Bible Commentaries
1 Kings 22

Verses 1-53

V

THE REIGN OF JEHOSHAPHAT, KING OF JUDAH

2 Chronicles 17-20; 1 Kings 22:1-53

The reader will observe that I omitted in the last chapter any special reference to the contemporaneous affairs in Israel, in the close of the reign of Asa, and do now limit this chapter to the record in 2 Chronicles 17-20. This limitation is to secure unity in the discussion of the two great kings of Judah: Asa and Jehoshaphat; and for the same purpose two or three later chapters will be devoted exclusively to the great house of Omri in Israel, and its battle royal with Elijah, the Tishbite.

I pause here to remark that there are some matters so very critical in this section, that I am not willing to trust myself in an offhand statement of the meaning, and so every word of this chapter is written out beforehand, just as I want it to stand verbatim, et liberatum, et punctuatim.

The glorious seventeeenth chapter of 2 Chronicles has no parallel in Kings, and well illustrates the valuable supplementary character of the later history. The history opens with Jehoshaphat devising military measures of defense against Israel. He placed regular garrisons in all the fortified cities of Judah, established and garrisoned new military posts in all the territory captured from Ephraim by his father, Asa, and grandfather, Abijah. This was the very beginning of his reign.

His moral measures of defense are far more sublime. They constitute a great lesson worthy of study in all subsequent ages. On this section, therefore, we must place our greatest emphasis. What, then, were these moral measures of defense adopted by Jehoshaphat?

(1) "He walked in the first ways of his father David" – David, the ideal king, not Solomon, was his model. And the first ways of David are followed, not the last. Thus, his pattern was his lost illustrious ancestor, the man after God’s own heart, and he at his best, not at his worst. We would do well while finding a perfect ideal in Jesus, to select some human model that reflects our highest ideals of manhood or womanhood. For instance, how many young preachers say in their hearts, "I will keep my eyes on William Carey, or on Adoniram Judson, or on Charles Spurgeon"?

(2) "He sought not unto Baalim" – that is the Hebrew plural, like Seraph – Seraphim; cherub – cherubim; so Baal – Baalim. "He sought not unto Baalim, but sought unto the God of his fathers." He whom one worships is more important than whom he makes his model. To him Jehovah alone was God. He counted as nothing Baalim, that is, the male and the female deities. Baalim being plural) that signified Baal, the male) and Astoreth the female. Astoreth has its own plural, Astoroth, and is about the same as the Venus of the Romans, or the Aphrodite of the Greeks. Baal and Ashtoreth, under some name or form, represented the world’s debased and sensual idolatry.

(3) The record tells us that he refused to find in Israel an example for his people, which under the house of Omri, turned to these infamous Phoenician deities, the Baalim-Baal and Ashtoreth.

(4) The record says that his heart was lifted up in the ways of Jehovah. That is a strong expression in the original. It is not a perfunctory service; he gloried in it; his heart exulted in it; his fervor glowed like a furnace.

(5) In such a spirit and zeal there could be no compromise; hence the record says, "He took away the high places and the Asherim out of Judah." "The high places," that is, the top of the hills, even when Jehovah was the object of worship, detracted from the central place of worship in Jerusalem with its holy Temple, and its glorious unifying services and feasts. The Asherim were symbolized in wooden columns that sometimes stood like groves, as when Gideon went out and cut down a grove of them in one night. The Asherim stood as a perpetual temptation to superstition and idolatry.

(6) He made abundant and systematic provision for the instruction of the people of God in the Pentateuch, "The book of the law of Jehovah." Princes, priests, and Levites, were constituted as itinerant teaching corps. Up and down, to and fro, through all the land this great traveling faculty carried and taught the one great textbook, the Law of Moses. The word of God was not bound. Its precepts were brought by the mightiest and most honorable in the land into every village and home. And as the priests and Levites of all the tribes were assembled into one tribe, magnifying the teaching force of that tribe, Judah, under this itinerant system of instruction) became one great religious university – an itinerant theological seminary.

(7) He established a graded judicial system for the determination and enforcement of civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical law (10:5-8) and here is his charge to the judges of the lower courts: "Consider what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but Jehovah; and he is with you in the judgment you render. Now, therefore, let the fear of Jehovah be upon you; take heed and do it; for there is no iniquity with Jehovah our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of bribes." I would like to read that to all the judges of the lower courts of the United States. Here is what he says in his charge to the Supreme Court, the head of the judicial system in Jerusalem: "In the fear of Jehovah ye shall do faithfully, and with a perfect heart. And whensoever any controversy shall come to you from your brothers that dwell in the villages and cities, between blood and blood [that is, if it is a murder case], between the law [in its principles] and [their expression in] commandments) statutes, and ordinances, ye shall warn them that they be guilty toward Jehovah and so wrath come upon you [the judges] and your brethren [the appellants]. This do ye and ye shall not be guilty. Deal courageously and Jehovah be with the good in your judgment." (2 Chronicles 19:6-9). I would like to read that to our state and national supreme courts.

I pause here to remark, first, that the civil and criminal code of Moses surpasses the codes of Lycurgus, Solon, Justinian, or Napoleon, and as a foundation it underlies all of the best of modern law among the most civilized nations. I was boarding once with a very brilliant lawyer, and he asked if I could give him a digest of the Mosaic law, civil and criminal. I told him he would find it in Hitchcock’s Analysis, and I made him a present of the book. I said to him, "Now, when you read this let your quick mind answer this question as you go over its constitution, the decalogue, or each statute. How much of your law does the principle of this statute underlie?" When he got through he said, "I find that all the best of our laws, at least in their principle, come from Moses."

Now, imagine the effect of such a trained force of teachers going over Judah teaching that law, and then such a judicial system interpreting and enforcing that law. I repeat again that mere human law, separated from the idea of responsibility to God, can never challenge respect nor be righteously enforced. The most shameful thing of modern civilization is that we cannot get Juries to render a verdict according to the law given by the judge and the evidence given by the witnesses. To this add the law’s delay, the wrangling of the paid attorneys, and the wonder is explicable that the people dread the courts more than anything else. A man in Fort Worth recently remarked to his family: "If ever I am murdered I charge you to ask the grand jury not to indict the murderer; don’t you have anything to do with the prosecution. For, if the murderer is never prosecuted, murder is all that comes to me. But if you put the case in the courts with the lawyers trying to justify the murderer, there will not be a shred of my reputation left. Not content with murdering my body, they will murder my good name."

(8) He did not isolate himself from his people, living luxuriously in a palace and leaving subordinates to watch over the affairs of the kingdom. But the text says that "he dwelt at Jerusalem, and went out again among the people from Beersheba [the most southern part] to the hill country of Ephraim [the most northern part] and brought them back unto Jehovah the God of their fathers." When kings become missionaries like that, and the princes become itinerant teachers like that, happy is the land.

