crecy, and
Azincour. But Jehoram had at any rate so far recovered that he could ride in his
chariot; and if be had been wise and bravely vigorous, he would not have left his
army under a subordinate at so perilous an epoch, and menaced by so resolute a foe.
Or if he were indeed compelled to consult the better physicians at Jezreel, he should
have persuaded his nephew Ahaziah of Judah-who seems to have been more or less
of a vassal as well as a kinsman-to keep an eye on the beleaguered fort. Both kings,
however, deserted their post, -Jehoram to recover perfect health; and Ahaziah, who
had been his comrade-as their father and grandfather had gone together to the same
war-to pay a state visit of condolence to the royal invalid. The army was left under a
popular, resolute, and wholly unscrupulous commander, and the results powerfully
affected the immediate and the ultimate destiny of both kingdoms.
GUZIK, "C. Two new kings in Judah.
1. (2 Kings 8:16-24) The reign of Jehoram over Judah.
ow in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat having
been king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat began to reign as king of
Judah. He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight
years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just as the
house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife; and he did evil in
the sight of the LORD. Yet the LORD would not destroy Judah, for the sake of his
servant David, as He promised him to give a lamp to him and his sons forever. In his
days Edom revolted against Judah’s authority, and made a king over themselves. So
Joram went to Zair, and all his chariots with him. Then he rose by night and
attacked the Edomites who had surrounded him and the captains of the chariots;
and the troops fled to their tents. Thus Edom has been in revolt against Judah’s
authority to this day. And Libnah revolted at that time. ow the rest of the acts of
Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the
kings of Judah? So Joram rested with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in
the City of David. Then Ahaziah his son reigned in his place.
a. Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat began to reign as king of Judah: The story of
the kings of Judah really paused at 1 Kings 22:50, where Jehoshaphat the son of Asa
ended his 25-year reign and his son Jehoram came to the throne. ow we pick up

101. the story of Jehoram again.
i. This King Jehoram of Judah should not be confused with the King Jehoram of
Israel mentioned in 2 Kings 3. That Jehoram is called Joram in this passage and
following.
b. 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. The Chronicler adds that Jehoram made all Judah to sin according to the religion
of the Canaanites (2 Chronicles 21:11).
c. For the daughter of Ahab was his wife: The wickedness of Jehoram was not a
surprise, considering how much he allowed himself to be influenced by the house of
Ahab. Perhaps this marriage made sense politically or socially, but it was a spiritual
calamity for Judah.
i. Arranged by his father, Jehoram married the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel - her
name was Athaliah. In order to consolidate his throne, he murdered his many
brothers and many other leaders (1 Chronicles 21:1-6). “Josephus expands on this,
indicating that he committed the murders at the prompting of Athaliah.” (Dilday)
ii. 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.
iii. “It was all the result of his ill-advised alliance with the ungodly house of Ahab,
and what he sowed he, by dread anticipation at least, reaped. And his posterity were
made to reap it actually, in a most terrible way.” (Knapp)
d. Yet the LORD would not destroy Judah, for the sake of his servant 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)
e. In his days Edom revolted 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.
f. So Joram rested with his fathers: It is easy to get confused with the variation
between Jehoram and Joram, but they are two variant names for the same king of
Judah. He died and was buried in Jerusalem, but not in the honored tombs of his

102. ancestors (2 Chronicles 21:20).
i. According to 2 Chronicles 21:12-15, Elijah wrote Jehoram a letter, condemning
him for his sins and predicting that judgment would come upon him and disaster
upon the nation. At the age of 40, Jehoram was struck with a fatal intestinal disease
and he died in terrible pain (2 Chronicles 21:19).
ii. “He is one of the most unlovely of all the kings of Judah. ‘Exalted by Jehovah,’ he
was for his wickedness thrust down to a dishonoured grave.” (Knapp)
PETT, "Verses 16-24
The Reign Of Jehoram, King of Judah (2 Kings 8:16-24). c. 848-841 BC Co-regent
with Jehoshaphat from 853 BC.
During the time that Jehoram of Judah was on the throne of Judah, Jehoram of
Israel (see 2 Kings 3:1) was on the throne of Israel, which can tend to result in
confusion. It is true that in 2 Kings 8:16 Jehoram of Israel is called Joram, but it
will be noted that in 2 Kings 8:21; 2 Kings 8:23 Jehoram of Judah is also called
Joram. Thus when we see either name (Joram is merely a shortened form of
Jehoram) we need to consider carefully which Jehoram/Joram is being referred to.
Jehoram of Judah married Athaliah, one of Ahab’s daughters, probably as a seal on
the alliance between the two countries. But this would turn out to be a mistake, for
Athaliah would lead him astray by introducing him to the worship of Baal, and the
result was that, unlike his father Jehoshaphat, he was remembered for having ‘done
evil in the sight of YHWH’. As so often, an unwise marriage had devastating
consequences. For this reason his reign is therefore dealt with briefly and is revealed
as having had unfortunate consequences for Judah. During it they lost their
sovereignty over the land of Edom, and even over the border city, and previous
Canaanite conclave, of Libnah, and as far as the prophetic author of Kings was
concerned that summed up his reign. It was a reign of evil living and failure
accompanied by judgment from God, and loss for Judah. But due to the mercy of
God all was not lost, for the prophetic author assures us that YHWH did not forget
His promise to David, and did therefore preserve the realm from final judgment,
ensuring the survival of one of his sons, Jehoahaz. And that is the only good that he
could say about Jehoram of Judah. (For fuller details of Jehoram’s reign see 2
Chronicles 21:1-20).
There is a significant break in the normal practise here. Following the author’s
usual practise we would in fact have expected this description of Jehoram of
Judah’s reign to follow a description of the cessation of Jehoram of Israel’s reign,
but this order is not adhered to in this case because it will eventually be necessary to
co-relate the death of Jehoram of Israel with that of Ahaziah, Jehoram of Judah’s
son, as both died around the same time at the hands of Jehu. The record of the
death of Jehoram of Israel is therefore reserved until then, and will be described
later, although without the usual formula, at the same time as the death of Ahaziah

103. of Judah who succeeded Jehoram of Judah.
Analysis.
a And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat
being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to
reign. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned eight
years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 8:16-17).
b 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 what was evil in the sight of
YHWH, however, YHWH would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake, as
he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always (2 Kings 8:18-19).
c In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king
over themselves (2 Kings 8:20).
d Then Joram passed over to Zair, and all his chariots with him, and he rose
up by night, and smote the Edomites who surrounded him, and the captains of the
chariots, and the people fled to their tents (2 Kings 8:21).
c So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day. Then did
Libnah revolt at the same time. (2 Kings 8:22).
b And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in
the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 8:23).
a And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city
of David, and Ahaziah his son reigned instead of him (2 Kings 8:24).
ote that in ‘a’ we have the details of the commencement of his reign, and in the
parallel the details of its cessation. In ‘b’ we learn of the worst of the acts of
Jehoram of Judah, and in the parallel we are referred elsewhere for details of his
further acts. In ‘c’ Edom revolted against Judah, and the same in the parallel.
Centrally in ‘d’ we have a vivid description of how the king managed to avoid death
or capture and disgrace at the hands of the Edomites.
2 Kings 8:16
‘And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being
then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign.’
It is made clear here that Jehoram of Judah ‘became king’ while his father
Jehoshaphat was still alive. He was thus for a period co-regent with his father. He
commenced his sole reign in the fifth year of Joram (Jehoram) of Israel. ote the
unusual fact that the name of his mother is not given. This may have been because
she was already dead, and thus could not become ‘queen mother’.
17 He was thirty-two years old when he became
king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years.

104. BAR ES, "2Ki_8:17
The “eight years” are counted from his association in the kingdom. They terminate in
the twelfth year of Johoram of Israel.
CLARKE, "In the fifth year of Joram - This verse, as it stands in the present
Hebrew text, may be thus read: “And in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of
Israel, [and of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah], reigned Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of
Judah.” The three Hebrew words, ‫יהודה‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫,ויהושפט‬ and of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,
greatly disturb the chronology in this place. It is certain that Jehoshaphat reigned
twenty-five years, and that Jehoram his son reigned but eight; 1Ki_22:42; 2Ki_8:17;
2Ch_20:31; 2Ch_21:5. So that he could not have reigned during his father’s life without
being king twenty years, and eight years! These words are wanting in three of Kennicott’s
and De Rossi’s MSS. in the Complutensian and Aldine editions of the Septuagint, in the
Peshito Syriac, in the Parisian Heptapler Syriac, the Arabic, and in many copies of the
Vulgate, collated by Dr. Kennicott and De Rossi, both printed and manuscript; to which
may be added two MSS. in my own library, one of the fourteenth, the other of the
eleventh century, and in what I judge to be the Editio Princeps of the Vulgate. And it is
worthy of remark that in this latter work, after the fifteenth verse, ending with Quo
mortuo regnavit Azahel pro eo, the following words are in a smaller character, Anno
quinto Joram filii Achab regis Israhel, regnavit Joram filius Josaphat rex Juda.
Triginta, etc. We have already seen that it is supposed that Jehoshaphat associated his
son with him in the kingdom; and that the fifth year in this place only regards Joram
king of Israel, and not Jehoshaphat king of Judah. See the notes on 2Ki_1:17.
GILL, "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel,.... Who
began his reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, 2Ki_3:1.
Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah; as he continued to be two years more; for
this must be in the twenty third year of his reign, and he reigned twenty five years, 1Ki_
22:42.
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign; according to
Dr. Lightfoot (h), there were three beginnings of his reign; "first", when his father went
with Ahab to Ramothgilead, when be was left viceroy, and afterwards his father
reassumed the kingdom; the "second" time was, when Jehoshaphat went with the kings
of Israel and Edom against Moab; and this is the time here respected, which was in the
fifth of Joram king of Israel; and the "third" time was, at the death of his father; but
knew his father was living.
JAMISO "2Ki_8:16-23. Jehoram’s wicked reign.
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat ... began to reign — (See on 2Ki_3:1). His
father resigned the throne to him two years before his death.

