Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 King 6:8 - 7:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Ki_6:8 to 2Ki_7:20
13And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. 14Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. 15And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, a host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master, how shall we do? 16And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 17And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. 18And when they came down to him, [i.e., the Syrian, for, the Syrian army—Bähr] Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.
19And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But [And] he led them to Samaria. 20And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and behold, they were in the midst of Samaria. 21And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? 22And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldst thou smite [if thou shouldst do that, wouldst thou be smiting] those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. 23And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the [marauding] bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.
24And it came to pass after this, that Ben-hadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. 25And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for [worth] fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung 26[was worth—omit for] for five pieces of silver. And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. 27And he said, If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress? 28And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to-day, and we will eat my son to-morrow. 29So we boiled my son and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.
30And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. 31Then he said, God do so and more also to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day. (32But Elisha sat [was sitting] in his house, and the elders sat [were sitting] with him; [.]) And the king sent a man from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he [Elisha] said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at [hold him back by means of] the door: is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him? 33And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the Lord; what should I wait for the Lord any longer [what hope shall I still place in the Lord]?
Chap. 7. 1Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for [be worth] a shekel, and two measures of barley for [be worth] a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. 2Then a lord [an officer, or adjutant] on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven might this thing be? [Verily! Jehovah is going to make windows in heaven! even then could this come to pass?] And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.
3And there were four leprous men at the entering in of the gate: and they said one to another, Why sit we here until we die? 4If we say, We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there: and if we sit still here we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall [away] unto the host of the Syrians: if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die. 5And they rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Syrians: and when they were come to the uttermost part [outskirts, viz., those nearest the city] of the camp of Syria, behold, there was no man there. 6For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. 7Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life. 8And when these lepers came to the uttermost part of the camp, they went into one tent, and did eat and drink, and carried thence silver, and gold, and raiment, and went and hid it; and came again, and entered into another tent, and carried thence also, and went and hid it. 9Then they said one to another, We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: if we tarry till the morning light, some mischief [penalty] will come [fall] upon us: now therefore come, that we may go and tell the king’s household. 10So they came and called unto the porter [guard] of the city: and they told them, saying, We came to the camp of the Syrians, and, behold, there was no man there, neither voice [sound] of man [a human being], but horses tied, and asses tied, 11and the tents as they were. And he [one] called the porters [guards]; and they told it to the king’s house within [reported it inside of the king’s house].
12And the king arose in the night, and said unto his servants, I will now shew you what the Syrians have done to us. They know that we be hungry; therefore are they gone out of the camp to hide themselves in the field, saying, When they come out of the city, we shall catch them alive, and get into the city. 13And one of his servants answered and said, Let some take, I pray thee, five of the horses that remain, which are left in the city, (behold, they are as all the multitude of Israel that are left in it: behold, I say, they are even as all the multitude of the Israelites that are consumed [dead];) and let us send and see. 14They took therefore two chariot horses [two chariot-equipages]; and the king sent after the host of the Syrians [towards the Syrian camp], saying, Go and see. 15And they went after them unto Jordan: and, lo, all the way was full of garments and vessels [utensils], which the Syrians had cast away in their haste 16[hasty flight]. And the messengers returned, and told the king. And the people went out, and spoiled the tents of the Syrians. So a measure of fine flour was sold for [became worth] a shekel, and two measures of barley for [omit for] a shekel, according to the word of the Lord.
17And the king appointed the lord on whose hand he leaned to have the charge of the gate: and the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died, as the man of God had said, who spake [as he said] when the king came down to him. 18And it came to pass as the man of God had spoken to the king, saying, Two measures of barley for a shekel, and a measure of fine flour for a shekel, shall be to-morrow about this time in the gate of Samaria: 19And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof. 20And so it fell out unto him: for the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died.
2Ki_6:11. Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled, &c. ñָòַø means more than: to lose courage (Luther). It is used of the tossing, stormy sea (Jon_1:11). Clericus wants to read îַìְùֶׁðåּ (Cf. Pro_30:10) instead of îִùֶּׁìָּðåּ , because the Vulg. translates: quis proditor mei sit apud regem Israel, and the Sept.: ðñïäßäùóß ìå . It may be, however, that both only translated according to the sense. At any rate it is not necessary to alter the text. From 2Ki_6:12 we see that Elisha’s reputation at that time extended even to Syria. The old expositors thought indeed that the servant who answered the king was Naaman, or one of his companions. The king learned the dwelling of Elisha by spies. Dothan (Gen_37:17) lay five or six hours’ journey north of Samaria, upon a hill (2Ki_6:17), at a narrow pass in the mountains (Jdg_4:5; Jdg_7:3; Jdg_8:3), in the district of the present Jinin (Van de Velde, Reise, i. s. 273).—The king of Syria wished to get Elisha into his power, not “that he might hold him,” and find out through him “what the king of Israel and other princes were plotting against him in their secret councils” (Cassel), but in order that, for the future, his military plans against Israel might not become known to the king of Israel through Elisha. The phrase çַéִì ëָּáֵã , 2Ki_6:14, cannot here be translated: “a great army” (De Wette, and others), as is clear from 2Ki_6:22-23, but it is used exactly as in 1Ki_10:2. The horses and chariots were accompanied by a large body of infantry.