(9) He organized and trained a vast militia corps, or war reserve, not indeed as a standing army, but ready at all times to respond to a call to arms in any emergency. Judging from the muster roll given in the record, it must have included like the German Landwehr, all the male population capable of bearing arms. There were three army corps from Judah, numbering respectively 300,000, 280,000, and 200,000: total from Judah 780,000. There were two corps from Benjamin, respectively, 200,000 and 180,000: total from Benjamin, 380,000: grand total from the two, 1,160,000 men, and all of them with a full quota of officers. The world never saw anything like the German system of war, as developed in 1870, between Germany and France. The very minute that Emperor William I signed his name to the declaration of war, that minute Von Moltke, the commander-in-chief, touched a button that rang a bell, and over a million men responded to it in twenty-four hours: and every man knew his company, colonel, regiment, major general, his division, his starting point, his line of travel) the system was so perfect.

Murphy’s Commentary on Chronicles thus explains this immense number of Jehoshaphat’s militia. He says, "First, every man fit to bear arms is enumerated. Second, Judah at this time included Simeon, part of Dan, and the auxiliaries from the Philistines and Arabs who were tributary; and Benjamin included the cities of Ephraim that were annexed to the Southern Kingdom. Third, many Israelites had, on religious grounds, attached themselves to the kingdom of Judah (2 Chronicles 15:9). Hence, there were three captains, or marshals, in Judah: one for Judah proper, one for Dan and the auxiliary Philistines, and one for Simeon and the auxiliary Arabs. There were two for Benjamin, one for Benjamin proper and one for the annexed part of Ephraim. Moreover, in the text (2 Chronicles 15:16) Amasiah is described as a volunteer in the service of the Lord, and had under his command, no doubt, a body of volunteers from the north." The explanation by Murphy is very plausible in view of the context.

Now, that this 1,160,000 was a militia reserve is evident from the fact that it is contradistinguished from the regular army garrisoning the fortified cities.

The glorious results of these measures are thus set forth in the text: first, Jehovah was with Jehoshaphat, and established his kingdom; second, fear of Jehovah fell on all the kingdoms that were round about Judah, so they made no war on Jehoshaphat; third, all Judah brought to Jehoshaphat tribute; fourth, some of the Philistines brought to Jehoshaphat presents and silver for tribute; fifth, the Arabs brought him flocks of 15,400 rams and goats; sixth, and Jehoshaphat had riches and honor in abundance, and waxed great exceedingly, and built in Judah castles and cities of stone, and he had many works in the cities of Judah.

If just here the record ended with "And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers," we would have before us a faultless monarch; but as no man is perfect, fidelity to history requires that we pluck three roses from his wreath of glory, to wit:

First, beginning with 2 Chronicles 18 the record says that "he made affinity" with the infamous Ahab, king of Israel. Thus by marrying his son and successor to Athaliah, the murderous daughter of Ahab and the wicked Jezebel, which led his son into idolatry, and into the shame that denied him burial with his fathers, and, as I think, into the loss of his soul, he later corrupted the kingdom of Judah and brought the seed of David down to one helpless baby, and helped to bring the kingdom of God nearer to destruction than at any period since the flood. That will be evident when we come to discuss Elijah the Tishbite.

Second, this marriage led him to visit Ahab (2 Chronicles 18) in Samaria, where he was beguiled to join Ahab in his disastrous war, that did not concern Judah, against the king of Syria. That war is set forth from 2 Chronicles 18:2-19:1.

Third, later in his reign he joined himself with Ahaziah, the wicked son of the wicked Ahab, to build ships at Eziongeber, "to go," as the text says, "to Tarshish" (but I say, "to go to Orphir"), thus seeking to revive the old commerce of Solomon (2 Chronicles 20:35-37).

I here raise this question on 2 Chronicles 20:35-37: Why build a fleet at Eziongeber to reach Tarshish? Eziongeber is at the head of the gulf of Akaba, a part of the Red Sea. Tarshish is in Spain, and to reach Spain the fleet would have to circumnavigate Africa – to reach Tarshish from Eziongeber. Jonah took shipping at Joppa to reach Tarshish (Jonah 1:3). Solomon reached Tarshish from the Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon. The explanation of this difficulty is that "Tarshish" is a model of a ship called Tarshish and the text in 2 Chronicles 20:36 is corrupted, it should read, "Ships of Tarshish" instead of "Ships to go to Tarshish."

These three acts of Jehoshaphat, which were the three roses plucked from the wreath of his fame, all deserve special treatment. The disastrous marriage, the most important one, will be considered in a later chapter on Elijah the Tishbite. The other two evils will be considered now. RAMOTH-GILEAD

The second evil was accepting the invitation of Ahab to visit him in Samaria. He was there beguiled into making an alliance with Ahab to go to war against Benhadad, the king of Syria, for the recovery of Ramothgilead, a town east of the Jordan.

I will relate now a part of the history which precedes this (but which we have not yet treated, as I am reserving the history of the house of Omri for a special chapter), that Ahab had captured the king of Syria and ought to have killed him, but let him go on the pledge that he would give up Ramothgilead, which he had stolen from Ahab. But when free he would not give it up, and now Ahab is considering the reconquest. We will now continue the discussion of 2 Chronicles 18.

While royally entertained in Samaria by Ahab, the host embarrassed his guest by proposing joint action in the recovery of Ramoth-gilead, still held against treaty stipulations by the king of Syria. On the impulse of the moment the enticed guest responded) "I am as thou art, and my people as thy people, and we will go with thee in this war." Sober reflection, however, imposed a condition which is stated in the next verse: "Inquire, first I pray thee, for the word of Jehovah," i.e., "I will go with you if Jehovah says so; inquire for the word of Jehovah." We must put this condition to the credit of the beguiled but pious Jehoshaphat.

What followed is most difficult to understand in several particulars, greatly perplexing the commentators, and calls for careful exposition. The reader should read attentively the whole paragraph of 2 Chronicles 18:4-27, and then note:

(1) Jehoshaphat demands an inquiry for the word of Jehovah, not for the word of Baal.

(2) Then, of course, the prophets who respond must be the prophets of Jehovah, not Baal’s prophets.

(3) Four hundred prophets, assembled by Ahab, when asked: "Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle or shall we forbear?" – unanimously responded, "Go up; for God will deliver it into the hand of the king."

(4) Jehoshaphat is not satisfied: the promptness of assembling 400 prophets, the readiness and the unanimity of their response, or something in their bearing, awakened suspicion on his part that something was wrong. Hence his question: "Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah besides, that we may inquire of him?" Now, does he imply by that question that the 400 are not Jehovah’s prophets at all, or does the "besides" mean that they were Jehovah’s prophets, but that he wants another one?

(5) Ahab’s reply evidently claims that the 400 are Jehovah’s prophets, but admits that there is one there in the city whom he hates, because he uniformly prophesies evil and not good against Ahab.

(6) Jehoshaphat’s rejoinder, "Let not the king say so," plainly intimates his continued dissatisfaction, and he insists on hearing this other prophet, Micaiah, the son of Imlah. In the meanwhile, while waiting for Micaiah to be brought, Zedekiah, the leader of the 400 prophets recalled the famous promise of Moses concerning Joseph (Deuteronomy 33:17), and put on the symbolic horns promised there, and acted out the manner in which the Syrian king would be gored to death, with all the other prophets shouting, "Go up to Ramothgilead and prosper." This dramatic action must have made an impression. Now the reader must not take my word for the horns promised by Moses, but let him turn back and read what Moses said. Evidently Zedekiah takes what Moses said concerning the children of Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim, to show that he is giving a true prophecy; he puts on those iron horns and shows just how the Ephraim bull will gore the Syrian king to destruction. It must have been a funny scene.