105. K&D, "Reign of Joram of Judah (cf. 2 Chron 21:2-20). - Joram became king in the
fifth year of Joram of Israel, while Jehoshaphat his father was (still) king, the latter
handing over the government to him two years before his death (see at 2Ki_1:17), and
reigned eight years, namely, two years to the death of Jehoshaphat and six years
afterwards.
(Note: The words ‫ה‬ ָ‫הוּד‬ְ‫י‬ ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מ‬ ‫ט‬ ָ‫פ‬ ָ‫ּושׁ‬‫ה‬‫י‬ִ‫ו‬ have been improperly omitted by the Arabic and
Syriac, and by Luther, Dathe, and De Wette from their translations; whilst Schulz,
Maurer, Thenius, and others pronounce it a gloss. The genuineness of the words is
attested by the lxx (the Edit. Complut. being alone in omitting them) and by the
Chaldee: and the rejection of them is just as arbitrary as the interpolation of ‫ת‬ ֵ‫,מ‬
which is proposed by Kimchi and Ewald (“when Jehoshaphat was dead”). Compare
J. Meyer, annotatt. ad Seder Olam, p. 916f.)
The Chethîb ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫ּנ‬‫מ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ is not to be altered, since the rule that the numbers two to ten
take the noun in the plural is not without exception (cf. Ewald, §287, i.).
ELLICOTT, "(17) Thirty and two years old . . . in Jerusalem.—Comp. the similar
notices in 2 Kings 12 and the succeeding chapters. How different are these short
annalistic summaries, the work of the Judæan compiler, from the rich and flowing
narratives about Elijah and Elisha!
PETT, "2 Kings 8:17
‘He was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years
in Jerusalem.’
His sole reign began when he was thirty two years of age, and he reigned in
Jerusalem (‘the city which YHWH (for David’s sake) chose out of all the tribes of
Israel to put His name there’ (1 Kings 14:21)). He was, in other words, heir to the
promises to David (compare 2 Kings 8:19).
BI 17-24, "Jehoram—began to reign.
Lessons from the life of Jehoram
This is a short fragment of a king’s history, the history of Jehoram. Brief as it is, it
contains many practical truths.
I. That piety is not necessarily hereditary. Parents, as a rule, transmit their physical and
intellectual qualities to their children, but not their moral characters. Jehoram was a bad
man and a wicked king, but he was the son of Jehoshaphat, who was a man of
distinguished piety, and reigned wisely and beneficently over Israel for twenty-five years.
Of him it was said that “the more his riches and honour increased the more his heart was
lifted up in the ways of the Lord” (2Ch_17:5-6). But how different was his son! One of
the first acts of his government was to put to death his six brothers, and several of the

106. leading men of the empire. But whilst piety is not necessarily hereditary, because
children are moral agents: what then? Are parents to do nothing to impart all that is
good in their character to their children? Undoubtedly no! They are commanded to
“train up a child in the way it should go when it is young.” Where the children of godly
parents turn out to be profligate and corrupt, as a rule some defect may be traced to
parental conduct. Even in the life of Jehoshaphat, we detect at [east two parental defects.
1. In permitting his son to form unholy alliances.
2. In granting his son too great an indulgence. He raised him to the throne during
his own lifetime. He took him into royal partnership too soon, and thus supplied him
with abundant means to foster his vanity and ambition.
II. That immoral kings are national curses. What evils this man brought upon his
country! Through him the kingdom of Judah lost Edom (which had been its tributary for
one hundred and fifty years), which “revolted” and became the determined enemy of
Judah ever afterwards (Psa_137:7). Libnah, too, “revolted at the same time.” This was a
city in the south-western part of Judah assigned to the priests, and a city of refuge. It has
always been so. Wicked kings, in all ages, have been the greatest curses that have
afflicted the race. Another practical truth is—
III. That death is no respecter of persons.
1. Death does not respect a man’s position, however high.
2. Death does not respect a man’s character however vile. Jehoram was a bad man,
and utterly unfit to die: but death waits not for moral preparation. (David Thomas,
D. D.)
Baneful influence of a wicked wife
Jehoram, the son of good Jehoshaphat, walked in the evil ways of the kings of Israel, and
he wrought that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. For—mark the reason given by
the inspired historian-jehoram did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, for “He
had the daughter of Ahab to wife!” What secrets were indicated by that one reason! What
a whole volume of tragedy is wrapped up in that brief sentence! The responsibility seems
to a large extent transferred from him and placed upon his wife, who was a subtler
thinker, a more desperate character, with a larger brain and a firmer will, with more
accent and force of personality. “Be not unequally yoked together:” do not look upon
marriage lightly; do not suppose that it is a game for the passing day, a flash and gone, a
hilarious excitement, a wine-bibbing, a passing round of kind salutations, then dying
away like a trembling echo. Beware what connections you form, and do not suppose that
the laws of God can be set aside with impunity. Our family life explains our public
attitude and influence. What we are at home we are really abroad. Wives, do not destroy
your husbands: when they would do good, help them; when they propose to give to the
cause of charity, suggest that the donation be doubled, not divided; when they would
help in any good and noble work, give them sympathy, and prayer, and blessing. We
never knew a man yet of any enduring public power that was not made by his wife, and
we never knew a public yet that fully appreciated the value of that ministry. It is secret; it
is at home; it does not show, it is not chalked on a black-board, it is not gilded on a high
ceiling, it is silent—but vital. We have seen a man go down in his church life, and we
have wondered why, and it was his wife, the daughter of Ahab, who was degrading him,
narrowing him and dwarfing him in his thinking and sympathy. We have seen a man go

107. up in his public influence, and we have found that it was his wife who was encouraging
him, helping him, telling him that he was on the right way, and wishing him good luck in
the name of the Lord. See to it that your home is right: have a beautiful home—morally
and religiously; a sacred house, a sanctuary where joy is the singing angel, and then,
when you come abroad into the market-place, into the pulpit or into parliament, or into
trading and commerce, or into any of the social relations of life, you will bring with you
all the inspiration that comes from a home that blooms like a garden or glows like a
summer sun. (J. Parker, D. D.)
18 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.
BAR ES, "2Ki_8:18
Jehoshaphat’s alliance, political and social, with Ahab and Ahab’s family had not been
allowed to affect the purity of his faith. Jehoram his son, influenced by his wife,
Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, “walked in the way of the kings of Israel;” he allowed, i.
e., the introduction of the Baal-worship into Judaea.
Among the worst of Jehoram’s evil doings must be reckoned the cruel murder of his
six brothers 2Ch_21:4, whom he killed to obtain their wealth.
CLARKE, "The daughter of Ahab was his wife - This was the infamous Athaliah;
and through this marriage Jehoshaphat and Ahab were confederates; and this friendship
was continued after Ahab’s death.
GILL, "And he walked in the way of the king's of Israel, as did the house of
Ahab,.... Imitated them in idolatry:
for the daughter of Ahab was his wife; whose name was Athaliah, 2Ki_8:26, and
by her he was drawn into idolatrous practices; of such bad consequence are marriages
with idolaters; it is very much that so good a king as Jehoshaphat his father was should
contract such an affinity; he suffered for it in more instances than one:
and he did evil in the sight of the Lord; was guilty of idolatry, than which nothing
was more displeasing to the Lord; for he made high places, and compelled his subjects to