2Ki_6:15. The servant of the man of God, &c. Not Gehazi, who would be mentioned by name, as in all other places (2Ki_4:12; 2Ki_4:25; 2Ki_5:20; 2Ki_8:4); moreover, the expression îְùָׁøֵú is never used of him. Perhaps it was one of the prophet-disciples who had accompanied Elisha to Dothan. That which Elisha says in 2Ki_6:16 is essentially the same as is read Num_14:9; 2Ch_32:7; Psa_3:6; Psa_27:3. He saw already the divine, protecting power, and begged God to allow his attendant also to see it, that he might undertake the journey back to Samaria with him, through the hostile army, fearless and consoled. “The opening of the eyes signifies elevation into an ecstatic state in which the soul sees things which the bodily eye never can see” (Keil, ed. of 1845), Num_22:31; The horses and chariots which Elisha and the servant see (2Ki_6:17), stand over-against the horses and chariots of the Syrians (2Ki_6:15), and they are designated by àֵùׁ , the form of appearance of Jehovah (see above, p. 14), as from God, so that they are symbols of the might of Jehovah, which surpasses all human, earthly might, and is unconquerable. We have not to think of literal chariots and horses of fire here, any more than in 2Ki_2:11. Usually, Gen_32:2 is compared, but there express mention is made of angels, who are not to be identified directly with the horses and chariots of a vision.—The Syrians are usually understood as subject of åַéֵּøְãåּ àֵìָéå in 2Ki_6:18, but in that case we must suppose that they were on a hill from which they descended when they saw Elisha and his companion go out from the city. Keil adopts this supposition, for he says: “Dothan stands upon a hill, which stands by itself on the plain, but it is surrounded or shut in on the east side by a ridge which runs out into the plain (cf. Van de Velde, l. c., s. 273). The Syrians who had been sent out against Elisha had taken up a position on this ridge, and from there they marched down against the city of Dothan, which lay upon the hill, while Elisha, by going out of the city, escaped from them.” This idea is contradicted, however, by the assertion, in 2Ki_6:14, that the Syrians “surrounded the city” in the night. They enclosed it, therefore, and did not simply take up a position on the east side upon a hill, which was, besides, separated from it by the plain. Furthermore, according to 2Ki_6:17, it was not the ridge upon which the Syrians are said to have stood, but the hill upon which Dothan was, which was full of horses and chariots of fire, round about Elisha, under whose mighty protection he and his servant went out of the city and down the hill. The Syrian army surrounded the hill at its base, so that escape seemed impossible; the heavenly army, however, surrounded the city at the top of the hill, and so stood opposed to the Syrian. This is clearly the meaning of the passage. In the immediately following words (2Ki_6:18): “and they went down,” the reference can only be to Elisha and his companion, who are the subjects of the words immediately preceding. If the words are not taken as referring to them, then there is no statement that they left the city, and there is a gap in the narrative. Accordingly àֵìָéå must be taken as referring to the Syrian army. The Syriac version and Josephus take it so (’ Åëéóóáῖïò … ðáñåëèὼí åἰò ìÝóïõò ôïὺò ἐ÷èñïýò ). There is no need of assuming that àֲìֵéäֶí stood in the text originally in the place of àֵìָéå , as Thenius does, for àֲøָí is often used in the singular for the Syrian army (2Ki_6:9; 1Ki_22:35), and is construed with the verb in the singular (1Sa_10:14-15; Isa_7:2).—And he smote them with blindness, i.e., they were put into a state in which, although they had their sight, yet they did not see him (Elisha), i.e., did not recognize him. Jarchi: They saw, but did not know ( éåãò ) what they saw. Cf. Gen_19:11 (Luk_24:16; Isa_6:10).—On 2Ki_6:19 Keil says: “Elisha’s untrue declaration: ‘This is not the way,’ must be judged like every other military stratagem, by means of which the enemy are deceived;” but, as Thenius well replies: “There is no untruth in the words of Elisha; for his home was not in Dothan, where he was only residing temporarily, but in Samaria; and the words ‘to the man’ may well mean: to his house.” Josephus understood the passage correctly; he says: “Elisha asked them whom they had come to seek. When they answered: “The prophet Elisha,” ðáñáäþóåéí ὑðÝó÷åôï , åἰ ðñὸò ôὴí ðüëéí , ἐí ᾖ ôõã÷Üíåé ὢí (i.e., where he is to be found), ἀêïëïõèÞóåéáí áὐôῷ . He certainly used a form of speech which the Syrians might understand otherwise than as he meant it, but he did not pretend in the least to be anything else than what he was. That they did not know him was a divine dispensation, not the result of an untruth uttered by him. How could the “man of God,” after repeated prayers to Jehovah, straightway permit himself a falsehood, and try, by this means, to save himself from danger? If he saw, as his companion did, horses and chariots of fire round about him, and if he was thus assured of the divine protection, then he needed for his deliverance neither a falsehood nor a stratagem. The Syrians wanted to take him captive; instead of that he, by the help of God, captured them all; not, however, as is usually the case in such a ruse, to their harm or ruin, but, after he has shown them that they could not capture him, “the prophet in Israel” (2Ki_6:12), he takes them under his protection, repays evil with good (2Ki_6:22), and shows them by this very means the man whom they are seeking.
