Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 King 8:16 - 8:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
the monarchy under jehoram and ahaziah in judah, and the elevation of jehu to the throne in israel.
2Ki_8:16 to 2Ki_9:37
A.—The reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah.
Chap 2Ki_8:16-29 (2Ch_21:2-20).
20In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves. 21So Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots with him: and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about, and [smote] the captains of the chariots [i.e., of the Edomites]: and the people [of 22Israel] fled into their tents. Yet [So] Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time. 23And 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? 24And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.
25In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. 26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah 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. 27And 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: for he was the son-in-law of [connected by marriage with] the house of Ahab.
28And he went with Joram the son of Ahab [And Joram himself went] to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram. 29And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given 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.
We have to bear in mind, first of all, in counting the years of the reigns, the peculiar method of reckoning of the Hebrews. According to a rule which is given several times in the Talmud, and which was adopted also by Josephus in his writings, a year in the reign of a king is reckoned from Nisan to Nisan, in such a way that a single day before or after [the first of] this month is counted as a year (see Keil on 1 Kings 12. s. 139 sq., where the passages from the Talmud are quoted). [The note is as follows: “ ‘The only method of reckoning the year of the kings is from Nisan.’ Further on, after quoting certain passages in proof, it is added: ‘Rabbi Chasda said: “They give this rule only in regard to the kings of Israel.” ’ Nisan was the beginning of the year for the kings, and a single day in the year (i.e., after the first day of Nisan) is counted as a year. ‘One day on the end of the year is counted as a year.’ ” The citations are from the tract on the “Beginning of the Year” ( øàùׁ äùׁðä ) in the Guemara of Babylon, 100:1 fol. iii., p. 1, ed. Amstel.] It cannot be doubted that this method of reckoning is the one employed in the books before us, for we saw above (1Ki_15:9; 1Ki_15:25) that the reign could not have comprised full years to the number stated. The same is also clear from a comparison of 1Ki_22:51, and 2Ki_3:1, and other examples will follow. Such a method of reckoning, which counted portions of a year as whole years in estimating the duration of a reign, necessarily produced inaccuracies and uncertainties, so that the difference of a year in different chronological data cannot present any difficulty, much less throw doubt upon the entire chronology of the period or overthrow it. If now we reckon back from the established date, 884 B.C., the reigns of the separate kings, the following results are obtained:
(a) For the kings of Judah:—Ahaziah, who died in 884, reigned only one year (2Ki_8:26), and, in fact, as is generally admitted, not a full twelvemonth. He therefore came to the throne in 884 or 885. His predecessor, Jehoram, reigned eight years (2Ki_8:17), down to 885, so that his accession fell in 891 or 892. Jehoshaphat, his father, reigned twenty-five years (1Ki_22:42), that is, from 916 or 917 on. As he came to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab, the accession of the latter falls in 919 or 920.
(b) For the kings of Israel.—Joram, who died in 884, had reigned for twelve years (2Ki_3:1). He came to the throne, therefore, in 895 or 896. His predecessor, Ahaziah, reigned for two years (1Ki_22:51 and 2Ki_3:1), but, as is admitted, not two full years. Hence he became king in 897 or 898. Ahab, his father, reigned for twentytwo years (1Ki_16:29); came to the throne, therefore, between 919 and 920, which agrees with the reckoning above.
Again, if we reckon the corresponding years of the reigns in the two kingdoms, we arrive at the following calculation: (a) Ahaziah of Judah became king in the twelfth year of Joram of Israel (2Ki_8:26), and, as the latter was slain in the same year as the former (884), the one year of the former (2Ki_8:26), cannot have been a full year, (b) Jehoram of Judah became king in the fifth year of Joram of Israel (2Ki_8:16), and, as the latter’s accession falls in 895 or 896 (see above), his fifth year coincides with 891 or 892, the date above established for the accession of Jehoram. (c) Ahaziah of Israel became king in the seventeenth (1Ki_22:51), and his successor, Joram, in the eighteenth (2Ki_3:1) year of Jehoshaphat, whence it is clear that Ahaziah, as was above remarked, did not reign for two whole years (1Ki_22:51). The seventeenth of Jehoshaphat falls, reckoning from his accession in 916, in 899, and his eighteenth in 898, whereas, according to the above calculation, Ahaziah came to the throne between 897 and 898, and Joram between 897 and 896. This insignificant discrepancy is evidently due to the Hebrew method of reckoning, for under that system it might well be that the two years of Ahaziah, although not complete, might embrace parts of 898, 897, and 896, and still Ahaziah might follow in the seventeenth and Joram in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. At any rate, the historical details, which are of far greater importance, are not touched by these slight chronological differences, far less are they in contradiction with them. Finally, if we add the reigns of the three kings of Judah, viz., Jehoshaphat twenty-five, Jehoram eight, and Ahaziah one, the sum is thirty-four years. As these years, however, were not all full, there cannot be more than thirty-two in all. The reigns of the three kings of Israel, Ahab twenty-two, Ahaziah two, Joram twelve, amount to thirty-six years, which were not all complete, so that they cannot give in all over thirty-five years. The entire period from Ahab to Jehu contains between thirty-five and thirty-six years, and, as Jehoshaphat came to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab, the sums agree.