108. commit idolatry, 2Ch_21:11.
HE RY, "Concerning this Jehoram observe,
I. The general idea here given of his wickedness (2Ki_8:18): He did as the house of
Ahab, and worse he could not do. His character is taken from the bad example he
followed, for men are according to the company they converse with and the copies they
write after. No mistake is more fatal to young people than a mistake in the choice of
those whom they would recommend themselves to and take their measures from, and
whose good opinion they value themselves by. Jehoram chose the house of Ahab for his
pattern rather than his father's house, and this choice was his ruin. We have a particular
account of his wickedness (2 Chr. 21), murder, idolatry, persecution, everything that was
bad.
II. The occasions of his wickedness. His father was a very good man, and no doubt
took care to have him taught the good knowledge of the Lord, but, 1. It is certain he did
ill to marry him to the daughter of Ahab; no good could come of an alliance with an
idolatrous family, but all mischief with such a daughter of such a mother as Athaliah the
daughter of Jezebel. The degeneracy of the old world took rise from the unequal yoking
of professors with profane. Those that are ill-matched are already half-ruined. 2. I doubt
he did not do well to make him king in his own life-time. It is said here (2Ki_8:16) that
he began to reign, Jehoshaphat being then king; hereby he gratified his pride (than
which nothing is more pernicious to young people), indulged him in his ambition, in
hopes to reform him by humouring him, and so brought a curse upon his family, as Eli
did, whose sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not. Jehoshaphat had
made this wicked son of his viceroy once when he went with Ahab to Ramoth-Gilead,
from which Jehoshaphat's seventeenth year (1Ki_22:51) is made Jehoram's second
(2Ki_1:17), but afterwards, in his twenty-second year, he made him partner in his
government, and thence Joram's eight years are to be dated, three years before his
father's death. It has been hurtful to many young men to come too soon to their estates.
Samuel got nothing by making his sons judges.
JAMISO "daughter of Ahab — Athaliah, through whose influence Jehoram
introduced the worship of Baal and many other evils into the kingdom of Judah (see
2Ch_21:2-20). This apostasy would have led to the total extinction of the royal family in
that kingdom, had it not been for the divine promise to David (2Sa_7:16). A national
chastisement, however, was inflicted on Judah by the revolt of Edom, which, being
hitherto governed by a tributary ruler (2Ki_3:9; 1Ki_22:47), erected the standard of
independence (2Ch_21:9).
K&D 18-19, "Joram had married a daughter of Ahab, namely Athaliah (2Ki_8:26),
and walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, transplanting the worship of Baal into his
kingdom. Immediately after the death of Jehoshaphat he murdered his brothers,
apparently with no other object than to obtain possession of the treasures which his
father had left them (2Ch_21:2-4). This wickedness of Joram would have been followed
by the destruction of Judah, had not the Lord preserved a shoot to the royal house for
David's sake. For ‫יר‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ָ‫ל‬ see 1Ki_11:36. The following word ‫יו‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ל‬ serves as an
explanation of ‫יר‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫ּו‬‫ל‬, “a light with regard to his sons,” i.e., by the fact that he kept sons
(descendants) upon the throne.

109. BE SO ,"2 Kings 8:18. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel — That is,
after his father’s death. For the daughter of Ahab — amely, Athaliah, 2 Kings
8:26; was his wife — By whom he was seduced from the religion of his pious father
and grandfather. This unequal marriage, though Jehoshaphat possibly designed it
as a means of uniting the two kingdoms under one head, is here and elsewhere
noted, as the cause both of the great wickedness of his posterity, and of those sore
calamities which befell them. o good could be reasonably expected from such a
union. Those that are ill matched are already half ruined.
ELLICOTT, "(18) In the way of the kings of Israel.—This is further explained by
the following clause, “As did the house of Ahab,” or rather, to wit, as the house of
Ahab acted, i.e., Jehoram, as son-in-law of Ahab and Jezebel, lent his countenance
to the cultus of the Tyrian Baal. Under the influence of his wife Athaliah, as it may
be surmised, Jehoram slew his six brothers directly after his accession to the throne
(2 Chronicles 21:4). In this connection the remarks of Michaelis are interesting: “In
the reign of Jehoram falls the building of Carthage; Dido, her husband Sichæus, her
brother Pygmalion, king of Tyre, and murderer of Sichæus. By marriage Tyre
brought its then prevalent spirit, and a vast amount of evil,into the two Israelitish
kingdoms.” (The Syriac, Arabic, and Vulg. read “in the ways.”) The reason why the
details added in Chronicles are here omitted is to be found in the studied brevity of
the compiler in the case of less important characters.
PETT, "‘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 what was evil in the sight of
YHWH.’
But his unfortunate marriage to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, resulted in his
‘walking in the ways of the kings of Israel’ by being coerced into the worship of
Baal (compare 11,18), with the consequence that, like Solomon before him (1 Kings
11:6), he ‘did evil in the sight of YHWH’. His heart was consequently not right
towards YHWH and he led many of the people of Judah astray (2 Chronicles 21:13).
How important it is for us to marry the right person, one who will encourage us in
the true worship of God.
19 evertheless, for the sake of his servant David,
the Lord was not willing to destroy Judah. He had
promised to maintain a lamp for David and his
descendants forever.

110. BAR ES, "2Ki_8:19
The natural consequence of Jehoram’s apostasy would have been the destruction of
his house, and the transfer of the throne of Judah to another family. Compare the
punishments of Jeroboam 1Ki_14:10, Baasha 1Ki_16:2-4, and Ahab 1Ki_21:20-22. But
the promises to David (marginal references) prevented this removal of the dynasty; and
so Jehoram was punished in other ways 2Ki_8:22; 2Ch_21:12-19.
CLARKE, "To give him alway a light - To give him a successor in his own family.
GILL, "Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah for David his servant's sake,....
Not for his merits, but for the mercy he assured him of:
as he promised him to give to him always a light, and to his children; or a
kingdom, as the Targum; therefore he would not utterly destroy the tribe, nor suffer the
sceptre or government to depart from it till the Messiah came, see Psa_132:11.
HE RY, "IV. The gracious care of Providence for the keeping up of the kingdom of
Judah, and the house of David, notwithstanding the apostasies and calamities of
Jehoram's reign (2Ki_8:19): Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah. He could easily have
done it; he might justly have done it; it would have been no loss to him to have done it;
yet he would not do it, for David's sake, not for the sake of any merit of his which could
challenge this favour to his family as a debt, but for the sake of a promise made to him
that he should always have a lamp (that is, a succession of kings from one generation to
another, by which his name should be kept bright and illustrious, as a lamp is kept
burning by a constant fresh supply of oil), that his family should never be extinct till it
terminated in the Messiah, that Son of David on whom was to be hung all the glory of
his Father's house and in whose everlasting kingdom that promise to David is fulfilled
(Psa_132:17), I have ordained a lamp for my anointed.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:19. To give him always a light — A son and successor, until
the coming of the Messiah: for so long, and not longer, this succession might seem
necessary for the making good of God’s promise and covenant made with David.
But when the Messiah was once come, there was no more need of any succession,
and the sceptre might and did without any inconvenience depart from Judah, and
from all the succeeding branches of David’s family, because the Messiah was to hold
the kingdom for ever in his own person, though not in so gross a way as the carnal
Jews imagined.
ELLICOTT, "(19) To give him alway a light.—Comp. 1 Kings 15:4; 1 Kings 11:36;

111. and for the promise to David, 2 Samuel 7:12-16.
And to his children.—The reading of many Heb. MSS., the LXX., Vulg., and
Targum. Thenius calls this a reading devised for the removal of a difficulty, and
asserts that the promise was made to David alone. He would omit the conjunction,
and render, “To give him alway a lamp in respect of (i.e., through) his sons.” (See 2
Chronicles 21:7, ote.) Keil adopts the same reading, but translates, “To give him,
that is, his sons, a lamp,” making “to his sons” an explanatory apposition.
PETT, "‘However, YHWH would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake,
as he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always.’
But YHWH in His goodness and faithfulness never forgot His promises to David,
and thus in spite of Jehoram’s behaviour He did not destroy Judah, even though He
did chasten it. He preserved it ‘for David His servant’s sake’. And this was because
He had promised David ‘a lamp’ in Jerusalem for the sake of His children. In
accordance with previous mentions of ‘the lamp’ this refers to the heir of David
(compare 1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 15:4), the one who should have brought light to
Judah through the covenant. God’s purposes will thus be brought about by His
sovereign will.
‘His children’ may refer to YHWH’s children, and thus His people, or it may refer
to the people seen as David’s children, or it may refer to David’s household to whom
the reigning king would be a ‘lamp’, shining out as the evidence of YHWH’s
covenant with them
20 In the time of Jehoram, Edom rebelled against
Judah and set up its own king.
BAR ES, "Edom, which had been reduced by David 2Sa_8:14; 1Ki_11:15-16, but had
apparently revolted from Solomon 1Ki_11:14, was again subjected to Judah in the reign
of Jehoshaphat 2 Kings 3:8-26. The Edomites had, however, retained their native kings,
and with them the spirit of independence. They now rose in revolt, and fulfilled the
prophecy Gen_27:40, remaining from henceforth a separate and independent people
(Jer_25:21; Jer_27:3; Amo_1:11, etc.). Kings of Edom, who seem to be independent
monarchs, are often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions.
GILL, "In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah,.... Who had
been tributary to Judah ever since the times of David, for the space of one hundred and
fifty years:

112. and made a king over themselves; for though they are said to have kings, those
were only deputy kings, as in 1Ki_22:47 and now the prediction of Isaac began to be
accomplished, Gen_27:40.
HE RY, "V. The conclusion of this impious and inglorious reign, 2Ki_8:23, 2Ki_
8:24. Nothing peculiar is here said of him; but we are told (2Ch_21:19, 2Ch_21:20) that
he died of sore diseases and died without being desired.
K&D, "Nevertheless the divine chastisement was not omitted. The ungodliness of
Joram was punished partly by the revolt of the Edomites and of the city of Libnah from
his rule, and partly by a horrible sickness of which he died (2Ch_21:12-15). Edom, which
had hitherto had only a vicegerent with the title of king (see 2Ki_3:9 and 1Ki_22:48),
threw off the authority of Judah, and appointed its own king, under whom it acquired
independence, as the attempt of Joram to bring it back again under his control
completely failed. The account of this attempt in 2Ki_8:21 and 2Ch_21:9 is very obscure.
“Joram went over to Zair, and all his chariots of war with him; and it came to pass that
he rose up by night and smote the Edomites round about, and indeed the captains of the
war-chariots, and the people fled (i.e., the Judaean men of war, not the Edomites) to
their tents.” It is evident from this, that Joram had advanced to Zair in Idumaea; but
there he appears to have been surrounded and shut in, so that in the night he fought his
way through, and had reason to be glad that he had escaped utter destruction, since his
army fled to their homes. ‫ה‬ ָ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫צ‬ is an unknown place in Idumaea, which Movers, Hitzig,
and Ewald take to be Zoar, but without considering that Zoar was in the land of Moab,
not in Edom. The Chronicles have instead ‫יו‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ‫ם‬ ִ‫,ע‬ “with his captains,” from a mere
conjecture; whilst Thenius regards ‫צעירה‬ as altered by mistake from ‫ה‬ ָ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ֵ‫שׂ‬ (“to Seir”),
which is very improbable in the case of so well-known a name as ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ֵ‫.שׂ‬ ‫יב‬ ֵ‫ּב‬ ַ‫ה‬ is a later
mode of writing for ‫ב‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬ ַ‫,ה‬ probably occasioned by the frequently occurring word ‫יב‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫.ס‬
“To this day,” i.e., to the time when the original sources of our books were composed.
For the Edomites were subjugated again by Amaziah and Uzziah (2Ki_14:7 and 2Ki_
14:22), though under Ahaz they made incursions into Judah again (2Ch_28:17). - At that
time Libnah also revolted. This was a royal city of the early Canaanites, and at a later
period it was still a considerable fortress (2Ki_19:8). It is probably to be sought for in
the ruins of Arak el Menshiyeh, two hours to the west of Beit-Jibrin (see the Comm. on
Jos_10:29). This city probably revolted from Judah on the occurrence of an invasion of
the land by the Philistines, when the sons of Joram were carried off, with the exception
of the youngest, Jehoahaz (Ahaziah: 2Ch_21:16-17).
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:20. In his days Edom revolted — After they had been subject
to Judah one hundred and fifty years, ever since the time of David, who subdued
that country. This was a great dishonour to him. Hereby, however, the prophecy of
Isaac (Genesis 27:40) was fulfilled.
COFFMA , "The Edomites had been subjected by David and remained under the
dominion of Solomon, from whom they revolted for a time when the kingdom

113. divided. However, they again came under the dominion of Judah during the reign of
Jehoshaphat, but this revolt against Joram resulted in their independence. "They
remained from henceforth a separate and independent nation; and the kings of
Edom are often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions."[30]
"The text of 2 Kings 8:21 here is confused";[31] but what seems to be reported here
is a disastrous route of Joram's army and his being surrounded by the Edomite
troops. "Jehoram with his chariots was able to break through the surrounding
Edomites and escape with his life, leaving the rest of his army to escape as best they
could."[32]
"This military disaster which stopped just short of being complete ... was followed
by the loss of Libnah a city to the southwest of Judah, probably in the area of the
Philistines."[33]
ELLICOTT, "(20) In his days Edom revolted.—The connection of ideas is this:
Although Jehovah was not willing to extirpate Judah, yet He suffered it to be
seriously weakened by the defections recorded in 2 Kings 8:20-22.
Made a king over themselves.—Josephus says they slew the vassal king appointed
over them by Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:48). Edom appears to have been subject to
the hegemony of Judah from the time of the disruption under Rehoboam.
PETT, "‘In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king
over themselves.’
evertheless YHWH did chasten him for it was in Jehoram’s day that the Edomites
finally broke loose from Judah on a permanent basis, establishing their own sole
king (previously their king had been a deputy appointed by Judah (1 Kings 22:47),
even though sometimes called ‘king’ - 2 Kings 3:9). This rebellion by Edom was
probably connected with attacks on southern Judah by the Arabians (2 Chronicles
21:16) and had much to do with control of the southern trade routes. It may also
have been encouraged by the Philistine attacks on Judah (2 Chronicles 21:16) and
the continual threat posed to Judah by Aram and Assyria which kept Jehoram
occupied elsewhere.
21 So Jehoram[b] went to Zair with all his
chariots. The Edomites surrounded him and his
chariot commanders, but he rose up and broke

114. through by night; his army, however, fled back
home.
BAR ES, "Zair - Perhaps Seir, the famous mountain of Edom Gen_14:6.
The people - i. e., The Edomites. Yet, notwithstanding his success, Joram was forced
to withdraw from the country, and to leave the natives to enjoy that independence 2Ki_
8:22, which continued until the time of John Hyrcanus, who once more reduced them.
CLARKE, "Joram went over to Zair - This is the same as Seir, a chief city of
Idumea. So Isa_21:11 : The burden of Dumah (Idumea). He calleth to me out of Seir.
Smote the Edomites - It appears that the Israelites were surrounded by the
Idumeans; and that in the night Joram and his men cut their way through them, and so
got every man to his tent, for they were not able to make any farther head against these
enemies; and therefore it is said, that Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto
this day.
GILL, "So Joram went over to Zair,.... A city in Edom, the same with the Zaara of
Ptolemy (i); some take it to be the same with Seir, the mountain or country of that name:
and all the chariots with him; all the chariots of war he had:
and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about;
who came out of their cities in great numbers, and surrounded him, he having entered
into their country in an hostile way, to subdue them:
and the captains of the chariots: which belonged to the Edomites; those he smote,
2Ch_21:9.
and the people fled into their tents; the army being routed.
HE RY, "III. The rebukes of Providence which he was under for his wickedness. 1.
The Edomites revolted, who had been under the government of the kings of Judah ever
since David's time, about 150 years, 2Ki_8:20. He attempted to reduce them, and gave
them a defeat (2Ki_8:21), but he could not improve the advantage he had got, so as to
recover his dominion over them: Yet Edom revolted (2Ki_8:22), and the Edomites were,
after this, bitter enemies to the Jews, as appears by the prophecy of Obadiah and Psa_
137:7. Now Isaac's prophecy was fulfilled, that this Esau the elder should serve Jacob the
younger; yet, in process of time, he should break that yoke from off his neck, Gen_
27:40. 2. Libnah revolted. This was a city in Judah, in the heart of his country, a priests'
city; the inhabitants of this city shook off his government because he had forsaken God,
and would have compelled them to do so too, 2Ch_21:10, 2Ch_21:11. In order that they

115. might preserve their religion they set up for a free state. Perhaps other cities did the
same. 3. His reign was short. God cut him off in the midst of his days, when he was but
forty years old, and had reigned but eight years. Bloody and deceitful men shall not live
out half their days.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:21. Joram went over to Zair — This word is written
differently from Seir, and therefore, it seems, does not signify any part of the
country of Edom, but some city near to it. And smote the Edomites which
compassed him about — The Edomites were not wanting in their own defence, but
had surrounded him with an army; through which he broke in the night, and routed
them. And the people fled, &c. — The common soldiers of the Edomites herein
following the example of their captains. Yet Edom revolted — otwithstanding this
victory, Joram could not recover his dominion over this country; probably because
he was recalled by the revolt of some of his own subjects, who had taken the
occasion of his absence to rebel, and he feared that others would follow their
example if they had the like opportunity. So that Edom continued a kingdom under
its own king. Unto this day — When this record was written. Indeed, they were not
brought again under the power of the Jews till after their return from the captivity
of Babylon. Then Libnah revolted — A considerable city in Judah belonging to the
priests. For the reason why they revolted, see 2 Chronicles 21:10-11. It is probable
they returned to their obedience, because those words, unto this day, which are
added to the former clause, are omitted here.
ELLICOTT, "(21) So Joram went over to Zair.— o town called Zair is otherwise
known. Hitzig and Ewald would read Zoar, but Zoar lay in Moab, not in Edom.
(Jeremiah 48:34; Isaiah 15:5; Genesis 19:30; Genesis 19:37.) The Vulg. has Seira,
and the Arabic Sâ‘îra, which suggest an original reading, “to Seir,” the well-known
mountain chain which was the headquarters of the Edomite people. Perhaps the
reading of the text Çâ‘îrâh represents a dialectic pronunciation. (Comp. the forms
Yishâq and Yiçhâq for Isaac.)
And he rose by night.—There may be a lacuna of a few lines in the text here, or the
compiler, in his desire to be brief, may have become obscure. Jehoram appears to
have been hemmed in by the Edomites in the mountains, and to have attempted
escape under cover of night.
Smote the Edomites which compassed him about.—Cut his way through their
ranks.
And the captains of the chariots.—Part of the object of the verb “smote.” Jehoram
smote (cut his way through) the Edomites—that is to say, the captains of the
Edomite war-chariots which hemmed him and his army in.
And the people fled into (unto) their tents.—That is to say, the army of Jehoram was
glad to escape from the scene of its ill success, and made its way homeward as best it
could. (Comp. for the proverbial expression, “to their tents,” 1 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings

116. 8:66.) From Joel 3:19 (“Edom shall be a desolate wilderness for the violence against
the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land”) it has
been conjectured that when the Edomites revolted they massacred the Jews who had
settled in the country in the time of subjection. (Comp. Genesis 27:40.)
PETT, "‘Then Joram passed over to Zair, and all his chariots with him, and he rose
up by night, and smote the Edomites who surrounded him, and the captains of the
chariots, and the people fled to their tents.’
Jehoram (now Joram, a shortened form of the same name) went south to quell the
rebellion, but seemingly with insufficient forces, with the result that he was
outmanoeuvred and surrounded by what was probably a much larger force of
Edomites. Rather than recording it as a defeat, however, his annalists ignored that
idea (in typical ear Eastern fashion) and described the heroic way in which, in a
surprise night foray, by means of his chariot force he broke through the ranks of the
enemy who considerably outnumbered him, thus allowing many of his people to
escape with him. But the truth comes out in that these then ‘fled to their tents
(homes)’, always a sign of defeat. In other words his defeated army dispersed. ‘Fled
to their tents’ was a technical phrase brought forward from wilderness days.
Zair was probably Zior (Joshua 15:54), eight kilometres (five miles) north east of
Hebron, which was probably where he mustered his forces preparatory to his
advance, rather than being the actual site of the battle. Alternately it may be an
unidentified city in Edom.
22 To this day Edom has been in rebellion against
Judah. Libnah revolted at the same time.
BAR ES, "Libnah revolted - Libnah being toward the southwest of Palestine Jos_
15:42, its revolt cannot well have had any direct connection with that of Edom. It had
been the capital of a small Canaanite state under a separate king before its conquest by
Joshua Jos_10:30; Jos_12:15, and may perhaps always have retained a considerable
Canaanite population. Or its loss may have been connected with the attacks made by the
Philistines on Jehoram’s territories 2Ch_21:16-17.
GILL, "Yet Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day,....
Joram not pursuing the enemy, and taking the advantage of the victory, but returning to
his own land, the reason of which follows:

117. then Libnah revolted at the same time; a considerable city in his own kingdom, a
Levitical one; this revolt was occasioned, perhaps, by his idolatrous practices, and which
he compelled his subjects to; of this city, see Jos_10:29.
ELLICOTT, "(22) Yet.—Rather, and (i.e., so).
Unto this day.—Down to the time of composition of the original account from which
this epitome is extracted. This notice is borne out by the Assyrian monuments.
Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal mention Qa’us-gabrî king of Udumu (Edom), along
with Manasseh of Judah, among their tributaries. Esarhaddon also states that his
father Sennacherib had reduced “Adumû, a fortified city of Arabia.”
Then Libnah revolted at the same time.—The point of the statement is that the
success of Edom encouraged Libnah to throw off the Judæan supremacy. For the
locality see Joshua 10:29 seq., Joshua 15:42; Joshua 21:13. Keil thinks the revolt of
Libnah coincided with (it was probably supported by) the Philistine invasion
recorded in 2 Chronicles 21:16, and continued until Uzziah reduced the Philistines
(2 Chronicles 26:6 seq.). From the time of Hezekiah, Libnah again belonged to
Judah (2 Kings 19:8; 2 Kings 23:31; 2 Kings 24:18).
PETT, "‘ So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day. Then did
Libnah revolt at the same time.’
As a result of this defeat Edom had gained its independence ‘until this day’. This
latter phrase may be the comment of the original annalist, or of the final author in
whose day Edom was certainly independent. ot that further attempts were not
made on Edom by Judah. Indeed under Uzziah of Judah they were probably at least
partly subjugated, for Uzziah controlled Elath, and thus the trade routes through
the egeb and to the Red Sea (2 Kings 14:22). But that situation was not permanent.
The city of Libnah revolted at the same time. This demonstrates that Libnah, in the
Shephelah and not far from Lachish, saw themselves at this stage as independent of
Judah. Libnah was on the Philistine border, and this rebellion was presumably
connected with the Philistine incursions (2 Chronicles 21:16).
23 As for the other events of Jehoram’s reign, and
all he did, are they not written in the book of the
annals of the kings of Judah?

118. CLARKE, "Are they not written in the book of the chronicles - Several
remarkable particulars relative to Joram may be found in 2 Chron. 21.
GILL, "And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not
written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Not in the
canonical book of Chronicles, though some of his acts are recorded there, see 2Ch_21:1
but in the annals of the kings of Judah, written by persons appointed for that purpose.
JAMISO "According to 2Ch_21:18., Joram died of a terrible disease, in which his
bowels fell out, and was buried in the city of David, though not in the family sepulchre of
the kings.
(Note: “The building of Carthage, Dido, her husband Sichaeus, her brother
Pygmalion king of Tyre (scelere ante alios immanior omnes), all coincide with the
reign of Joram. This synchronism of the history of Tyre is not without significance
here. The Tyrian, Israelitish, and Judaean histories are closely connected at this
time. Jezebel, a Tyrian princess, was Ahab's wife, and again her daughter Athaliah
was the wife of Joram, and after his death the murderess of the heirs of the kingdom,
and sole occupant of the throne. Tyre, through these marriages, introduced its own
spirit and great calamity into both the Israelitish kingdoms.” - J. D. Michaelis on
2Ki_8:24.)
K&D 23-24, "According to 2Ch_21:18., Joram died of a terrible disease, in which his
bowels fell out, and was buried in the city of David, though not in the family sepulchre of
the kings.
(Note: “The building of Carthage, Dido, her husband Sichaeus, her brother
Pygmalion king of Tyre (scelere ante alios immanior omnes), all coincide with the
reign of Joram. This synchronism of the history of Tyre is not without significance
here. The Tyrian, Israelitish, and Judaean histories are closely connected at this
time. Jezebel, a Tyrian princess, was Ahab's wife, and again her daughter Athaliah
was the wife of Joram, and after his death the murderess of the heirs of the kingdom,
and sole occupant of the throne. Tyre, through these marriages, introduced its own
spirit and great calamity into both the Israelitish kingdoms.” - J. D. Michaelis on
2Ki_8:24.)
ELLICOTT, "(23) The rest of the acts.—Or, history. (See especially 2 Chronicles
21:11-19, and the otes there.)
PETT, "‘And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written
in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?’
As regularly the author was not interested in the king’s general history and refers
the reader/hearer to the official annals of Judah. He considered that he had said
enough to demonstrate how YHWH had chastened Judah under Jehoram. And that

119. had been his aim.
24 Jehoram rested with his ancestors and was
buried with them in the City of David. And
Ahaziah his son succeeded him as king.
BAR ES, "On the death of Jehoram, see 2Ch_21:12-19. His son is also called
Jehoahaz (margin) by a transposition of the two elements of the name.
GILL, "And Joram slept with his fathers,.... Died as they did:
and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; but not in the sepulchres of
the kings, and without any funeral pomp, and without any mourning and lamentation
for him, he being not beloved, and his life not at all desirable, 2Ch_21:19,
and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead; of whom more is said in the following
verses
JAMISO "2Ki_8:24. Ahaziah succeeds him.
Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead — (See on 2Ch_22:1).
ELLICOTT, "(24) Was buried with his fathers in the city of David.—But not in the
royal tombs (2 Chronicles 21:20).
PETT, "‘And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the
city of David, and Ahaziah his son reigned instead of him.’
Jehoram died peacefully, and was buried ‘with his fathers in the city of David’, a
testimony to his part in the continuing line. We learn, however, from the Chronicler
that he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings, possibly because he had been a
worshipper of Baal.
The main lesson that comes out of this passage is similar to that which comes out
with regard to the majority of the kings, and that is that if we walk faithfully with
God and are obedient to His will and covenant, we can be sure that He will bless us
in our lives in the long term, but that if we turn from Him and disobey His laws and

120. covenant He will finally bring chastisement and judgment on us. This is indeed the
author’s continual emphasis.
Ahaziah King of Judah
25 In the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king
of Israel, Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah
began to reign.
GILL, "In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab, king of Israel did
Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. He is called
Jehoahaz, and said to be the youngest son of Jehoram, 2Ch_21:17.
HE RY 25-29, "As among common persons there are some that we call little men,
who make no figure, are little regarded, as less valued, so among kings there are some
whom, in comparison with others, we may call little kings. This Ahaziah was one of
these; he looks mean in the history, and in God's account vile, because wicked. It is too
plain an evidence of the affinity between Jehoshaphat and Ahab that they had the same
names in their families at the same time, in which, we may suppose, they designed to
compliment one another. Ahab had two sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram, who reigned
successively; Jehoshaphat had a son and grandson names Jehoshaphat had a son and
grandson names Jehoram and Ahaziah, who, in like manner, reigned successively.
Names indeed do not make natures, but it was a bad omen to Jehoshaphat's family to
borrow names from Ahab's; or, if he lent the names to that wretched family, he could not
communicate with them the devotion of their significations, Ahaziah - Taking hold of
the Lord, and Jehoram - The Lord exalted. Ahaziah king of Israel had reigned but two
years, Ahaziah king of Judah reigned but one. We are here told that his relation to
Ahab's family was the occasion, 1. Of his wickedness (2Ki_8:27): He walked in the way
of the house of Ahab, that idolatrous bloody house; for his mother was Ahab's daughter
(2Ki_8:26), so that he sucked in wickedness with his milk. Partus sequitur ventrem -
The child may be expected to resemble the mother. When men choose wives for
themselves they must remember they are choosing mothers for their children, and are
concerned to choose accordingly. 2. Of his fall. Joram, his mother's brother, courted him
to join with him for the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead, an attempt fatal to Ahab; so it was to
Joram his son, for in that expedition he was wounded (2Ki_8:28), and returned to
Jezreel to be cured, leaving his army there in possession of the place. Ahaziah likewise
returned, but went to Jezreel to see how Jehoram did, 2Ki_8:29. Providence so ordered
it, that he who had been debauched by the house of Ahab might be cut off with them,