2Ki_6:21. And the king of Israel.… when he saw them, &c. The address: “My father,” does not presuppose any filial relationship, but is rather a mere title (Clericus: sic honoris causa dicitur). Even Benhadad is called “thy (Elisha’s) son,” by Hazael (2Ki_8:9). The prophet-disciples called their master “father,” and this because it was the ordinary title of the chief of the prophets, somewhat as the same word is occasionally used now-a-days. The repetition of àַëֶּä expresses the eager desire to smite them. Elisha’s words (2Ki_6:22): äàùׁø &c., are taken by many expositors as a question [as in the E. V.], the idea being: if thou dost not even put to death those whom thou hast captured with bow and spear, how canst thou slay these? (Thenius, Keil). Such a question, however, would be very extraordinary; for if Jehoram was not accustomed to put to death even those who had been made captive in battle, why should he ask whether he should kill these, who had fallen into his hands without a combat? It seems more probable, on the contrary, that he was accustomed to put captives to death, in accordance with the prevalent war-usage of the time (Deu_20:13), and he raises the question, in the present extraordinary case, only out of consideration for the prophet, and because he does not trust his own judgment in the unprecedented circumstances. The Vulgate gives the sense correctly: non percuties; neque enim cepisti eos gladio et arcu tuo, ut percutias. The objection that ä , the article, could not have patach before à cannot be held to be decisive against this interpretation; the Massoretes themselves took ä as the article (Gesen. Lex. s. v. ä ; De Wette). [I take ä to be the interrogative (Ewald, § 104, b), but agree with the above interpretation. “If thou shouldst put these to death, would it be a case of slaying prisoners of war?” i.e., couldst thou justify it by Deu_20:13?—W. G. S.] No one doubts that ëָּøָä ëֵּøָä , in 2Ki_6:23, signifies the preparation of a meal. The only disagreement is as to the connection of this signification with the fundamental meaning of the root. According to Thenius the root is ëּåּø , which, with its derivatives, always refers to something round; hence, ëֵּøָä the circle of guests. According to Keil, ëָּøָä , to dig, gradually acquired the meaning: to prepare, make ready, so that it ought here to be rendered: paravit apparatum magnum. According to Dietrich (in Gesen. Lex. s. v.), the cognate dialects lead to the idea of bringing together or uniting, which, he thinks, is the fundamental idea in a banquet. Cf. cœna from êïéíÞ .—The result of Elisha’s act was that, from this time on, the raids of the Syrians ceased, not indeed because the magnanimity of the Israelites shamed them, but because they had found out that they could not accomplish anything by these expeditions, but rather brought themselves into circumstances of great peril.