While the eleven data given in six passages thus agree essentially, one statement, 2Ki_1:17, according to which Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, differs decidedly. If it is authentic, Jehoshaphat cannot have reigned twenty-five years, but only seventeen, and there was no eighteenth year of his, in which the accession of Joram of Israel is declared to have fallen (2Ki_3:1). Moreover, Jehoshaphat’s successor, Jehoram of Judah, did not then reign eight (2Ki_8:17), but fourteen years, and he came to the throne, not in the fifth (2Ki_8:16) year of Joram of Israel, but a year before him. This brings great disturbance, not only into the chronology, but also into the history of the entire period. In order to do away with this glaring discrepancy, the founder of biblical chronology, Ussher, following the rabbinical book called Seder Olam, adopted the explanation, in his Annal. Vet. et Nov. Testam., 1650, that Jehoram reigned for six or seven years with his father Jehoshaphat. This theory of a joint reign is the most generally accepted explanation. Keil defends it very vigorously, and asserts that “Jehoshaphat, when he marched out with Ahab to war against Syria in Ramoth Gilead (1Ki_22:3 sq.), appointed his son regent, and committed to him the government of the kingdom. The statement in 2Ki_1:17, that Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, dates from this joint government.… But, in the fifth year of this joint administration, Jehoshaphat gave up the government entirely to him (Jehoram). From this time, i.e., from the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat, we have to reckon the eight years of the reign of Jehoram of Judah, so that he reigned alone, after his father’s death, only six years.” This reconciliation is artificial and forced; but the following considerations tell especially against it:
(a) The biblical text says nothing anywhere about the assumed fact that Jehoshaphat raised his son to share his throne six or seven years before he died, and that he then, in the fifth year of this divided government, retired entirely, although, if any king had done such a thing, it must have had deep influence on the history of the monarchy. Keil himself is forced to admit that “we do not know the reasons which impelled Jehoshaphat to abdicate in favor of his son two years before his death.” It never can be proper to supplement the history on the basis of an isolated chronological statement. In 2Ch_21:5; 2Ch_21:20, the reign of Jehoram dates from the death of his predecessor, just as in the case of all the other kings, and its duration is stated as eight years, no account being taken of any two years during which he is thought to have reigned while his father was yet alive, or of five years that he reigned jointly with him. It is said there, in 2Ki_8:3, that Jehoshaphat “gave” to his sons gold and fortified cities, but to his eldest son, Jehoram, the kingdom; yet that clearly refers to the disposition he made for the time after his death, and not to any distribution which he accomplished two, or, in fact, seven, years before his death.