121. when the measure of their iniquity was full, as we shall find in the next chapter. Those
who partake with sinners in their sins must expect to partake with them in their plagues.
COFFMA , ""The reign of Ahaziah was very brief, lasting only about a year in 841
B.C."[34] The purpose of this paragraph is that of bringing to one place the final
posterity of Ahab for the execution of God's judgment upon that wicked monarch
and the prophecy that his dynasty would end.
This could not have been viewed as an ordinary accomplishment, because the house
of Ahab was now on the thrones of BOTH Israel and Judah, but God used Joram's
illness in Jezreel to bring Ahaziah from Jerusalem, thus bringing together both
branches of Ahab's house and enabling the termination of both of them at once!
Appropriately, the final settlement of God's account with the house of Ahab would
take place at Jezreel, at that very vineyard of aboth, where through Ahab's
murder of that righteous man, the dogs licked his blood, and, in the next chapter, we
shall see how the dogs indeed licked the blood of Ahab in the person of his grandson
Ahaziah in the very same place. one of God's prophecies ever failed!
Regarding that war in which the two kings had jointly opposed Hazael at Ramoth-
Gilead, "It was apparently successful. It was recovered by Israel (2 Kings 9:14) and
remained thenceforth in the hands of Israel."[35]
Josephus gives us a little more complete information on what took place in that
battle. "Joram was struck by an arrow in the course of the siege, but remained until
the place surrendered. He then withdrew to Jezreel, leaving his army under Jehu
within the walls of the town."[36]
Thus, the stage was set perfectly for the liquidation of the house of Ahab. His total
posterity were gathered together at Jezreel, and Jehu who was destined to be the
executioner of God's purpose was left in charge of the military force that was
needed to accomplish it.
To all intents and purposes, the Syrians killed Joram the king of Israel, although, of
course, they only wounded him. "His convalescence at Jezreel became the occasion
for the visit of Ahaziah thus providing the occasion when Jehu's bloody purge
terminated the dynasty of Ahab."[37]
ELLICOTT, "(25-29) The reign of Ahaziah king of Judah. His expedition with
Joram of Israel against Hazael at Ramoth-gilead. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 22:1-6.)
Two-and-twenty years old.—He was Jehoram’a youngest son (2 Chronicles 21:17; 2
Chronicles 22:1), and, as his father died at the age of thirty-nine or forty (2 Kings
8:17), he must have been begotten in Jehoram’s seventeenth or eighteenth year.
There is no difficulty in this, nor even in the supposition that Jehoram had begotten

122. sons before Ahaziah, as Thenius seems to imagine. He may have become a father at
thirteen or fourteen, and Athaliah was certainly not his only wife.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 8:25-29) The reign of Ahaziah over Judah.
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of
Jehoram, king of Judah, began to reign. Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he
became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was
Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel. And he walked in the way of
the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, like the house of Ahab, for
he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab. ow he went with Joram the son of
Ahab to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth Gilead; and the Syrians
wounded Joram. Then King Joram went back to Jezreel to recover from the wounds
which the Syrians had inflicted on him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael
king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, went down to see
Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.
a. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, began to reign: The short life and
reign of Jehoram (he reigned only eight years and died at 40 years of age) should
have warned Ahaziah. His brief reign (one year) shows he was even less blessed than
his father Jehoram.
i. “Ahaziah succeeded his father, Jehoram, in the critical year 841 B.C. He was not
to survive the momentous waves of the political events that were to inundate the
ancient ear East in that year. Indeed, in 841 B.C. Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859-
824 B.C.) at last was able to break the coalition of western allies with whom he had
previously fought a long series of battles (853, 848, 845).” (Patterson and Austel)
ii. Twenty-two years old: This is at odds with 2 Chronicles 22:2, which says that
Ahaziah took the throne when 42 years old. “I am satisfied the reading in 2
Chronicles 22:2, is a mistake; and that we should read there, as here, twenty-two
instead of forty-two year. . . . “Is there a single ancient author of any kind, but
particularly those who have written on matters of history and chronology, whose
works have been transmitted to us free of similar errors, owing to the negligence of
transcribers?” (Clarke)
b. ow he went with Joram the son of Ahab to war against Hazael king of Syria: His
close association with the wicked house of Ahab developed into a war alliance with
Israel against Syria. His connection with his mother’s family (she was a daughter of
Ahab and Jezebel, 2 Kings 8:18) was so strong and sympathetic that he paid a visit
to the injured and sick King of Israel (Joram).
PETT, "An Initial Summary Of The Reign Of Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Kings
8:25-27). c. 841 BC.

123. Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram of Judah, would only reign for a few months before he
was killed by Jehu during the latter’s rebellion against Jehoram of Israel.
evertheless during that short reign he continued in his father’s sins and in the sins
of the house of Ahab, and failed to make any attempt to bolster up the true worship
of YHWH. Thus he also was stigmatised as ‘doing what was evil in the sight of
YHWH’. And this owed much to the fact that his father had married Ahab’s
daughter who had brought her zeal for Baal with her. Just as Solomon’s foreign
wives had led him astray, the Israelite royal family were now leading the kings of
Judah astray.
Analysis.
a In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the
son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign (2 Kings 8:25).
b Ahaziah was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of
Omri king of Israel (2 Kings 8:26).
a And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did what was evil in the
sight of YHWH, as did the house of Ahab, for he was the son-in-law of the house of
Ahab (2 Kings 8:27).
ote that in ‘a’ Ahaziah began to reign, and in the parallel in his reign did what was
evil in the eyes of YHWH. Centrally in ‘b’ we have the main details about his reign.
2 Kings 8:25
‘In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of
Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.’
As usual the author gives us the date of Ahaziah’s reign in terms of the parallel king
of Israel. In those days there was no general method of dating, and thus things had
to be dated in terms of some well known event, such as, in this case, the reign of
another king. It also in this case had the benefit that it synchronised the reigns of the
kings of the two countries.
BI 25-29, "In the twelfth year of Joram.
Kinghood: the conventional and the true
Looking at King Ahaziah, as here sketched, two points strike our attention.
I. A king by physical heredity. This man came from the lineage of kings.
1. This arrangement is not Divine. All that can be said is that God permitted, not
ordained their existence.
2. This arrangement is absurd. That a man should become a ruler because of his
birth is an outrage on common sense. They only will be future kings who are royal in
character, in intelligence, and philanthropy. The greatest man of the community will
become its king. What is called loyalty is a debased and selfish flunkeyism, not a
devout homage for the good. Are we not commanded to “honour the king”? Yes, but
it is implied that he is honour-worthy. Are we to honour such men as Henry VIII.,

124. Charles II., and other such monarchical monsters, which, alas! abound in history?
No; denounce them, hurl them from their thrones.
II. A monster by moral descent. He was the descendant of one of the most ruthless and
most corrupt of that Hebrew people who were fast “filling up the measure of their
iniquities.” This man, like the offspring of all wicked parents, would inherit the spirit,
imbibe the principles, and imitate the example of his parents. (D. Thomas, D. D.).
26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he
became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one
year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a
granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.
BAR ES, "Such names as Athaliah, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, indicate that the Baal-
worshipping kings of Israel did not openly renounce the service of Yahweh. Athaliah is
“the time for Yahweh;” Ahaziah “the possession of Yahweh;” Jehoram, or Joram,
“exalted by Yahweh.”
The daughter of Omri - “Son” and “daughter” were used by the Jews of any
descendants (compare Mat_1:1). The whole race were “the children of Israel.” Athaliah
was the grand-daughter of Omri (see the margin). Her being called “the daughter of
Omri” implies that an idea of special greatness was regarded as attaching to him, so that
his name prevailed over that of Ahab. Indications of this ideal greatness are found in the
Assyrian inscriptions, where the early name for Samaria is Beth-Omri, and where even
Jehu has the title of “the son of Omri.”
CLARKE, "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign -
In 2Ch_22:2, it is said, forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; this
is a heavy difficulty, to remove which several expedients have been used. It is most
evident that, if we follow the reading in Chronicles, it makes the son two years older than
his own father! for his father began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and
reigned eight years, and so died, being forty years old; see 2Ki_8:17. Dr. Lightfoot says,
“The original meaneth thus: Ahaziah was the son of two and forty years; namely, of the
house of Omri, of whose seed he was by the mother’s side; and he walked in the ways of
that house, and came to ruin at the same time with it. This the text directs us to look
after, when it calleth his mother the daughter of Omri, who was indeed the daughter of
Ahab. Now, these forty-two years are easily reckoned by any that will count back in the
Chronicle to the second of Omri. Such another reckoning there is about Jechoniah, or
Jehoiachin, 2Ki_24:8 : Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. But,