2Ki_6:24. And it came to pass after this, &c. Josephus correctly states the connection between the passage which begins with 2Ki_6:24, and what precedes, as follows: êñýöá ìὲí ïὐêÝôé äéÝãíù ôῷ ôῶí ’ Éóñáçëéôῶí ἐðé÷åéñåῖí âáóéëåῖ , ôὸí ’ Åëéóáῖïí äåäïéêþò · öáíåñῶò äὲ ðïëåìåῖí ἕêñéíå , ôῷ ðëÞèåé ôῆò óôñáôéᾶò êáὶ ôῇ äõíÜìåé íïìßæùí ðåñéÝóåóèáé ôῶí ðïëåìßùí . Nevertheless, an interval of some years must be supposed to have elapsed between the two incidents. Ben-Hadad is not an appellative, like Pharaoh; it is the same king who is mentioned in 1Ki_20:1. In order to show the depth of the distress from the famine, the writer states the price of things which are not ordinarily articles of food. The worst part of an animal, which, at best, was unclean, the head of an ass, sold for 80 shekels, according to Bertheau and Keil, 35 thalers ($25.20), according to Thenius 53 thalers, 20 sgr. ($38.64). In like manner, in a famine among the Cadusians, Plutarch (Artaxerxes, 24.) tells that the head of an ass was scarcely to be bought for 60 drachmæ, whereas, ordinarily, the entire animal only cost 25 or 30 drachmæ). The price of a mouse rose to 200 denarii in Casalinum, when it was besieged by Hannibal (Pliny, Hist. Nat. viii. 57; Valer. Max., vii. 6).—There is no doubt that çøééåðéí , i.e., çָøֵé éåֹðִéí , means “dove’s dung,” and not “dove’s food” (Berleb. and Calw. Bibel); the only question is, whether this is to be taken literally, or whether it is a designation of a very insignificant species of pease. Bochart maintains the latter (Hieroz. ii. 44), and he appeals to the fact that ÷ַá is really a measure of grain: so also Clericus, Dathe, Michaelis, and others. The Arabs call the herba alcali “sparrow’s dung.” Celsius (Hierobot. ii. p. 30), on the contrary, maintains the literal meaning, which is supported by the keri ãִּáְéåֹðִéí , fluxus, profluvium columbarum ( ãִּéá from the Chald. ãּåּá , to flow), a euphemism for the chetib. So also Ewald and Thenius; the latter says: “If snipe’s dung is eaten as a luxury, necessity may well make dove’s dung (2Ki_18:27; Joseph. Bella. Jud. v. 13, 7) acceptable.” Gesenius and Keil do not decide. We incline to the interpretation which makes it a kind of vegetable. Supposing even that dung was collected for food, as was the case, according to Josephus, at the destruction of Jerusalem, why should dove’s dung be especially used? There is, moreover, no instance of dove’s dung having been used as food, and sold at so high a price. The meanest form of vegetable seems to be here put in contrast with the meanest form of flesh. The vegetable probably took its name from the similarity of color (white) and form, as in the case of the German Teufelsdreck (assafœtida). Cab is the smallest Hebrew dry-measure; according to Bertheau, it is equivalent to 27.58 cubic inches (Paris), and, according to Bunsen, to 56.355. Five shekels are equal to 2 thlr. 2 sgr. ($1.49, Keil), or 3 thlr. 10 sgr. ($2.40, Thenius).
2Ki_6:26. And as the King of Israel was passing by, &c. The wall of the city was very thick; the garrison of the city stood upon it; the king went thither in order to visit the posts, or to observe the movements of the enemy.—If the Lord do not help thee, whence, &c. àַì is taken here, by many, in its ordinary signification, ne: May the Lord not help thee! i.e., perdat te Jehovah (Clericus). If this is correct, the king invokes a curse upon her (Josephus: ὀñãéóèåὶò ἐðçñÜóáôï áὺôῇ ôὸí èåüí ). The following words, however, “Whence,” &c., do not coincide with this interpretation. The same is the case if we translate, with Maurer, vereor, ut Deus te servet. Keil’s translation: No! let Jehovah help thee! (i.e., do not ask me, let, &c.) is still more inadmissible, for àַì must not be separated from éåֹùִׁòֵêְ , with which it is connected by a makkeph. It evidently stands here for àִí ìֹà (Ew. § 355, b), and the meaning is: “On the general supposition that there is no help for her: ‘If God does not help thee, how can I?’ ” (Thenius). Cassel’s interpretation of the words as a “rebellious invocation of God,” is entirely mistaken: “Let God help thee: why does not the Eternal, whom ye have in Israel, and who has always revealed himself here, help thee? Where is He, then, that he may help us?” They are rather words of despair.—Out of the barn-floor or out of the wine-press? as much as to say: with corn or with wine? (Gen_27:28; Gen_27:37); not, corn and oil, for éֶ÷ֶá is wine-press (Pro_3:10). [The distress has reached a point where God’s interposition alone can provide food. If He does not interpose, how can I satisfy thy hunger? from the threshing-floor or the wine-press—the only human resources in case of hunger? Thou knowest that these are exhausted, and that the limits of my power of relief have been passed. Address thyself, therefore, to God. If He does not help thee, much less can I. The difficulty of the passage is one that is common enough. There is an unexpressed promise, viz., the circumstances of the case, which are vividly present to the mind of both hearer and speaker, and an unexpressed conclusion, viz., the proper inference to be drawn, or the proper conduct to be pursued, in the promises. The first speaker has drawn a false inference from the facts, and the question aims to lead him to a correct judgment. Hence àַì is used, very nearly in the sense of àí ìֹà .—W. G. S.] When the woman had, probably, replied to the king that she did not demand food of him, but appealed to him as judge, he asked her: What aileth thee? Thereupon she relates the horrible incident, in which the existing misery had attained its height. The other woman had hidden her child, not in order to consume it alone, but in order to save it. Her act reminds us of 1Ki_3:26.