(7) The method of sending for Micaiah and disposing of him after he is heard, implies that he was in prison in the city at the time, and is remanded back to prison because he would not prophesy smooth things to Ahab.

(8) The officer hinted to him, while bringing him before the king, to conform his reply to that of the four hundred – like I have known sheriffs, when bringing in a witness, to whisper how he had better testify; to make a confession and to imply what he is going to say with what the 400 said, clearly shows how this officer, at least, was aware that the prophets around Ahab must prophesy as the king wished. It seems to place Ahab’s conception of the prophetic office on a line with Balak’s when he sent for Balaam to come and curse Israel: that a king’s money or a king’s favor could get just what he wanted from the subservient oracle. Or, it is on a line with any fortuneteller, who will gauge his forecast of the fortunes according to the fee, or according to his fear of the inquirer.

(9) We find it hard to reconcile Micaiah’s grand reply to the officer, that he would not prophesy anything except as Jehovah gave it, – I say, we find it difficult to harmonize that grand reply to the officer with his first reply to Ahab, which is exactly in harmony with what the 400 advised. Now, was that first reply to Ahab sarcasm, and meant to be so understood? Did it mean: "You do not want to hear the truth, and you know it; you want to hear only what is pleasing, and I give it to you"? Or, does it mean that when a man incorrigibly insists upon being deluded, then Jehovah sends him a delusion? The last seems to be the true explanation and puts his reply in harmony with his reply to the officers. But Ahab evidently understands it according to the first explanation) and so he presumptuously demands Jehovah’s true attitude toward the proposed expedition. Thus adjured, Micaiah turns a flood of light on the whole situation. He commences by recounting a vision of all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Ahab’s side remark to Jehoshaphat did not stay him. He draws a vivid heaven counterpart over the earth scene. On earth, as our text tells us, the throned kings are sitting in the open space in the gates of Samaria, surrounded by a throng of courtiers, and inquiring, "Shall we go up to Ramothgilead?" Now, above this the prophet’s vision sees Jehovah and his session of angels considering what answer to the question shall heaven inspire, and the means of that inspiration. More than once I have taught my students two great lessons, both illustrated right here: First, that evil angels, including Satan himself, must at intervals attend the convocations of angels on the summons of Jehovah, and must report at Jehovah’s inquisition where they have been and what they have seen and done in regard to God’s people, and must limit their deeds to what Jehovah permits (see Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-7).

What then do they directly, since it is by the permission of God, he does indirectly. Second, that when Pharaoh continues to harden his heart, then will Jehovah himself harden it; that when men continue to shut their eyes to the truth, then Jehovah afflicts them with judicial blindness; and when men incorrigibly prefer delusion to the truth, then Jehovah sends them a strong delusion that they may believe a lie and be damned (see 2 Thessalonians 2:11; Isaiah 66:4).

Now, in this convocation of angels Jehovah inquires for an angelic messenger, who will delude Ahab to his ruin. A lying angel responds, "I will inspire Ahab’s prophets to answer him in a way that will destroy him," and Jehovah tells him to go and do it. Yes, the 400 prophets were inspired, but they were inspired of Satan to say, "Go up to Ramothgilead and prosper." Had these 400 been faithful to their prophetic office, and not subservient to Ahab’s wishes, they would not have become the dupes of Satan; they would have tried the spirits attempting to inspire them, and would have been able to discern the evil kind. Micaiah thus exposes the source of the spiritual suggestion governing Zedekiah and the 400. They were conscious that an outside spirit was telling them to say what they said, and they supposed it to be Jehovah, but Micaiah shows from whom that inspiration comes.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the length of Jehoshaphat’s reign?

2. Why in the latter part of Asa’s reign and all of Jehoshaphat’s does the author omit temporarily all scriptures that relate exclusively to Israel?

3. At the beginning of his reign, what were Jehoshaphat’s measures of defense against Israel?

4. State in order the moral measures of defense.

5. Give an account of his militia organization and Murphy’s explanation.

6. Give in order the glorious results of that measure.

7. What the meaning of 2 Chronicles 18:1, "he made affinity with Ahab"?

8. What, then, were the three acts of his life, condemned of Jehovah and which detract from his glory?

9. What were the results of the first act?

10. Tell how he was beguiled into the second act.

11. What condition did Jehoshaphat exact?

12. Were the 400 subservient prophets of Ahab prophets of Baal or of Jehovah?

13. Did they speak by inspiration?

14. What promise had Moses made concerning the tribes of Joseph, and how did Zedekiah act out what seemed to be a fulfilment?

15. Judging from Ahab’s hatred of Micaiah, what must have been his conception of the prophetic office?

16. Where was Micaiah when sent for?

17. What suggestion did the officer make to him while conducting him before Ahab and what does this prove?

18. What was his reply to the officer and how do you harmonize it with his first reply to Ahab?

19. When adjured to give Jehovah’s attitude toward the proposed expedition what his reply?

20. What two great truths concerning God’s supreme rule have been diligently taught by the author and what the Scripture proof and application of both to Micaiah’s revelation?

21. Who then inspired the 400 and why permitted?

22. Give dramatic setting of the earth scene and the heaven scene.

23. May men now be inspired by an evil spirit?

24. What is the condition of mind that makes one susceptible to such inspiration as evidenced in the 400?

25. What is the New Testament provision that enables a Christian to discern between an evil and a good inspiration?

VI

THE REIGN OF JEHOSHAPHAT, KING OF JUDAH (CONTINUED)

In the preceding chapter we considered the marvelous prophecy of Micaiah, the son of Imlah, explaining how the 400 prophets of Ahab were deluded. The difficulties of that partakelar paragraph are so great that many commentaries skip it altogether – they do not try to expound it. Even the “Speaker’s Bible" commentary, merely gives the text but does not give a word of exposition. Even my great favorite, Hengstenberg, from whom I supposed that I could get some help, passes it with a single allusion. Now, to me, there do not appear such great difficulties.

The questions of difficulty are these: Were these 400 men really the prophets of Jehovah? They were the prophets of Jehovah in the sense that they represented the calf worship in Israel: they pretended under the calf worship to still worship Jehovah. Another difficulty is Jehovah’s permitting and even directing an evil spirit to inspire these 400 men to bring about the ruin of Ahab, a moral difficulty that is more seeming than real. It is on par with the existence of all evil in the world. A little child, for instance, asked the question: "Mama, is God greater than the devil?" "Yes." "Then why doesn’t he kill the devil?" In other words, it is simply the inquisition into Jehovah’s permission of moral evil in the world, and his inclusive government over everything, good and bad, in which he makes the wrath of man to praise him, and overrules the evil of both men and demons.

There are some other difficulties graver to my mind in the section before us. One is, to reconcile the text of certain places in Kings with the corresponding text in Chronicles. That appears in the records of events near the end of Jehoshaphat’s reign. And a still greater difficulty is to reconcile the text of both of them with the Septuagint Version. The Septuagint Version is not inspired, and it follows its own sweet will every now and then in dealing with matters. Sometimes it makes marvelously good hints – and sometimes it simply follows Jewish legends and traditions.