(b) Appeal is made, in support of this assumed joint government, to the obscure words in 2Ki_8:16 : åִéäåֹùׁôָèָ îֶìֶêְ éְäåּãָä , which Clericus supplements by òåּã çé , adhuc erat in vivis, aut simile quidpiam. Keil, with many of the old commentators, translates: “While Jehoshaphat was (still) king of Judah,” i.e., during the lifetime of Jehoshaphat. But those words are wanting in the Syrian and Arabic versions, in some MSS., and in the Complutensian Septuagint. Luther and De Wette leave them untranslated. Houbigant, Kennicott, Dathe, Schulz, Maurer, and Thenius want to remove them from the text. Thenius says that they are “evidently due to an error of the copyist, who has repeated them here from the end of the verse,” and that “they were then provided with the conjunction, in order to give them a connection.” We cannot, therefore, call their omission from the text “a piece of critical violence,” as Keil does. If, however, it is desired to retain them, because they are in the massoretic text, the Chaldee version, the Vulgate, and the Vatican Sept., still they cannot be translated in the manner proposed. The word “still,” which is here so important, is wanting in the text, and cannot be inserted without further deliberation. Kimchi and Ewald, with the rabbinical Sedar Olam, supply îֵú after éְäåּãָä , i.e., “and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, was dead.” This, however, would be constructing a sentence which states what is true to be sure, but “the super-fluousness of which, and the unprecedentedness also, in the midst of the current formula in which it occurs, it is not necessary to point out” (Thenius). If the words are to stand, the only possible recourse is to supply äéä , which so often is wanting, in the sense of the pluperfect. The sentence would then have to be understood as a parenthesis, intended to refer back again to the last king of Judah, because, in this verse, the history of the kingdom, which has been interrupted by the narrative of other incidents from 1Ki_22:50 up to this point, is now to be resumed. “Jehoshaphat had been king of Judah.” But in what manner soever the words may be translated, they can in no case obscure the clear and definite declaration that Jehoram became king in the fifth year of Joram of Israel, and that he reigned eight years. What is obscure can never explain what is clear, but only, vice versa, that which is clear can explain what is obscure.
(c) When Joram of Israel undertook the war against Moab (2Ki_3:4 sq.), (at the earliest in the first year of his reign), he called upon “Jehoshaphat king of Judah” to go with him, and when the three kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom, turned, in their distress, to Elisha, he would have nothing to do with Joram, but referred him to the prophets of Ahab and Jezebel, and finally gave ear to him only for the sake of “Jehoshaphat king of Judah,” who was faithful to Jehovah (2Ki_8:14). But if Jehoram had then been king of Judah according to 2Ki_1:17, or even joint ruler, Jehoshaphat could not have been spoken of simply as ruling king of Judah.
(d) Jehoshaphat held firmly to the worship of Jehovah, and was a decided opponent of all worship of Baal or Astarte. He was, in fact, one of the most pious of the kings of Judah (1Ki_22:43; 2Ch_17:3-6; 2Ch_19:3; 2Ch_20:32); his son Jehoram, on the contrary, did what was evil in the sight of God, and was devoted to the worship of Baal, which Ahab’s family had introduced (2Ki_8:18; 2Ch_21:6; 2Ch_21:11 sq.). It is impossible, therefore, that they should have ruled together. If Jehoshaphat had allowed his fellow-ruler to introduce and foster the worship of Baal, he would have made himself a participant in the same guilt, and would not have received the praise of changeless fidelity to Jehovah.
(e) Joint governments are foreign to Oriental, and, above all, to Israelitish antiquity. It is true that it is stated in the history of king Azariah (Uzziah) that he was a leper, and, therefore, lived in a separate house, and that his son Jotham “was over the house, judging the people of the land” (2Ki_15:5). The “house” here meant is the royal palace (cf. 1Ki_4:6; 1Ki_18:3), and it is not intended to assert that he became king during the lifetime of the rightful king, as is assumed with regard to Jehoram. Jotham did not become king until Uzziah’s death, and then he ruled for sixteen years (2Ki_15:7; 2Ki_15:33). The years in which he acted as regent for his sick father are not reckoned in these, as they should be, if it is to be a precedent for including in the eight years of Jehoram certain years during which he was joint-ruler with his father. There is no statement anywhere with regard to Jehoshaphat that he was sick or otherwise incapacitated for governing. This energetic ruler was far from needing an assistant, certainly not such a weak one as Jehoram. The latter was sick for two years before his death; but even he had no joint regent. His son Ahaziah did not come to the throne until after his death.