2Ki_6:30. He rent his clothes, &c., as a sign of horror and of grief. As he stood upon the wall, and therefore could be seen by all, the people observed that he had sackcloth next his body, like Ahab, 1Ki_21:27, under the royal garment, which he tore open. Sackcloth was usually worn next the skin (Isa_20:2-3), only the prophets and preachers of repentance appear to have worn it over the under-garment, because in their case it was an official dress, and so needed to be seen (Winer, R.-W.-B. ii. s. 352). The sentence: He passed by upon the wall, is not, according to Thenius, to be connected with what follows, but, as the athnach shows, with what goes before. Jehoram did not wear sackcloth in order to make a show before the people, for they could not see it before he tore the cloak which was above it; neither did he wear it out of genuine penitent feeling, for, in that case, he could not have sworn, with sackcloth upon his body, to put to death the prophet, whom he had called “Father,” and to whom he was under such deep obligations. He wished, by means of this external action, to turn aside the wrath of God; “He thought that he had done enough, by this external self-chastisement, to satisfy God, and he wished now, in a genuine heathen disposition, to be revenged upon Elisha, since he learned from this story that the famine had not ceased” (Von Gerlach). It is not necessary to understand that Elisha had distinctly demanded that he should put on the garment of penitence (Ewald); perhaps the prophet had only exhorted generally to penitence, and the king, in order to put an end to the distress, had put on sackcloth. He become enraged at the prophet, partly because he believed himself deceived by him, if he, as we may suppose, had given the advice not to surrender the city [“If it had not been for him (Elisha), he (the king) would long before have surrendered the city on conditions,” Ewald], but to rely upon the help of Jehovah, and partly because he thought that the prophet might have put an end to the distress if he had chosen, and thereby might have prevented the horrible crime of the women. The oath reminds one of that of Jezebel against Elijah (1Ki_19:2).
2Ki_6:32. But Elisha sat in his house, &c. The narrative in 2Ki_6:30-33 seems to be somewhat condensed, and to require to be supplemented. This, however, can be done with tolerable certainty from the context. The sentence: Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him, is a parenthesis; the following, and he, namely, the king (not Elisha, as Köster and Cassel suppose), sent, &c., joins directly on to 2Ki_6:31. äַæְּ÷ֵðִéí can only refer to the magistrates of the city, not to the prophets or prophet-disciples (Josephus). They had not been sent in order to report to Elisha how far matters had come in the city (Cassel), but had betaken themselves to the prophet, since no one any longer could give counsel, in the great distress, in order to take his advice, and to beg for his assistance. While they were thus assembled the king sent a man, îִìְּôָðָéå , not, before him (Luther and others), but, from his presence, i.e., one of those men who stood before him, and, as servants, waited for his commands (1Ki_10:8; Dan_1:4-5), just as we see in Gen_41:46. This man was to behead Elisha, in fulfilment of the oath which the king had sworn in his excitement. Perceiving in spirit what was being done (as in 2Ki_5:26), the prophet says to the elders: See ye, i.e., do ye know, &c. He applies to Jehoram the significant epithet: son of a murderer; as by descent, so also in disposition, is he a son of Ahab, the murderer of the prophets, and of the innocent Naboth, (1Ki_21:19); filius patrizat. With the words: Is not the sound, &c, Elisha straightway announces that the king will follow upon the heels of the messenger (cf. 1Ki_14:6), and he calls upon the elders not to let in the messenger until the king himself comes.