We are now to consider the effect of Micaiah’s exposure of Zedekiah, the leader of the 400 prophets, on Ahab and on Jehoshaphat. We have Zedekiah’s effort to break the force of Micaiah’s exposure and that prophet’s response, as follows: "Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?" i.e., "since you say that an evil spirit inspired us, and that Jehovah inspired you, I put it to the test by this blow. Which way went the spirit of Jehovah from me and to you?" In other words, "Here are 400 of us, all conscious of inspiration, knowing that we speak from some impulse outside of ourselves. You stand up there by yourself and say that a lying spirit inspired us, and that Jehovah inspired you." To that Micaiah says, "Behold, thou shalt see on the day when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself." That means: "You wait until after the battle is over, and the army is defeated and Ahab is slain, and you are running to hide, and then you will know which one of us is speaking from Jehovah." All this seemed to have little effect on Ahab and Jehoshaphat.

Josephus accounts for the little effect of Micaiah’s exposure on Ahab and Jehoshaphat (for we see they went right ahead into the war, both of them, notwithstanding Micaiah’s marvelous representation of the scene in heaven on this day) thus: "When Zedekiah smote Micaiah he challenged his credentials by calling for a sign: If you represent Jehovah, paralyze my hand that smote your cheek, as the prophet of God dried up the hand of Jeroboam at the altar. And if you cannot accredit what you say by a miracle of that kind, then it is because you are false and we are true.’ " Of course, I do not know where Josephus gets his information about that, certainly not from the Bible. But it is interesting to know that this is the way this Jewish writer accounts for it, and Josephus is following the tradition of his people in thus accounting for it. What he says at least accounts for Jehoshaphat’s disregard of Micaiah. What Ahab said to Micaiah and his response are as follows: "And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son; and say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with the water of affliction, until I come in peace." So Ahab did not believe what Micaiah said because he did not want to believe it. Micaiah made this noble response: "If thou returneth at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me." He appeals to the old prophetic test: If a prophet shall foretell an event and it does not come to pass, then that prophet is a lying prophet, but if his word is fulfilled, then he is a true prophet.

A certain clause is wanting in the Septuagint and a conjecture is based on it in view of Micah 1:2. This is the clause that is not in the Septuagint: "And he said, Hear, ye peoples, all of you." That is, Micaiah appeals to both the men of Israel and to the men of Judah to listen to the text. Now, these words were not in the Septuagint, but they are in the Hebrew of both Chronicles and Kings. The conjecture based on it is exceedingly idle. Micah 1:2 uses precisely these words: "Hear, ye peoples, all of you," and so the conjecture is that Micah the prophet, whose book we have, is the same as the Micaiah here. But Micah the prophet belongs to a much later date. It was customary for the prophets to appeal to the people to bear witness to what they said.

There seems to have been no effect on Jehoshaphat. It was at his instance that Micaiah was called in; now he had heard Micaiah, but notwithstanding what he says, he goes right on to the war with Ahab. He must have been influenced by Zedekiah’s smiting Micaiah. So Jehoshaphat leads a force of Judab into this battle, but I do not see a word anywhere that tells us just what that force was. There is certainly no summons to any of the tribes of Judah. It may be that Jehoshaphat simply took with him into the battle the guard that he had with him when he came to make this visit and in the absence of any historical notice I suppose that this is so. Ahab made a proposition to Jehoshaphat before they went into the battle. The text says this: "And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself and go into the battle, and put thou on thy robes." Now, the Septuagint says, "put thou on my robes." And I think the Septuagint is right. And the Septuagint in a later verse says (where these captains center on Jehoshaphat), "it seemed to them that it was the king of Israel." Now the seeming could be only by external uniform; they would not have any other way of knowing. So, then his proposition was: "I will go into the battle disguised, and you put on my robes . . . you seem to be Ahab."

Readers of romance will recall in Scott’s famous novel, Quentin Durward, that when the Wild Boar of Ardennes had captured the city of Ghent, and the Duke of Burgundy and Louis of France were coming to oust him, he disguised himself and had a number of men put on his garb, and also had a number of others put on the garb of the noted French knight, Dunoia, in order to make the Burgundians think that the French were fighting against them instead of with them. Readers of Shakespeare will recall that when Henry IV fought his battle with "Hotspur" Percy and Douglas, a number of men had on the armor of Henry IV, and that Douglas killed several of them, thinking he was killing the king. Now, that was Ahab’s expedient, and I think Jehoshaphat was a very simple fellow to agree to it.

There are at least two reasons why Ahab disguised himself: First, there seemed to be a lingering fear that maybe Micaiah was right, and that the result of this battle would be that Israel would be without a shepherd, and he thought to thwart that prophecy, and in disguise thought to lessen the danger. And the other reason appears immediately after, as follows: "Now, the king of Syria had commanded the two and thirty captains of his chariots, saying, Fight with neither small nor great, save only with the king of Israel." Ahab had doubtless learned that special directions had been given to the Syrian officers to single him out. Jehoshaphat did not know it, but Ahab did. "Now, brother Jehoshaphat, my ally, put on my robe, and go into the fight; I will disguise myself."

The king of Syria had made an improvement in his army since the last battle with Ahab. We have not had that part of the history yet because we have not considered the house of Omri particularly, and I will say this: that in the first battle in which he was defeated by Ahab, the Syrian king let the thirty-two subsidiary kings command their own forces, and kings are not necessarily good captains. Anyway, they turned tail and fled, and lost him the battle. So this time he substituted war men to command these troops. At the beginning of all wars we may notice that favorites have positions, but after they lose a few battles, and matters get desperate, the success of the war demands that only real generals be put in command. So, instead of thirty-two kings, he has thirty-two real soldiers commanding.

The result, then, to Jehoshaphat of this expedient of Ahab was that it put him in extreme danger. These thirty-two captains of the chariots turning not to the right nor to the left, struck at nobody else but Jehoshaphat, supposing him to be Ahab the king of Israel.

In 2 Chronicles 18:31-32 of the Chronicles account, it is said that when the Syrian captains centered on Jehoshaphat, "He cried out" and they turned away. Now, on that account there are two questions: First, what was his cry and to whom; and second, what caused those captains to turn away from him? Was it an impulse from Jehovah, as 2 Chronicles 18:31 gives it, or was it the mere fact that they perceived that the man they were after was not the king of Israel, as the next verse says? One commentator says, "When he saw them coming around him he cried out, I am not your man," or that he cried out, "Rally around me, men of Judah." But that was not his cry. My own answer is that he cried to God, and Jehovah’s response is recorded in 2 Chronicles 18:31: "But Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him." They themselves were not conscious of that divine impulse, and they turned away because they believed that this was not the man they were after, as the next verse says. We frequently see these two forces combined: God overruling, and the natural human impulse governing at the same time.

The Vulgate, the Latin Version made in the fourth century, A.D., by Jerome, says that Jehoshaphat cried unto Jehovah. It says, "clamavit ad Dominum," "He cried out to the Lord," and certainly the context supports the Latin Version.