From all this we see plainly that all attempts to bring 2Ki_1:17 into agreement with the other chronological data, which are essentially in accord among themselves, are vain. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that the text of this verse, as it lies before us, is not in its original form. Thenius considers it corrupt, and desires to read for: “In the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat,” “in the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat.” But this does not agree with 2Ki_3:1, where it is said that Joram of Israel came to the throne in the eighteenth, not twenty-second, of Jehoshaphat, nor with 1Ki_22:51, where “in the seventeenth year” must be changed, as Thenius proposes, to “in the twenty-first year,” a change which is inadmissible. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the form of statement varies considerably from the standing formula. In each case where the death of a king is recorded, there follows immediately the formula: such a one became king in his stead, without any further details in regard to the successor than simply his name. Then when the history of the following reign commences, often after the insertion of other incidents and reflections of greater or less length, it is stated in what year of the reign of the king of the other nation he began to reign, of what age he was, and how many years he ruled (cf. 1Ki_14:20-31; 1Ki_15:8-24; 1Ki_16:28; 1Ki_22:40-51; 2Ki_8:24; 2Ki_10:35; 2Ki_12:21; 2Ki_13:9; 2Ki_14:16-29; 2Ki_15:7; 2Ki_15:22; 2Ki_15:25; 2Ki_15:30; 2Ki_15:38; 2Ki_16:20; 2Ki_20:21; 2Ki_21:18; 2Ki_21:26; 2Ki_23:30; 2Ki_24:6). Now, in 2Ki_1:17, after the words “and he died according to the word of the prophet Elijah,” follows the ordinary formula, “and Joram became king in his stead;” but then there is added, what is not added in a single other passage: “In the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,” but without the further details, which are usually given in that connection, in regard to the length of the reign, &c. These details are not added until we come to the commencement of the history of his reign, 2Ki_3:1; there, however, they vary very much from this short statement, as does also 2Ki_8:16. Now since, of course, the two complete and precise statements are to be preferred to the incomplete one, the unusual chronological datum in 2Ki_1:17 must be regarded as a later and incorrect addition, all the more as it stands in contradiction with all the other chronological data of the period in question. It appears distinctly as an addition in the Sept., where it stands at the end of the verse, and is not incorporated into it. It is remarkable that scholars have preferred to change the other complete and consistent data, in order to force them into agreement with this, rather than to give up this one statement which is totally unsupported, and which introduces confusion not only into the chronology, but also into the history.
Finally, we have to notice another calculation of the chronology of this period which Wolff has attempted (Studien und Kritiken, 1858, 2 Kings 4 : s. 625–688). He rejects in general very decidedly any assumption of joint sovereignty, and especially the joint rule of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat; but he inconsistently sets up such an assumption when he says (s. 643): “As his (Ahaziah of Israel’s) health was so far lost that he could no longer administer the government, he took his brother Joram on the throne with himself, as co-regent, at about the end of the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. He remained king until the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat, and then gave up the government entirely in favor of his brother, but did not die until the second year of Jehoram.” Ignoring the above-mentioned Jewish mode of reckoning, and starting from the purely arbitrary and unfounded assumption that only the dates given for the reigns of the kings of Judah are correct and reliable, Wolff changes the twenty-two years of Ahab to twenty, the two years of Ahaziah of Israel to four and a half, makes Joram succeed to the throne in the twenty-second instead of the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram in the third and not in the fifth year of Joram, and, finally, Ahaziah of Judah in the eleventh and not in the twelfth year of Joram. No one else has hitherto conceived the idea of undertaking so many changes in the text; they are all as violent as they are unnecessary, and, therefore, need no refutation, although their necessity is confidently asserted. The joint rule of Ahaziah and Joram is, if possible, still more contrary to the text than that of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram.
2Ki_8:21. And he rose by night, &c. “It is clear that we have in this verse the record of an unsuccessful attempt of Jehoram to re-subjugate Edom. We must, therefore, form our conceptions of the details according to this character of the whole” (Thenius). It is an utter mistake to understand the occurrence as the Calwer Bibel, on 2Ch_21:7 sq., explains it: “The cowardly, faithless king plotted and executed a massacre by night of the Edomites who surrounded him, in which his own captains also fell; and since, according to 2Ki_8:21, his own people upon this deserted him, he could not accomplish anything further against the Edomites, and they remained independent.” The passage rather states simply that the army of Judah, as it approached Edom, was surrounded by the Edomites, but broke through them by night, and fled homewards (1Ki_8:66), so that it barely escaped an utter defeat. From this time on the dominion of Judah over Edom was at an end (Psa_137:7).