2Ki_6:33. And while he yet talked with them, &c. The first question is, what is the subject of åַéֹּàîֶø ? If we take äַîַּìְàָêְ to be the subject, then we must suppose, as Thenius, Cassel, and others do, that the messenger speaks the words: “This evil is of the Lord,” &c, as the mouthpiece of the king, since they certainly are the words of the latter. This, however, is, in the first place, very forced, because he must have expressed it by saying: The king commands me to say to you, &c, but it is imperatively excluded by the consideration that the king, according to 2Ki_7:17, was present, and so the messenger could not speak in his name, in his presence. Ewald, taking account of 7:17, wishes to read äַîֶּìֶêְ for äַîַּìְàָêְ , but then the affirmation that the messenger, whom the elders were to restrain until the arrival of the king, really came, would be wanting from the text. The simplest course seems to be to supply äַîֶּìֶêְ as the subject of åַéֹּàîֶø (there is an athnach after àֵìָéå ) and to supplement the text here by what is stated in 7:17. The sense would then be: And the king, who had followed close upon his messenger, said, &c. Why did the king follow his servant? Certainly not “in order to see what was the result of his command” (Ewald); nor, “in order to be assured that his commands had been executed” (Eisenlohr); but, on the contrary, “in order to restrain the execution of a command which he had giver, in an excess of rage” (Keil). Even Josephus says: “Jehoram repented of the wrath against the prophet, which had overcome him, and, as he feared lest the messenger might have already executed his commands, he hastened to prevent it, if possible.”—Behold, this evil is of the Lord, &c, i.e., Jehovah has brought it to this pass that mothers slay and eat their own children; what further shall I then hope for or expect from Him? By these words, “he means to show the prophet that he no longer refuses to recognize the chastising hand of God in the prevailing distress, and then he desires to learn from him whether the divine wrath will not be turned aside, and whether the distressed city may not hope for aid” (Krummacher). To these verba hominis pene desperantis (Vatablus), Elisha replies in 2Ki_7:1, with a promise of immediate and extraordinary deliverance. The interpretation: The distress is so great that no help can any longer be hoped for, so that nothing remains but to surrender the city; thou, however, who hast prophesied falsely, and hast vainly promised help, and therefore art to blame for the calamity, thou shouldst justly suffer death (Seb. Smith, and similarly Thenius), is entirely mistaken. If this were the sense, Elisha’s solemn promise would seem to have been forced from him by the threat of death, whereas it rather serves to shame the king, who had doubted of Jehovah, and is, therefore, an answer fully worthy of the prophet. Jehoram had already given up his plan of murder when he followed his messenger. [His despair is, to a certain extent, intended as an excuse for his murderous project. It is as if he had said: God sends me only calamity upon calamity. Is it strange that my faith deserts me, and that I can no longer hope or believe that God will ultimately help? This despair produced the blind and senseless rage against thee. I have recovered from that madness, but how can I hope longer? This hope seems only to delay the catastrophe, and to make it worse the longer it is deferred. The prophet answers the despair by a new, definite, and confident prediction.—W. G. S.]
Chap. 7. 2Ki_7:1. Hear ye the word of the Lord, &c. The solemnity and distinctness with which the prophet addresses the king, the elders, and the others who are present, must not be overlooked.—On ñְàָä see note on 1Ki_18:32.—In the gate of Samaria, i.e., the place where the market was usually held (Winer, R.-W.-B. ii. s. 616). On äַùָּׁìִéùׁ and the following form of speech see note on 1Ki_9:22, and 2Ki_5:18. Instead of ìַîֶּìֶêְ , all the versions read äַîֶּìֶêְ , which, according to 2Ki_7:17 and 2Ki_5:18, is the correct reading; the dative gives no sense.—The words of the “lord” in 2Ki_7:2 are the scoff and jest of unbelief; Jehovah will indeed open windows in heaven, and cause it to rain barley and meal! will that come to pass? Thenius connects the two sentences thus: “Supposing even that the Lord should make windows in heaven, will this (viz., the promised cheapness and plenty) even then come to pass?” This interpretation finds in the words only doubt, and not bitter scorn, but, from the threat with which Elisha answers, it seems that the latter must be included. “Windows in heaven” may be an allusion to Gen_7:11.
2Ki_7:3. Four leprous men, cf. Lev_13:46; Num_5:2 sq. No one any longer brought them food from the city, and they were not permitted to enter it. In order to escape death from hunger, they proposed to go over to the camp of the enemy at dusk, when they would not be seen from the city. That áַðֶּùֶׁó (2Ki_7:5) does not mean “early in the morning” (Luther), is clear from 2Ki_7:9; 2Ki_7:12.— ÷åֹì , in 2Ki_7:6, can only be understood of a continuous and increasing rushing and roaring in the air, by which the Syrians were deceived. There are instances, even now-a-days, that people in certain mountainous regions regard a rushing and roaring sound, such as is sometimes heard there, as a sign of a coming war.—On the kings of the Hittites, see note on 1Ki_10:29. The slight remains of the nations of the Hittites having been subjugated by Solomon (1Ki_9:20), we have to understand that reference is made here not, as Thenius thinks, to “an independent remnant of this people, living near their ancient home (Gen_15:20; Num_13:29), towards the river of Egypt,” but, to an independent Canaanitish tribe, which had withdrawn into the northern part of Palestine. “ ‘The kings of the Egyptians’ must not be understood too literally; they are only involuntarily mentioned for the sake of the balance of the phrases” (Thenius). Both expressions are only meant to convey, in general terms, the idea that people from the north and from the south are on the march to the assistance of the Israelites, so that danger threatens the Syrians upon all sides. [It is worth while to notice also the graphic force which is given to the story by quoting what purport to be the exact speeches of all the parties. We are told just what Elisha said, and what the officer said, and what the lepers said, and finally what the Syrians said, as if the speeches had been recorded at the time they were uttered. But how could any one tell what the Syrians said in their encampment at night? Evidently the writer puts himself in the place of the Syrians, and imagines what their interpretation of any sudden alarm would be. Instead of stating this in the flat and colorless form in which a modern historian would state it: The Syrians thought that some one was coming to help the Israelites—he gives the speech in what purport to be the exact words. The mention of the king of the Hittites is very strange. No such nation as the Hittites any longer existed, and the kings of Egypt did not interfere in Asiatic affairs throughout this entire period. Yet we should expect that the Hebrew writer would ascribe to the Syrians such fears as they would be likely to have under the circumstances.—W. G. S.] On àֶìÎðַôְùָׁí see note on 1Ki_19:3.