The text says that the expedient of Ahab failed to save him: "And a certain man drew his bow at a venture and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness, wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand and carry me out of the host; for I am sore wounded."

May we attribute Ahab’s death to chance, fate, or providence? That is, to chance because the man that shot did not know he was shooting at him, but drew his bow at a venture? Or, may we attribute it to fate, as Josephus says, "Fate, the inevitable, found Ahab out without his robes"? Or, may we attribute it to providence because of Micaiah’s words in 2 Chronicles 18:16; 2 Chronicles 18:19? Micaiah said the result of that battle would be that Israel would be without a shepherd; and 2 Chronicles 18:19 represents Jehovah as saying, "Who will go and entice him to Ramothgilead that he may fall?"

Now, this question probes all the philosophies of the world as to the cause of things. The Epicureans say, "Chance" – that the world itself is the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms. This is also the theory of modern evolution as expounded by such radicals as Haeckel and others – all design eliminated. Zeno, the stoic, says that everything happens according to fate, inexorable fate. The Bible says that with God, there is neither chance nor fate, but that providence overrules all things. So far as the archer himself is concerned he, in his simplicity, shot an arrow in the battle; we might say that it was an accident, so far as he was concerned, that he killed Ahab; but it was no accident so far as God was concerned, and it was not blind, inexorable fate; it was all according to the great purpose of God, who had foreseen it and foretold it.

There is a connection of providence with this death of Ahab, as shown by a previous prophecy, and by the history of the fulfilment of that prophecy, and there is an additional degradation which this imposes on the dead Ahab. Elijah the Tishbite, as we will show in a subsequent discussion, when he met Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard (Naboth through false testimony, having been put to death in order that Ahab might obtain possession of his property) said to Ahab, that as the dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, so would they lick up his blood at the very same place. A passage from 1 Kings gives the fulfilment: "So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria. And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood: (now the harlots washed themselves there;) according unto the word of the Lord which he spake." That parenthetical remark is the additional degradation: "Now the harlots washed themselves there" – those obscene women that worshiped Ashtaroth; that was their place of bathing. Now, in this place, in the very pool, where these women bathed, shall your blood go, and the dogs shall lick up your blood. So, there is evident connection between that and the man drawing the bow at a venture, the arrow striking Ahab between the breastplate and the lower part of his armor. The history says that his blood ran down into the chariot, and that he stayed there in the chariot until the evening, when he died, and they took him, dead, in that chariot back to Samaria, and after he was taken out of the chariot they drove it to Naboth’s vineyard, where this pool was, and the dogs came and licked up his blood, and the blood ran into the very pool in which the harlot worshipers of Ashtaroth bathed. That recalls the question, Did he die by chance, or by fate, or by providence?

Jehovah announced his displeasure at this alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab: "And Jehu the son of Hanani the Seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the Lord? for this thing wrath is upon thee from before the Lord. Nevertheless, there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast put away the Ashtaroth out of the land, and hast set thine heart to seek God." So God disapproved that alliance.

This wrath was fulfilled. In the same connection we see that the Moabites revolted against Israel when Israel lost the battle of Ramothgilead, and counting Israel a negligible quantity in view of this defeat, they warred with Judah. A conspiracy was made between the Moabites, the Ammonites, and other tribes beyond the Ammonites, reaching into the Arabian Desert – all those wild hordes of people. A confederacy was made to strike secretly at Jehoshaphat; they became an ally of the house of Israel. That is the way the wrath came.

Now, in 2 Chronicles 20:1 we have this statement: "And it came to pass after this, that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them some of the Ammonites, came against Jehoshaphat to battle." Now, we must account for the "and with them some of the Ammonites," after just saying "the children of Ammon." That is a corruption of the text. In one manuscript it reads: "The children of Moab, the children of Ammon, and others besides the Ammonites," and in another verse of that chapter it says, "The children of Moab, the children of Ammon, and the children of Mount Sier," which would mean the Edomites.

The story of that wrath is intensely interesting. This Ammonite confederacy, coming south of the Dead Sea where their approach would not be observed, had gained the western shore of the Dead Sea at Engedi, and before anybody knew they were at hand, they were within a few miles of Jerusalem. Whereupon Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast, got all the people to come up before Jehovah and pray, and one of the most remarkable prayers in the world is the prayer of Jehoshaphat to Jehovah to avert this wrath. He appealed to God as the ruler of the universe. He then appealed to him as the friend of Abraham (that is the first place in the Bible where Abraham is called the friend of God, though we find it in the New Testament and in Isaiah). He then appealed to God on the score of the covenant with David. He piles up the reasons. He then appealed because they had built him this Temple for his service, and this vast confederacy is formed to come and take away the place that God had given to these people in the land of Canaan. Then he adds, "When we would come into this country you would not let us smite the children of Edom and of Ammon and of Moab, and now they are manifesting their gratitude by turning on us." It was a great gathering. One of the sons of Asaph, Jahaziel, answered for Jehovah. He says, "You will be delivered: it will not be your battle, you will not have to strike a blow. You simply stand still and see the salvation of the Lord. Do not go out like you are going to battle, but put your singers in front, and let them go singing praises to God. Go to a certain point, and you will overlook the destruction of this great host." The destruction of the host is accounted for by an ambush that some of the Edomites, tributary to Judah, had laid. While some of the Edomites were working with the king of Moab, others of them still faithful to Judah, laid the ambush and when they attacked, the Moabites and the Ammonites thought the same ones in their army would be against them, and they killed all of them. And when they had killed the Edomites in their own army, they began killing one another. It was a regular "Kilkenny cat fight," like an Irish wake. They turned their hands against each other until the whole army was destroyed, and Judah simply stood on the hill singing praises to God. The spoils that they gathered from the battle were immense, and when they came back they came back praising God. It was a marvelous demonstration of divine power. Psalm 83 commemorates this alliance with Moab and Ammon and these other nations. The Moabite Stone furnishes a remarkable confirmation of the Scripture story. It tells of this very king of Moab, and how he revolted against Israel, and how many cities he captured from Israel.

QUESTIONS

1. What can you say of the treatment of the difficulties in the account of Micaiah and the 400 prophets by the commentaries?

2. What are the questions of difficulty here and what is the solution of each respectively?

3. How did Micaiah expose Zedekiah, the leader of the 400 prophets, and what was the effect on Ahab and Jehoshaphat?

4. How does Josephus account for the little effect on Ahab and Jehoshaphat and what do you think of his account?

5. What did Ahab say to Micaiah and what was his response?

6. What clause is wanting in the Septuagint, what conjecture is based upon it in view of Micah 1:2 and what was the reply to such conjecture?

7. What was the effect on Jehoshaphat and what force did he lead into the battle?

8. What proposition did Ahab make to Jehoshaphat before they went into battle, what light from the Septuagint and what illustrations from profane history and literature?

9. Why did Ahab disguise himself?

10. What improvement had the king of Syria made in his army since the last battle with Ahab and what the result of this in view of the expedient of Ahab?