125. 2Ch_36:9, Jehoiachin was the son of the eight years; that is, the beginning of his reign
fell in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Judah’s first captivity.” - Works, vol. i.,
p. 87.
After all, here is a most manifest contradiction, that cannot be removed but by having
recourse to violent modes of solution. I am satisfied the reading in 2Ch_22:2 (note), is a
mistake; and that we should read there, as here, twenty-two instead of forty-two years;
see the note there. And may we not say with Calmet, Which is most dangerous, to
acknowledge that transcribers have made some mistakes in copying the sacred books, or
to acknowledge that there are contradictions in them, and then to have recourse to
solutions that can yield no satisfaction to any unprejudiced mind? I add, that no mode of
solution yet found out has succeeded in removing the difficulty; and of all the MSS.
which have been collated, and they amount to several hundred, not one confirms the
reading of twenty-two years. And to it all the ancient versions are equally unfriendly.
GILL, "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign,.... In
2Ch_22:2 he is said to be forty two years of age; for the solution of that difficulty See Gill
on 2Ch_22:2,
and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; which was the whole of his reign:
and his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel; that
is, his granddaughter; for she was the daughter of Ahab the son of Omri, 2Ki_8:18, it
was usual for grandchildren to be called children, sons and daughters, and perhaps she
might be educated in the family of Omri.
BE SO , "2 Kings 8:26-27. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began
to reign — How this agrees with 2 Chronicles 22:2, see on that place. The daughter
of Omri — That is, his grand-daughter, 2 Kings 8:18. He walked in the way of the
house of Ahab — He not only worshipped the calves, but also Baal. For he was son-
in-law of the house of Ahab — And so was corrupted in his religion by his
connection with that idolatrous and wicked family. He was the proper son of
Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and the grandson-in-law of Ahab, his father Joram
being properly Ahab’s son-in- law.
COKE, "2 Kings 8:26. Athaliah, the daughter of Omri— Houbigant reads it, The
daughter of Ahab, the son of Omri.
REFLECTIO S.—1st, We have here,
1. An account of the wicked reign of Jehoram king of Judah, who, during his
father's life, was associated with him to govern. Utterly unlike the good
Jehoshaphat, he cleaved to the sins of the house of Ahab; and having taken his
daughter to wife, she poisoned his heart with her idolatries. ote; (1.) Good men, to
their grief, have often very wicked children. (2.) A wicked wife is among the greatest
of God's plagues. (3.) othing can be so dangerous to young men as bad

126. connections. Much more easily will they imbibe the principles and practices of a
wicked Ahab, than of a pious Jehoshaphat.
2nd, Ahaziah succeeded his father, and walked, like him, in the wicked ways of
Ahab's family. What else could be expected from the son of Jezebel's daughter, and
the example of a father so abandoned? At the request of Joram his uncle, he went to
battle with him to Ramoth-gilead, where Joram was wounded, and, having taken
the place, was carried to Jezreel to be healed. Thither Ahaziah went to visit him, and
met, as we shall find, the death he deserved. ote; (1.) When the sinner's body is
wounded, how solicitous is he to be healed, whilst the more dangerous wounds of his
soul, neglected, stink and are corrupt through his foolishness! (2.) Friendship with
the wicked is the path of death.
ELLICOTT, "(26) Ahaziah.—Called Jehoahaz (2 Chronicles 21:17). Ewald thinks
he assumed the name of Ahaziah on his accession.
The daughter of Omri—i.e., granddaughter. Omri is mentioned rather than Ahab
as the founder of the dynasty, and the notorious example of its wickedness. (Comp.
Micah 6:16 : “The statutes of Omri are kept.”)
PETT, "‘Ahaziah was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of
Omri king of Israel.’
Ahaziah came to the throne at the age of twenty two, but his reign only lasted for a
few months. This was partly because he unfortunately got caught up in Jehu’s
rebellion against the king of Israel by ‘accident’, and partly because Jehu saw him
as a Baalite, and therefore as fair game. But the prophetic author saw it as a just
judgment on his sin.
As is usual for a king of Judah the queen mother’s name is given, but in this case it
had added significance because she was of the house of Omri and Ahab, the Baalite
kings of Israel. ‘Daughter of’ need only mean ‘descended from’, for she was in fact
Ahab’s daughter (2 Kings 8:18). It may be that Omri is mentioned here because of
his recognised status as founder of the dynasty. Even Assyria thought of Israel as
‘bit-Omri’, the house of Omri for centuries to come. Athaliah would shortly become
even more notorious when she seized the throne on the death of her son and tried to
destroy all Azariah’s heirs (2 Kings 11:1). She was no doubt filled with anguish at
the death of her son and seemingly could not bear the thought of being thrust into
the background by the new queen mother. It was also possibly partly because of her
zeal for Baal, and her desire to make Judah a country which worshipped Baal. By
being ‘unequally yoked with unbelievers’ the kings of Judah brought on Judah
unimaginable consequences.

127. 27 He followed the ways of the house of Ahab and
did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as the house of
Ahab had done, for he was related by marriage to
Ahab’s family.
GILL, "And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the
sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab,.... Worshipping the calves, and Baal
also:
for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab; he was the son of Jehoram, who
was son-in-law to Ahab, having married his daughter, which accounts for his being
guilty of the same idolatrous practices.
K&D, "Ahaziah, like his father, reigned in the spirit of Ahab, because he allowed his
mother to act as his adviser (2Ch_22:3-4).
ELLICOTT, "(27) The son-in-law of the house of Ahab.—Comp. 2 Chronicles 22:4,
“his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly;” and notice the threefold repetition
of the words “the house of Ahab.”
PEETT, "‘And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did what was evil in
the sight of YHWH, as did the house of Ahab, for he was the son-in-law of the house
of Ahab.’
As a result of the influence of his mother Ahaziah was also a worshipper of Baal,
walking in the ways of the house of Ahab, and thus the verdict on his reign was that,
like his father, he did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH, with his influence
certainly affecting the court, and permeating through to those over whom he ruled.
When the king was slack with regard to God’s covenant, it filtered through to the
people. It was not a situation which YHWH would allow to continue.
28 Ahaziah went with Joram son of Ahab to war
against Hazael king of Aram at Ramoth Gilead.
The Arameans wounded Joram;

128. BAR ES, "This war of the two kings against Hazael seems to have had for its object
the recovery of Ramoth-gilead, which Ahab and Jehoshaphat had vainly attempted
fourteen years earlier 1 Kings 22:3-36. Joram probably thought that the accession of a
new and usurping monarch presented a favorable opportunity for a renewal of the war.
It may also have happened that Hazael was engaged at the time upon his northern
frontier with repelling one of those Assyrian attacks which seem by the inscriptions to
have fallen upon him in quick succession during his earlier years. At any rate, the war
appears to have been successful. Ramoth-gilead was recovered 2Ki_9:14, and remained
probably thenceforth in the hands of the Israelites.
The Syrians wounded Joram - According to Josephus, Joram was struck by an
arrow in the course of the siege, but remained until the place was taken. He then
withdrew to Jezreel 1Ki_18:45; 1Ki_21:1, leaving his army under Jehu within the walls of
the town.
CLARKE, "The Syrians wounded Joram - Ahaziah went with Joram to endeavor
to wrest Ramoth-gilead out of the hands of the Syrians, which belonged to Israel and
Judah. Ahab had endeavored to do this before, and was slain there; see 1Ki_22:3 (note),
etc., and the notes there.
GILL, "And he went with Joram the son of Ahab,.... His mother's brother, and so
his uncle:
to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; which he went to
recover out of the hands of the king of Syria, as his father Ahab had attempted in his
time; in which he was assisted by Jehoshaphat, as now Joram was by a grandson of his:
and the Syrians wounded Joram; as they did his father Ahab at the same place,
though his wound was not mortal, as his father's was.
K&D, "Ahaziah went with Joram of Israel, his mother's brother, to the war with the
Syrians at Ramoth. The contest for this city, which had already cost Ahab his life (1
Kings), was to furnish the occasion, according to the overruling providence of God, for
the extermination of the whole of Omri's family. Being wounded in the battle with the
Syrians, Joram king of Israel returned to Jezreel to be healed of his wounds. His nephew
Ahaziah visited him there, and there he met with his death at the same time as Joram at
the hands of Jehu, who had conspired against Joram (see 2Ki_9:14. and 2Ch_22:7-9).
Whether the war with Hazael at Ramoth was for the recapture of this city, which had
been taken by the Syrians, or simply for holding it against the Syrians, it is impossible to
determine. All that we can gather from 2Ki_9:14 is, that at that time Ramoth was in the
possession of the Israelites, whether it had come into their possession again after the
disgraceful rout of the Syrians before Samaria (2 Kings 7), or whether, perhaps, it was

129. not recovered till this war. For ‫ים‬ ִ ַ‫ר‬ ֲ‫א‬ without the article see Ewald, §277, c.
2Ki_8:29
‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ = ‫ד‬ ָ‫ע‬ ְ‫ל‬ ָ ‫ּת‬‫מ‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ , 2Ki_8:28; see at 1Ki_22:4.
ELLICOTT, "(28) And he went with Joram.—By the persuasion of his mother and
her family (2 Chronicles 22:4). Ewald would omit the preposition with, on the
assumption that Ahaziah took no part in the war at Ramoth, but only, as 2 Kings
8:29 relates, visited Jehoram wheu lying ill of his wounds at Jezreel. But (1) all the
MSS. and versions have the preposition; (2) if this verse related only to Joram king
of Israel we should expect at the end of the verse, and the Syrians wounded him,”
rather than “wounded Joram;” and in 2 Kings 8:29, “and he went back,” rather
than “and king Joram went back;” (3) the chronicler (2 Chronicles 22:5) expressly
states that Ahaziah accompanied Joram to Ramoth.
Against Hazael . . . in Ramoth-gilead.—Which strong fortress Ahab had vainly tried
to wrest from Ben-hadad (1 Kings 22:6 seqq.).
Wounded.—Literally, smote.
PETT, "Verse 28-29
Ahaziah Unwittingly Becomes Involved With The Problems Of Jehoram, King of
Israel And The Rebellion Of Jehu (2 Kings 8:28; 2 Kings 9:14-15 a).
Once he had come to the throne Ahaziah and Judah joined in an alliance with
Jehoram and Israel against Aram, and it was during one of the battles that ensued
that Jehoram of Israel was wounded and returned to Jezreel, where he hoped to
recuperate. As a result Ahaziah then went down to pay him a visit, because of the
illness which resulted from his injuries. His visit would, however, prove to be ill-
timed for meanwhile YHWH had arranged for Elisha to have Jehu, a prominent
Israelite commander, anointed as king of Israel so as to remove Jehoram from the
throne.
Analysis (note the inclusion of 2 Kings 8:28-29 and 2 Kings 9:14-15 a).
a And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to war against Hazael king of Aram
at Ramoth-gilead, and the Aramaeans wounded Joram, and king Joram returned to
be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Aramaeans had given him at Ramah,
when he fought against Hazael king of Aram. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king
of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was ill (2
Kings 8:28-29).
b And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to
him, “Gird up your loins (free your limbs by tucking your robe in your belt), and
take this vial of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead, and when you come
there, seek out there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of imshi, and go in, and
make him arise up from among his brethren, and bear him to an inner chamber” (2

130. Kings 9:1-2).
c “Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, “Thus says
YHWH, I have anointed you as king over Israel.” Then open the door, and flee, and
do not linger” (2 Kings 9:3).
d So the young man, even the young man the prophet, went to Ramoth-gilead.
And when he came, behold, the commanders of the host were sitting, and he said, “I
have an errand to you, O commander.” And Jehu said, “To which out of us all?”
And he said, “To you, O commander” (2 Kings 9:4-5).
e And he arose, and went into the house, and he poured the oil on his head,
and said to him, “Thus says, YHWH, the God of Israel, I have anointed you as king
over the people of YHWH, even over Israel. And you will smite the house of Ahab
your master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood
of all the servants of YHWH, at the hand of Jezebel” (2 Kings 9:6-7).
f “For the whole house of Ahab will perish, and I will cut off from Ahab every
man-child, and him who is shut up and him who is left at large in Israel” (2 Kings
9:8).
e “And I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of
ebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, and the dogs will eat Jezebel
in the portion of Jezreel, and there will be none to bury her” (2 Kings 9:9-10 a).
d And he opened the door, and fled. Then Jehu came forth to the servants of
his lord, and one said to him, “Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you?”
And he said to them, “You know the man and what his talk was” (2 Kings 9:10-11).
c And they said, “It is false, tell us now.” And he said, “Thus and thus he spoke
to me, saying, ‘Thus says YHWH, I have anointed you as king over Israel’ ” (2
Kings 9:12).
b Then they acted quickly, and took every man his robe, and put it under him
on the top of the stairs, and blew the trumpet, saying, “Jehu is king.” So Jehu the
son of Jehoshaphat the son of imshi conspired against Joram (2 Kings 2:13-14 a).
a ( ow Joram was keeping Ramoth-gilead, he and all Israel, because of Hazael
king of Aram, but king Joram had returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds
which the Aramaeans had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Aram) (2
Kings 9:14-15 a).
ote that in ‘a’ Jehoram of Israel was wounded fighting against Aram and returned
to Jezreel in order to recover and in the parallel the same applies. In ‘b’ Elisha
commanded a son of the prophets to seek out Jehu (with a view to anointing him as
king over Israel), and in the parallel, as a result, Jehu was declared king. In ‘c’ the
command was to anoint Jehu as king of Israel, and in the parallel he was anointed
king of Israel. In ‘d’ the young man came to Jehu, and in the parallel he was asked
why the young man came to him. In ‘e’ YHWH intended to revenge the behaviour
of Jezebel and the house of Ahab through Jehu, and in the parallel we have an
explanation of how this would be accomplished. Centrally in ‘f’ the whole of the
house of Ahab was to be destroyed.
2 Kings 8:28
‘And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to war against Hazael king of Aram at
Ramoth-gilead, and the Aramaeans wounded Joram.’

131. Ahaziah of Judah, the son-in-law of Ahab, and Jehoram (Joram) the son of Ahab,
formed an alliance against Hazael the king of Aram. We are not told who the initial
aggressor was, although it may well have been Hazael. One reason for his invasion
may have been the unwillingness of Israel to join in an alliance with Aram against
the renewed threatening menace of Assyria. Such an alliance, along with others, had
previously rebuffed Assyria under Shalmaneser III in the last days of Ahab. ow
Shalmaneser and Assyria were once again undoubtedly threatening the area, for one
of Jehu’s first acts on becoming king would be to submit to Shalmaneser and pay
him tribute.
Ramoth-gilead was a border fortress in Transjordan, barring the way along which
the Aramaeans would come to invade Israel.
In the course of the ensuing conflict Jehoram of Israel was wounded. Even though
surrounded by a powerful bodyguard, and in a protected chariot with an
experienced spear-man, it was always a possibility that this might happen when
kings led their men into battle (compare 1 Kings 22:34).
29 so King Joram returned to Jezreel to recover
from the wounds the Arameans had inflicted on
him at Ramoth[c] in his battle with Hazael king of
Aram.
Then Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah went
down to Jezreel to see Joram son of Ahab, because
he had been wounded.
CLARKE, "Went back to be healed in Jezreel - And there he continued till Jehu
conspired against and slew him there. And thus the blood of the innocents, which had
been shed by Ahab and his wife Jezebel, was visited on them in the total extinction of
their family. See the following chapters, where the bloody tale of Jehu’s conspiracy is
told at large.
I Have already had to remark on the chronological difficulties which occur in the
historical books; difficulties for which copyists alone are responsible. To remove them by
the plan of reconciliation, is in many cases impracticable; to conjectural criticism we

132. must have recourse. And is there a single ancient author of any kind, but particularly
those who have written on matters of history and chronology, whose works have been
transmitted to us free of similar errors, owing to the negligence of transcribers?
GILL, "From Ramoth, having taken it, and left his army there:
to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at
Ramah; the same with Ramothgilead:
when he fought against Hazael king of Syria; for Benhadad being dead, he was
now king in his room, 2Ki_8:15.
and Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the
son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick; of the wounds which he had received,
which might occasion a feverish disorder; and so it was brought about in Providence that
Ahaziah should here meet with the destruction appointed for him, of which in the
following chapter. See 2Ch_22:7.
ELLICOTT, "(29) Joram went back.—With a few personal attendants. He left the
army at Ramoth (2 Kings 9:14) under the command of the generals, and perhaps of
Ahaziah.
In Jezreel.—The seat of the court at this time. (Comp. 2 Kings 10:11; 2 Kings 10:13.)
To reach Samaria, moreover, Joram would have had to cross a mountainous
country, while he could be carried to Jezreel by an easier route through the valley of
the Jordan.
Which the Syrians had gıven.—The verb is imperfect. Ewald suggests that the
Hebrew letters may indicate a dialectic pronunciation of the perfect. It is more likely
that the imperfect is here used in the sense of repetition, implying that Joram was
wounded on more than one occasion.
Ramah.—Height. The same as Ramoth, heights.
And Ahaziah . . . went down.—Or, now Ahaziah had gone down—scil., when the
following events happened. The Hebrew construction indicates the beginning of a
new paragraph. The division of chapters is again at fault, there being no real break
in the narrative between this verse and what follows in chapter 9.
Ahaziah went down either from Ramoth or from Jerusalem; probably from the
former, as no mention is made of his having left the seat of war and returned to
Jerusalem.
Because he was sick.—The same verb as in 2 Kings 1:2. The margin here is wrong.
PETT, "‘And king Joram returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the
Aramaeans had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Aram.

133. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of
Ahab in Jezreel, because he was ill.’
In consequence Jehoram returned to his summer (winter) palace at Jezreel, rather
than to Samaria, in order to recuperate and be healed of his wounds. And while he
was there recuperating Ahaziah his brother-in-law went down to Jezreel to see him
‘because he was ill’. It was an ill-fated place at which to be found for it was
concerning Jezreel that YHWH had made His pronouncement about the judgment
that was to come on Ahab’s son there (1 Kings 21:19 with 29). As we are soon to
learn, YHWH’s hand was at work in history inevitably bringing about His
judgments (compare the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation 6).