2Ki_7:9. Then they said one to another, &c. After they had satisfied their hunger and loaded themselves with booty, it occurred to them that officium civium est, ea indicare, quae ad salutem publicam pertinent (Grotius). They were justly anxious lest they might be punished if they should longer conceal the joyful intelligence from the king and the city.—In 2Ki_7:10, Thenius wishes to read, with all the oriental versions, ùֹׁòֲøֵé , watchmen, instead of ùֹׁòֵø , because ìָçֶí follows. Maurer and Keil take the singular collectively for the body of persons who were charged with the guard of the city.—The subject of åַéִּ÷ְøָà , 2Ki_7:11, is not the speaker among the lepers, but the soldier on guard. He could not leave his post, so he called to the other soldiers who were within the gate, and they then gave news of the occurrence to the guards in the palace. The attendants of the mistrustful king (2Ki_7:12) give him very sensible advice, the sum of which is, “However it may turn out, nothing worse can happen to the troops we send out than has already happened to many others, or than will yet happen to the rest” (Berleb. Bibel). “Five” is here as it is in Isa_30:17; 1Co_14:19; Lev_26:8, a general designation of a small number. The origin of this use of language is probably that five, as the half of ten, is opposed to this number, which expresses perfection and completeness, to denote the imperfect and incomplete: so that it means a few horses. According to 2Ki_7:14 (two chariots) there were not five, but four. Two chariots, or equipages, were sent, in order, we may suppose, that if one were captured, the other might quickly bring the news.
2Ki_7:16 sq. And the people went out, &c. We may well imagine with what eagerness. The king had given to his adjutant (2Ki_7:2) command to maintain order, but the people trod him down in the gate. He was not “crushed in the crowd,” as Ewald states, but trodden under foot ( øָîַí Isa_41:25). This can hardly have taken place unintentionally, for why should it have happened just to him? Probably the eager and famished people would not listen to his commands, and bore down his attempts to control them. The repetition of the prophet’s prediction (2Ki_7:1-2) in 2Ki_7:18-19, shows what weight the narrative lays upon its fulfilment. It is meant to be, as it were, “a finger of warning to unbelief” (Calwer Bibel), and designates this fulfilment as the object and the main point of the entire narrative.
2. In the first incident, Elisha appears in the distinct character of a seer, øֹàֶä , which was the older name for a ðָáִéà (1Sa_9:9). He “sees” the place where the Syrians have determined to encamp, not once, only, but as often as they formed a plan, and, when they came to take him captive, he saw the heavenly protecting powers, and, at his prayer, the eyes of his attendant were opened, so that he, too, saw them, whereas the enemy were struck with blindness. This gift of secret sight, while one is in clear possession of all the faculties of consciousness, is similar to that of prophecy. Both are effects of the spirit of Jehovah, which non semper tangit corda prophetarum, nee de omnibus (Syra), nec datur illis per modum habitus, sic ut est in artifice (Sanctius). The prophet only sees what others do not see when Jehovah grants it to him, and his sight does not apply to all things whatsoever, nor to all events, as its legitimate objects, but only to those things which pertain directly or indirectly to the relation to Jehovah and to the guidance of the people of Israel as a nation, or as individuals. [Moreover, it is not in the power of the prophet, by any physical and ever-available means, to bring about this state of the soul at will]. This sight is therefore something entirely different from so-called clairvoyance, which has nothing in common with divine revelation. It may be asked why Elisha, who saw the places where the Syrians would encamp, and would attack Israel, did not also foresee their coming to Dothan, and the danger which threatened him of being captured by them. Cassel (Elisa, s. 116) is of the opinion that “he must have known it; yet he remained at Dothan and awaited the hostile emissaries: he knew that there were more with him than all the enemies together could muster.” This opinion, however, has no foundation in the text. On the contrary, it is clearly declared that the arrival of the Syrians was not observed until the morning, and that it was totally unexpected. If Elisha had known beforehand, by a divine revelation, that they were coming, he would have regarded it as a direction to escape from the threatening danger, and not to remain any longer in Dothan, as Elijah once fled from Jezreel (1Ki_19:3), and Joseph from Bethlehem (Mat_2:14). The great danger which suddenly came upon him, without his knowledge or fault, was a trial of faith for him and for his attendant. While the latter fell into anxiety and terror on account of it, Elisha showed himself a true “man of God” in that he trusted firmly in his Lord and God, and spoke courageously to his companion: “Fear not.” In this firm faith he experienced the truth of what is written in Psa_34:1; Psa_91:11.
3. The conduct of Elisha towards the band of Syrians, which had been sent out against him, is not, as might at first appear, a mere pendant to the similar incident in Elijah’s history (2Ki_1:9-16). It cannot even be compared with it, for the persons and the circumstances are of an entirely different character. The emissaries, who were sent to take Elijah captive, were sent out by a king of Israel, who despised the God of Israel, and sought succor from the Fly-god of the Philistines. They were also themselves Israelites who, being of a like disposition with their king, mocked the prophet of Jehovah. Under these circumstances an act of kindness and forgiveness on the part of the prophet, whose high calling it was to pronounce, by word and deed, the judgment of God upon all apostasy, would have been a renunciation of his calling (see above, p. 6). Benhadad, on the other hand, was a heathen, who did not know the living God of Israel. His troops were blind instruments of his will, who did not know what they were doing, and did not scoff at the God of Israel, or at his prophet. Besides, Elisha’s act was not merely a piece of good-nature and magnanimity, it was rather a prophetical act, in the strict sense of the words, which had no other aim than to glorify the God of Israel. Not for his own sake did Elisha pray Jehovah to smite the Syrians with blindness, but in order that he might lead them to Samaria. The thanks for their surrender into the hands of the king were due, not to him, but to Jehovah. Jehoram was to learn once more to recognize the faithfulness and might of Jehovah, and to be convinced that there was a prophet in Israel (2Ki_5:8), from the fact that these dangerous enemies were delivered into his hands without a blow. On the other hand, Benhadad and the Syrians were to learn that they could not accomplish anything, with all their cunning plots, against the “prophet that is in Israel” (2Ki_6:12), and much less, against Him whose servant and witness this prophet was. From this time on, therefore, they ceased their raids, as is expressly stated in 2Ki_6:23. The release, entertainment, and dismissal of the troops was a deep mortification to them. The slaughter of the captives, on the contrary, would have frustrated the purpose of the prophet’s act.
4. The miraculous features of this story some have attempted to explain, that is, to do away with, in various ways. Knobel (Der Proph. der Hebr., ii. ss. 93, 98 sq.) remarks upon the incident as follows: “Inasmuch as Elisha had extended his journeys as far as Syria (2Ki_8:7), he had gained information of the plans of the Syrians against Israel. This information, as a good patriot, he did not fail to make known to his king. He led the Syrians, who do not appear to have known either him or the locality, to Samaria. The inability to recognize the person as Elisha, or the place as Dothan, was, inasmuch as the safety of a man of God was at stake, caused by God; all the more, seeing that it appeared to be extraordinary and miraculous that they should not see that which was directly before their eyes. The cessation of this inability was then an opening of their eyes by God. Sudden insight into things which have long been before the eyes and yet have not been perceived, the Hebrews regarded as being directly given by God.… The horses and chariots of fire in the narrative are a purely mythical feature.” This explanation is almost more difficult to explain than the narrative itself. Nothing is said anywhere about frequent journeys of Elisha to Syria. Only one such journey is mentioned, and that later (2Ki_8:7). He could only have gained knowledge of Benhadad’s plans from his immediate and most familiar circle of attendants. These attendants, however, reject any hypothesis of treachery, and cannot explain Elisha’s knowledge in any way except on the ground that he is a “prophet,” i.e., himself sees the things which are plotted in the king’s bed-chamber. So far from conspiring with Elisha, these servants of Benhadad find out his place of abode, and so bring about the attempt to capture him. Then, when a company is sent to Dothan, and really arrives there, they must have known where the place was, and that they were there and not elsewhere. Furthermore, how could, not a single individual, but a whole company, allow themselves to be deceived by a man who was unknown to them, and to be led away five hours’ journey without getting “insight into that which was directly before their eyes?” The fiery horses and chariots, finally, are a symbolic but not a mythical feature (see above, p. 14). Ewald’s explanation is much more probable than this rationalistic interpretation. According to him, Elisha proved himself “the most faithful counsellor, and the most reliable defence of the king and people, by pursuing the plans of the Arameans with the sharpest eye, and by frustrating them often single-handed, by means of his sure foresight and tireless watchfulness. The memory of this activity is preserved in 2Ki_6:8 sq., where we have a vigorous sketch