2Ki_8:22. Unto this day, i.e., until the time of composition of the original document from which this is taken (see above, on 1Ki_8:8). The Edomites were, indeed, re-subjugated for a short time (2Ki_14:7; 2Ki_14:22), but never again permanently.—Then Libnah revolted at the same time. This city lay in the plain of Judah, not far from the frontier of Philistia. It was at one time an ancient royal residence of the Canaanites, and afterwards one of the priests’ cities [cities of refuge] of the Israelites (Jos_15:42; Jos_12:15; Jos_21:13), though it can hardly have retained the latter character until the time of Jehoram. We may suppose that it was instigated to revolt by the Philistines, and that it was assisted by them. Among the further details mentioned by the chronicler, it is stated that the Philistines attacked Jehoram, and inflicted upon him a severe defeat (2Ch_21:16 sq.). [It is also stated there that the allied Philistines and Arabians took Jerusalem and plundered. the temple, an event to which Hitzig refers the passage Joel 4:4–6. Thenius approves this, but thinks that 2Ch_21:17 is inconsistent with 2Ki_10:3, which assigns a different fate to Ahaziah’s kindred.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_8:25. Did Ahaziah begin to reign. The chronicler states Ahaziah’s age at his accession as forty-two (II., 2Ki_22:2). This is the result of a mistake of î for ë , in the numerals (Keil, Winer, Thenius), as we must conclude from the age assigned to Jehoram in 2Ki_8:17. Jehoram was, thirty-two when he ascended the throne; he reigned eight years; died, therefore, at forty. Ahaziah was twenty-two at his accession; he was, therefore, born when his father was eighteen. There is nothing astonishing in this, for, according to the Talmud, young men might marry after their thirteenth year, and eighteen was the usual age of marriage (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 297). [It should be noticed that this bears upon 2Ch_21:17, where it is said that Ahaziah was the youngest of the sons of Jehoram.—W. G. S.]—Athaliah is here (2Ki_8:26) called the daughter of Omri, although she was in fact his granddaughter, because he was the founder and father of the royal house to which she belonged, and which brought so much misfortune upon Israel and Judah. The chronicler adds (II., 2Ki_22:3), that she was “his [Ahaziah’s] counsellor to do wickedly.”
2Ki_8:28. And he went with Joram, &c. [Joram himself went; see the amended translation and Textual and Grammatical, note 7. If àֶú is taken as the prep., then we have to assume that, after Joram was wounded, Ahaziah also left the seat of war and went to Jerusalem, and then that he went down from there again to Jezreel to visit Joram; for that is the simple and natural meaning of the last clause of 2Ki_8:29. The awkwardness of this acceptation is evident. It is better to take àֶú as the so-called “accusative sign,” as explained in the note referred to.—W. G. S.] On Ramoth-Gilead, see note on 1Ki_4:13. This strongly fortified city was, in the time of Ahab, in the hands of the Syrians, and he did not succeed in taking it away from them. He was wounded in the attempt so that he died (1 Kings 22). From 2Ki_9:2; 2Ki_14:15, we see that, at the time when Joram was at war with Hazael, it was again in the possession of the Israelites. It is not stated when or how, since the death of Ahab, it came into their hands. According to 2Ki_9:14, Joram was ùֹׁîֵø áְּøָîֹú , i.e., he was defending the city against the attacks of Hazael, who was thirsting for conquest, and who undoubtedly commenced the war. It was, therefore, in defending, and not in attacking the city, that Jehoram was smitten, that is, severely wounded. [See note on 2Ki_9:1.] He ordered that he should be taken to Jezreel (see note on 1Ki_18:45), and not to Samaria, although the latter was much nearer, probably because the court was at Jezreel. [Thenius’ suggestion that he could make this journey over a smooth road, while the way to Samaria lay over mountains, is also good.—W. G. S.] But the army remained under command of the generals in and before Ramoth. The king’s wound does not seem to have healed for some time. Ewald maintains that Ahaziah did not go to the war with Joram, but went to visit him from Jerusalem at a later time, when he was being healed of his wound. He says, therefore, that the particle àֶú in 2Ki_8:28 is to be struck out. There is, however, no ground for this (see Thenius on the verse), for éָøַã , in 2Ki_8:29, does not prove that he went from Jerusalem to Jezreel, since the latter lay to the north of Ramoth as well as of Jerusalem. It may well be that he visited Joram from Ramoth, whither he had gone with him to the war, especially as it was not so far from there as from Jerusalem. [ àֶú is not the prep. but the case-sign with the nominative; éåֹøָí is therefore the subject of åéìêְ , and not Ahaziah, as it is commonly understood (see Text. and Gramm.). Ahaziah did not go to Ramoth, but went down from Jerusalem to Jezreel.—W. G. S.]