11. Explain Jehoshaphat’s cry in 2 Chronicles 18:31 and the result of this cry.

12. What light on this from the Vulgate?

13. How did the expedient of Ahab fail to save him?

14. May we attribute the death of Ahab to chance, fate, or providence? Discuss.

15. What was the connection of providence with the death of Ahab as shown by a previous prophecy and the fulfilment of it and what the additional degradation imposed on the dead Ahab?

16. How did Jehovah show his displeasure at this alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab?

17. In what event was this wrath fulfilled?

18. Who were the "Ammonites" of 2 Chronicles 20:17? Explain.

19. Tell the story of the averted wrath of God here.

20. What psalm commemorates the alliance of Moab and Ammon with the other nations?

21. What testimony of the Moabite Stone?

Verses 47-49

X

GATHERING UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING BE LOST

The title of this chapter is a New Testament text for an Old Testament discussion. For the sake of unity the last two chapters were devoted exclusively to Elijah and Elisha. It is the purpose of this discussion to call attention to some matters worthy of note that could not very well be incorporated in those personal matters, and yet should not be omitted altogether.

It is true, however, that the heart of the history is in the lives of these two great prophets of the Northern Kingdom. In bringing up the record we will follow the chronological order of the scriptures calling for exposition.

Jehoshaphat’s Shipping Alliance with Ahaziah. We have two accounts of this: first, in 1 Kings 22:47-49, and second, in 2 Chronicles 20:35-37. I wish to explain, first of all, the locality of certain places named in these accounts. Tarshish, as a place, is in Spain. About that there can be no question. About Ophir, no man can be so confident. There was an Ophir in the southern part of Arabia; a man named Ophir settled there, but I do not think that to be the Ophir of this section. The Ophir referred to here is distinguished for the abundance and fine quality of its gold. Several books in the Bible refer to the excellency of "the gold of Ophir," and to the abundance of it. Quite a number of distinguished scholars would locate it in the eastern part of Africa. Some others would locate it in India, and still others as the Arabian Ophir. My own opinion is, and I give it as more than probable, that the southeastern coast of Africa is the right place for Ophir. Many traditions put it there, the romance of Rider Haggard, "King Solomon’s Mines," follows the traditions. The now well-known conditions of the Transvaal would meet the case in some respects.

Ezion-geber is a seaport at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a projection of the Red Sea. What is here attempted by these men is to re-establish the famous commerce of Solomon. I cite the passages in the history of Solomon that tell about this commerce. In 1 Kings 9:26 we have this record: "And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram (king of Tyre) sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon." Now, 1 Kings 10:11 reads: "And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of Almug trees and precious stones." This "almug-trees" is supposed to be the famous sweet-scented sandalwood. The precious stones would agree particularly with the diamond mines at Kimberly in the Transvaal.

Then1 Kings 10:22 reads: "For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." The ivory and apes would fit very well with the African coast, but we would have to go to India to get the spices, which are mentioned elsewhere, and the peacocks. A three years’ voyage for this traffic seems to forbid the near-by Arabian Ophir, and does make it reasonable that the merchant fleet touched many points – Arabia, Africa, and the East Indies. It is, therefore, not necessary to find one place notable for all these products – gold, jewels, sandalwood, ivory, apes, spices, and peacocks. Solomon, then, established as his only seaport on the south Eziongeber, a navy, manned partly by experienced seamen of Tyre, and these ships would make a voyage every three years. That is a long voyage and they might well go to Africa and to India to get these varied products, some at one point and some at another.

Now Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (king of Israel) made an alliance to re-establish that commerce. The first difficulty, however, is that the Chronicles account says that these ships were to go to Tarshish, and the Kings account says that they were ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir. My explanation of that difficulty is this: It is quite evident that no navy established at Eziongeber would try to reach Spain by circumnavigating Africa, when it would be so much easier to go from Joppa, Tyre, or Sidon over the Mediterranean Sea to Spain. "Tarshish ships" refers, not to the destination of the ships, but to the kind of ships, that is, the trade of the Mediterranean had given that name to a kind of merchant vessel, called "Ships of Tarshish." And the ships built for the Tarshish trade, as the name "lndianman" was rather loosely applied to certain great English and Dutch merchant vessels. It is an error in the text of Chronicles that these ships were to go to Tarshish. They were Tarshish ships, that is, built after the model of Tarshish ships, but these ships were built at Eziongeber for trade with Ophir, Africa, and India.

1 Kings 22:47 of the Kings account needs explanation: "And there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king." The relevancy of that verse is very pointed. If Edom had been free and had its own king, inasmuch as Eziongeber was in Edom, Judah never could have gone there to build a navy. But Edom at this time was subject to Judah, and a Judean deputy ruled over it. That explains why they could come to Eziongeber.

One other matter needs explanation. The account in Kings says, "Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not." Ahaziah attributed the shipwreck of that fleet to the incompetency of the Judean seamen. He did not believe that there would have been a shipwreck if he had been allowed to furnish experienced mariners, as Hiram did. So Kings gives us what seems to be the human account of that shipwreck, viz: the incompetency of the mariners; but Chronicles gives us the divine account, thus: "Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy works. And the ships were broken." How often do we see these two things: the human explanation of the thing, and the divine explanation of the same thing. Ahaziah had no true conception of God, and he would at once attribute that shipwreck to human incompetency, but Jehoshaphat knew better; he knew that shipwreck came because he had done wickedly in keeping up this alliance with the idolatrous kings of the ten tribes.

THE TRANSLATION OF ELIJAH
Let us consider several important matters in connection with the translation of Elijah, 2 Kings 2:1-18. First, why the course followed by Elijah? Why does he go from Carmel to Gilgal and try to leave Elisha there, and from Gilgal to Bethel and try to leave Elisha there, and from Bethel to Jericho and try to leave Elisha there? The explanation is that the old prophet, having been warned of God that his ministry was ended and that the time of his exodus was at hand, wished to revisit in succession all of these seminaries. These were his stopping places, and he goes from one seminary to another. It must have been a very solemn thing for each of these schools of the prophets, when Elisha and Elijah came up to them, for by the inspiration of God as we see from the record, each school of the prophets knew what was going to happen. At two different places they say to Elisha, "Do you know that your master will be taken away to-day?" Now, the same Spirit of God that notified Elijah that his time of departure was at hand, also notified Elisha, also notified each school of the prophets; they knew.

But why keep saying to Elisha, "You stay here at Gilgal; the Lord hath sent me to Bethel," and, "You stay here at Bethel; the Lord hath sent me to Jericho," and "You stay here at Jericho; the Lord hath sent me to the Jordan"? It was a test of the faith of Elisha. Ruth said to Naomi, "Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to forsake thee; for where thou goest, I will go; and God do so to me, if thy God be my God, and thy people my people, and where thou diest there will I die also." With such spirit as that, Elisha, as the minister to Elijah, and as the disciple of Elijah, and wishing to qualify himself to be the successor of Elijah, steadfastly replied: "As the Lord liveth and thy soul liveth, I will not forsake thee." "I am going with you just as far as I can go; we may come to a point of separation, but I will go with you to that point." All of us, when we leave this world, find a place where the departing soul must be without human companionship. Friends may attend us to that border line but they cannot pass over with us.

We have already discussed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan. Elijah smote the Jordan with his mantle and it divided; that was doubtless his lesson to Elisha, and we will see that he learned the lesson. I heard a Methodist preacher once, taking that as a text, say, "We oftentimes complain that our cross is too heavy for us, and groan under it, and wish to be relieved from it." "But," says he, "brethren, when we come to the Jordan of death, with that cross that we groaned under we will smite that river, and we will pass over dry-shod, and leave the cross behind forever, and go home to a crown to wear."

The next notable thing in this account is Elijah’s question to Elisha: "Have you anything to ask from me?" "Now, this is the last time; what do you want me to do for you?" And he says, "I pray thee leave a double portion of thy spirit on me." We see that he is seeking qualification to be the successor. "Double" here does not mean twice as much as Elijah had, but the reference is probably to the first-born share of an inheritance. The first-born always gets a double share, and Elisha means by asking a double portion of his spirit that it may accredit him as successor. Or possibly "double" may be rendered "duplicate," for the same purpose of attenuation. The other prophets would get one share, but Elisha asks for the first-born portion. Elijah suggests a difficulty, not in himself, but in Elisha ; he said, "You ask a hard thing of me, yet if you see me when I go away, you will get the double portion of my spirit," that is, it was a matter depending on the faith of the petitioner, his power of personal perception. "When I go up, if your eyes are open enough to see my transit from this world to a higher, that will show that you are qualified to have this double portion of my spirit." We have something similar in the life of our Lord. The father of the demoniac boy says to our Lord, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus replied, "If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth." It was not a question of Christ’s ability, but of the supplicant’s faith.

The next thing is the translation itself. What is meant by it? In the Old Testament history two men never died; they passed into the other world, soul and body without death: Enoch and Elijah. And at the second coming of Christ every Christian living at that time will do the same thing. "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, they shall be changed." Now, what is that change of the body by virtue of which without death, it may ascend into heaven? It is a spiritualization of the body eliminating its mortality, equivalent to what takes place in the resurrection and glorification of the dead bodies. I preached a sermon once on "How Death [personified] Was Twice Startled." In the account of Adam it is said, "And he died" and so of every other man, "and he died." Methuselah lived 969 years, but he died. And death pursuing all the members of the race, strikes them down, whether king or pauper, whether prophet or priest. But when he comes to Enoch his dart missed the mark and he did not get him. And when he came to Elijah he missed again. Now the translations of Enoch and Elijah are an absolute demonstration of two things: First, the immortality of the soul, the continuance of life; that death makes no break in the continuity of being. Second, that God intended from the beginning to save the body. The tree of life was put in the garden of Eden, that by eating of it the mortality of the body might be eliminated. Sin separated man from that tree of life, but it is the purpose of God that the normal man, soul and body, shall be saved. The tradition of the Jews is very rich on the spiritual significance of the translation of Enoch and Elijah. In Enoch’s case it is said, "He was not found because God took him," and in this case fifty of the sons of the prophets went out to see if when Elijah went to heaven his body was not left behind, and they looked all over the country to find his body. Elisha knew; he saw the body go up.

Now, in Revelation we have the Cherubim as the chariot of God. This chariot that met Elijah at the death station was the chariot of God, the Cherubim. Just as the angels met Lazarus and took his soul up to heaven, and it is to this wonderful passage that the Negro hymn belongs: "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot."

Elisha cried as the great prophet ascended, "My Father! My rather I The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," the meaning of which is that thus had gone up to heaven he who in his life had been the defense of Israel, worth more than all of its chariots and all of its cavalry. Now these very words "were used when Elisha died. "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," signifying that he had been the bulwark of the nation as Elijah had been before him.

ELISHA’S MINISTRY, 2 Kings 2:19-25
As Elijah went up something dropped – not his body, but just his mantle – his mantle fell, and it fell on Elisha, symbolic of the transfer of prophetic leadership from one to the other. Now, he wants to test it, a test that will accredit him; so he goes back to the same Jordan, folds that same mantle up just as Elijah had done, and smites the Jordan. But, mark you, he did not say, "Where is Elijah" – the man, Elijah, was gone, but, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" and the waters divided and he came over. There he stood accredited with a repetition of the miracle just a little before performed by Elijah, which demonstrated that he was to be to the people what Elijah had been. And this was so evident that the sons of the prophets recognized it and remarked on it: "The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha." It is a touching thing to me, this account of more than fifty of these prophets, as the president of their seminary is about to disappear, came down the last hill that overlooks the Jordan, watching to see what became of him. And they witness the passage of the Jordan – they may have seen the illumination of the descent of the chariot of fire. They wanted to go and get the body – the idea of his body going up they had not taken in, and they could not be content until Elisha, grieved at their persistence) finally let them go and find out for themselves that the body had gone to heaven.

I have just two things to say on the healing of the noxious waters at Jericho. The first is that neither the new cruse nor the salt put in it healed the water. It was a symbolic act to indicate that the healing would be by the power of God. Just as when Moses cast a branch into the bitter waters of Marah, as a symbolic act. The healing power comes from God. The other re-mark is on that expression, "unto this day," which we so frequently meet in these books. Its frequent recurrence is positive proof that the compiler of Kings and the compiler of Chronicles are quoting from the original documents. "Unto this day" means the day of the original writer. It does not mean unto the day of Ezra wherever it appears in Chronicles, but it means unto the day of the writer of the part of history that he is quoting from. More than one great conservative scholar has called attention to this as proof that whoever compiled these histories is quoting the inspired documents of the prophets.

THE CHILDREN OF BETHEL AND THE SHE-BEARS
Perhaps a thousand infidels have referred Elisha’s curse to vindictiveness and inhumanity. The word rendered "little children" is precisely the word Solomon uses in his prayer at Gibeon when he says, "I am a little child" – he was then a grown man. Childhood with the Hebrews extended over a much greater period of time than it does with us. The word may signify "young men" in our modern use of the term. And notice the place was Bethel, the place of calf worship, where the spirit of the city was against the schools of the prophets, and these young fellows – call them "street Arabs," "toughs," whom it suited to follow this man and mock him: "Go up, thou bald bead; go up, thou bald head." Elisha did not resent an indignity against himself, but here is the point: these hostile idolaters at Bethel, through their children are challenging the act of God in making Elisha the head of the prophetic line. He turned and looked at them and he saw the spirit that animated them – saw that it was an issue between Bethel calf worship and Bethel, the school of the prophets, and that the parents of these children doubtless sympathized in the mockery, and saw it to be necessary that they should learn that sacrilege and blasphemy against God should not go unpunished. So, in the name of the Lord he pronounces a curse on them – had it been his curse, no result would have followed. One man asks, "What were these she-bears doing so close to Bethel?" The answer is that in several places in the history is noted the prevalence of wild animals in Israel. We have seen how the old prophet who went to this very Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam and turned back to visit the other prophet, was killed by a lion close to the city.

Another infidel question is, "How could God make a she bear obey him?" Well, let the infidel answer how God’s Spirit could influence a single pair of all the animals to go into the ark. Over and over again in the Bible the dominance of the Spirit of God over inanimate things and over the brute creation is repeatedly affirmed. The bears could not understand, but they would follow an impulse of their own anger without attempting to account for it.

THE INCREASE IN THE WIDOW’S OIL, 2 Kings 4:1-7

We have already considered this miracle somewhat in the chapter on Elisha, and now note particularly:

1. It often happens that the widow of a man of God, whether prophet or preacher, is left in destitution. Sometimes the fault lies in the imprudence of the preacher or in the extravagance of his family, but more frequently, perhaps, in the inadequate provision for ministerial support. This destitution is greatly aggravated if there be debt. The influence of a preacher is handicapped to a painful degree, when, from any cause, he fails to meet his financial obligations promptly. In a commercial age this handicap becomes much more serious.

2. The Mosaic Law (Leviticus 25:39-41; see allusion, Matthew 18:25) permitted a creditor to make bond-servant of a debtor and his children. For a long time the English law permitted imprisonment for debt. This widow of a prophet appeals to Elisha, the head of the prophetic school, for relief, affirming that her husband did fear God. In other words, he was faultless in the matter of debt. The enforcement of the law by the creditor under such circumstances indicates a merciless heart.

3. The one great lesson of the miracle is that the flow of the increased oil never stayed as long as there was a vessel to receive it. God wastes not his grace if we have no place to put it: according to our faith in preparation is his blessing. He will fill all the vessels we set before him.

DEATH IN THE POT, 2 Kings 4:38-41
We recall this miracle to deepen a lesson barely alluded to in the chapter on Elisha. The seminaries at that time lived a much more simple life than the seminaries of the present time; it did not take such a large fund to keep them up. Elisha said, "Set on the great pot," and one of the sons of the prophets went out to gather vegetables. He got some wild vegetables he knew nothing about – here called wild gourd – and shred them into the pot, not knowing they were poisonous. Hence the text: “O man of God, there is death in the pot." I once took that as the text for a sermon on "Theological Seminaries and Wild Gourds," showing that the power of seminaries depends much on the kind of food the teachers give them. If they teach them that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, then they might just as well make the second Adam an allegory, for his mission is dependent on the failure of the first. If they teach them the radical criticism; if they teach anything that takes away from inspiration and infallibility of the divine Word of God or from any of its great doctrines – then, “O man of God, there is death in the pot" – that will be a sick seminary.

In a conversation once with a radical critic I submitted for his criticism, without naming the author, the exact words of Tom Paine in his "Age of Reason," denying that the story of Adam and Eve was history. He accepted it as eminently correct. Then I gave the author, and inquired if it would be well for preachers and commentators to revert to such authorities on biblical interpretation. He made no reply. We find Paine’s words not only in the first part of the "Age of Reason," written in a French prison without a Bible before him, but repeated in the second part after he was free and had access to Bibles. I gave this man a practical illustration, saying, "You may take the three thousand published sermons of Spurgeon, two sets of them, and arrange them, one set according to the books from which the texts are taken – Genesis 1, 2, 3, etc., and make a commentary on the Bible. By arranging the other set of them in topical order, you have a body of systematic theology." Now this man Spurgeon believed in the historical integrity and infallibility of the Bible, in its inspiration of God, and he preached that, just that. As the old saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag." He preached just that, and what was the result? Thousands and thousands of converts wherever he preached, no matter what part of the Bible he was preaching from; preachers felt called to enter the ministry, orphan homes rose up, almshouses for aged widows, colportage systems established, missionaries sent out, and all over the wide world his missionaries die in the cause. One man was found in the Alps, frozen to death, with a sermon of Spurgeon in his hand. One man was found shot through the heart by bush rangers of Australia, and the bullet passed through Spurgeon’s sermon on "The Blood of Jesus." Now, I said to this man, "Get all your radical critics together, and let them preach three thousand sermons on your line of teaching. How many will be converted? How many backsliders will be reclaimed? How many almshouses and orphanages will be opened? How many colportage systems established? Ah! the proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag. If what you say is the best thing to teach about the Bible is true, then when you preach, it will have the best results. But does it?"

We have considered Elisha’s miracle for providing water for the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, when invading Moab (2 Kings 3:10-19). We revert to it to note partakelarly this passage: "And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:26-27). On this passage I submit two observations:

1. Not long after this time the prophet Micah indignantly inquires, "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" The context is a strong denunciation of the offering of human sacrifices to appease an angry deity. The Mosaic law strongly condemned the heathen custom of causing their children to pass through the fire of Molech. Both this book of Kings and Jeremiah denounce judgment on those guilty of this horrible practice. The Greek and Roman classics, and the histories of Egypt and Phoenicia, show how widespread was this awful custom.

2. But our chief difficulty is to expound the words, "There was great wrath against Israel." But what was its connection with the impious sacrifice of the king of Moab? Whose the wrath? The questions are not easy to answer. It is probable that the armies of Edom and Judah were angry at Israel for pressing the king of Moab to such dire extremity, and so horrified at the sacrifice that they refused longer to co-operate in the campaign. This explanation, while not altogether satisfactory, is preferred to others more improbable. It cannot mean the wrath of God, nor the wrath of the Moabites against Israel. It must mean, therefore, the wrath of the men of Judah and Edom against Israel for pressing Mesha to such an extent that he would offer his own son as a sacrifice.

QUESTIONS

I. On the two accounts of Jehoshaphat’s shipping alliance with Ahaziah, 2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 20, answer:

1. Where is Tarshish?

2. Where is Ophir?

3. Where is Ezion-geber?

4. What is the relevance of 1 Kings 22:47?

5. Explain "ships of Tarshish" in Kings, and "to go to Tarshish" in Chronicles.

6. What commerce were they seeking to revive, and what passage from 1 Kings bearing thereon?

7. How does the book of Kings seem to account for the wreck of the fleet, and how does Chronicles give a better reason?

II. On the account of Elijah’s translation (2 Kings 2:1-18) answer:

1. Why the course taken by Elijah by way of Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho?

2. How did both Elisha and the schools of the prophets know about the impending event?

3. What was the object of Elijah in telling Elisha to tarry at each stopping place while he went on?

4. What was the meaning of Elisha’s request for "a double portion" of Elijah’s spirit and why was this a hard thing to ask, i.e., wherein the difficulty? Illustrate by a New Testament lesson.

5. What was the meaning of Elijah’s translation, and what other cases, past or prospective?

6. What was the meaning of Elisha’s expression, "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," and who and when applied the same language to Elisha?

7. How does Elisha seek a test of his succession to Elijah and how do others recognize the credentials?

III. How do you explain the seeming inhumanity of Elisha’s cursing the children of Bethel?

IV. On the widow’s oil (2 Kings 4:1-7), answer:

1. What often happens to the widow of a prophet or preacher, and what circumstance greatly aggravates the trouble?

2. What is the Mosaic law relative to debtors and creditors?

3. What one great lesson of the miracle?

V. On "Death in the Pot" answer:

1. What the incident of the wild gourds?

2. What application does the author make of this?

3. What comparison does the author make between Spurgeon and the Radical Critics?

VI. On Elisha’s miracle, the water supply, answer:

1. What is the allusion in Micah’s words, "Shall I give my first-born," etc.?

2. What the meaning of "There was great wrath against Israel"?