2. Jehoram and Ahaziah were the first kings of Judah under whom idolatry was not only tolerated, but formally introduced (2Ch_21:11). The book of Chronicles contains no further information than is here given in regard to Ahaziah, who did not reign for even one full year. What is there stated in regard to Jehoram shows him to us as one of the wickedest and most depraved kings that ever reigned in Judah, under whom the nation not only sank religiously, but also politically came near to ruin. He drove it by force to idolatry ( åַéַּãַּç ); he murdered his six brothers, and other princes besides; the Edomites established their independence of his authority; the Philistines and Arabians defeated him, and carried off all his treasures, his wives, and his children; finally, a horrible disease attacked him, which lasted two years, when he at length died. Schlier (Die Könige in Israel, s. 121 sq.) asserts in regard to him: “It was oppressive to him to be only a joint ruler; he determined to cast off the restraints of a correcting and warning father. So he sought to accomplish this by his marriage. He murdered his six brothers, who were better than himself, and also several chiefs who stood by them, and he held his royal father in captivity. It is true that he scrupled to stain his hand with the blood of his father, and that he left him still the title of king; but he held the government, from this time on, entirely in his own hands.” Of all these facts, with the exception of the murder of his brothers and the other prominent men, there is not a word in the biblical text. They are all pure fictions, to the invention of which the author is led by assuming as an historical certainty that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram ruled together for seven years. After making this assumption he feels justified in going on to explain the circumstances which produced this state of things, and especially why, after five years of this arrangement, Jehoshaphat should have retired entirely from the government for the last two years of his life. [It is a very good, instance of the method of commenting on the Scriptures which consists in inventing possible combinations in order to reconcile apparently inconsistent statements, and it shows what comes of it. It is often undertaken in a false idea of reverence for the Scriptures, and in a mistaken desire to save their authority. It is clear that a high and pure conception of, and loyalty to, historical truth, must be abandoned before any one can adopt this method of interpretation. The statements of the text are one thing, and the inventions of the commentator are another. Any one who undertakes this work must determine beforehand to keep the distinction between the two clearly and firmly before himself in his work, and the only sound method of interpretation is to cling to the text and leave inventions aside. The notion of a joint government is a pure fiction, and there is no reason why any one who adopts it should not go farther, and invent fictitious causes, occasions, and other details to account for it.—W. G. S.] The asserted facts fall to the ground with the false assumption on which they are built. The facts which are given in the documents are more than sufficient in themselves to establish the depravity of Jehoram. His wickedness is explained, since his father was one of the best and most pious kings of Israel, by the influence of his wife, and by his connection with the house of Ahab. In his history and that of Ahaziah we have a terrible example of the way in which one bad woman (Jezebel) can radically corrupt entire dynasties and entire states, and of the curse which rests upon matrimonial connections which are only formed in order to attain political objects (see above, 1 Kings 22. Hist. § 1).
2Ki_8:19. Behold the faithfulness of God, who, for the sake of the fidelity of the father, chastises indeed the son, but yet will not utterly destroy him.—Cramer: God will sustain his Church (kingdom) until the end of the world, in order that a holy leaven may remain, no matter how many may be found who scoff at His promise to sustain His Church.
2Ki_8:20. God punishes infidelity to himself by means of the infidelity of men to one another.—Cramer: If we do not keep faith with God, then people must not keep faith with us. By means of insurrection God punishes the sins of sovereigns, and dissolves the authority of kings (cf. Job_12:18).
2Ki_8:26. Calw. Bib.: It is a horrible thing when not merely relatives, but even a mother instigates to evil.
2Ki_8:28. Cramer: Have no dealings with a fool-hardy man, for he undertakes what his own mind dictates, and you will have to suffer the consequences with him (Sir_8:18).
2Ki_8:29. Calw. Bib.: As he so gladly joined himself to Ahab’s family, and was so fond of spending his time with them, there it was, by the ordering of Providence, that he met his end. Those who, by their hostility to the Lord, belong together, must come together, according to God’s just decree, that they may perish together. Jehoram was so anxious to be healed of the bodily wound which the Syrians had given him, that he left the army and returned to Jezreel; but the wounds of his soul, which he had inflicted upon himself, caused him no trouble, and did not lead him back, as they should have done, to Him who promised: “I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds” (Jer_30:17). The children of this world visit one another when they are ill; they do it, however, not in order to console the sick one with the Word of Life, and to advance God’s purpose in afflicting him, but from natural love, from relationship, or other external reasons. Their visits cannot, therefore, be regarded as Christian work.
Footnotes:
2Ki_8:16.—[Keil and Bähr and the English translators take åéäåùׁôè îìê éäåãä as a parenthesis. In this view it must be understood that Jehoram of Judah assumed the government during the lifetime of his father. (See the Excursus on the Chronology.) In the Sept. (Alex.) Syr., Arab., and many MSS., the words are wanting. They arise from an error of the copyist, who repeated them from the end of the verse (Thenius, Bunsen). Ewald supplies îֵú before îָìַêְ ; but, as Thenius well objects, there is no instance of any such statement inserted in the midst of this current formula.
2Ki_8:17.—[The keri proposes the pl. ùָׁðִéí according to the rule for numbers between two and ten.
2Ki_8:18.—[“Daughter of Ahab,” viz., Athaliah, 2Ki_8:26. According to 2Ch_21:4, he put to death all his brothers, perhaps, as Keil suggests, in order to get the treasures which Jehoshaphat had given to them (2Ch_21:3).
2Ki_8:19.—[“The Lord would not destroy Judah,” &c., 2Ch_21:7. “The Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David,” cf. 2Sa_7:12. On ðִéø , see on 1Ki_11:36. ìְáָðָéå , i.e., “referring to, or, according to the sense, through, or by means of, his children” (Thenius, Bähr, Keil, Bunsen, and others). A man’s posterity is spoken of as his light. It burns until his descendants die out. God promised that David’s light should last forever, “referring to” his posterity, through whom, or by preserving whom, God would keep the promise. Cf. 1Ki_15:4, for another example of the usage. The “and” in the E.V., is imported from 2Ch_21:7, where it is adopted, as in the Vulg. and Sept., as an “easier reading” (Thenius).
2Ki_8:21.—[ äַñֹּáֵéá is an anomalous form. It is punctuated with tsere, which is thus written full, although it is long only by accent. Ewald only says of it that it “is very remarkable” (s. 52, note 1). There are a few forms like éåֹñִéó which have sometimes been explained as part. kal, and some desire to punctuate this ñֹáִéá , still regarding it as part. kal, but explaining it by the last-mentioned analogy. Böttcher, however (§ 994, 3), disposes otherwise of every one of those forms, and thus destroys that analogy. He punctuates this äַñָּáִéá . The sense would not be different, but a concise and literal translation is difficult. “He attacked Edom, the investment against him,” i.e., he attacked the line which enclosed him.
2Ki_8:21.—[“Smote” must be repeated in the English in order to show that “captain” is in the same construction with “Edomites.”
2Ki_8:27.— çúï is used here generally for a relative by marriage. See the Chron. (II., 2Ki_22:3-4) for a development of this statement.
2Ki_8:28.—[ àֶú is not the prep., but the case-sign. Böttcher has vindicated for this the signification “self,” § 515, cf. 2Ki_6:5. “The iron itself;” the part which was iron; not the handle.
2Ki_8:28.—[For the omission of the article in àøîéí , cf. 1Sa_17:52-53, and Ew. § 277, c. The article is necessary according to the general usage, but exceptions occur.
2Ki_8:29.—[“Which the Syrians had given.” The imperf. here, and in 2Ki_9:15 in the Hebrew text, is very remarkable. Elsewhere we find the perf. in relative or other subordinate clauses, which interrupt the flow of discourse in order to specify attendant circumstances or details. It is like the aorist used for the pluperf. In 2Ch_22:6 we find the perf.—In 2Ch_21:17 it is stated that the Philistines and Arabians carried away all the sons of Jehoram but Jehoahaz, the youngest. In 2Ki_22:1 it is stated that the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, the youngest and only remaining son of Jehoram, king. The two names are equivalent in meaning, the syllable from the name of Jehovah being in the one case prefixed, and in the other, affixed. Probably the latter form was the one adopted when he ascended the throne. In 2Ki_22:6 we have the form Azariah, which is probably, as Ewald suggests, a slip of the pen.—W. G. S.]
[The dynasty of Omrl and its connections: