Bible Commentaries
2 Kings 8

Verses 1-24

XI

THE STORY OF NAAMAN, THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA,

AND THE DEATH OF JEHORAM (OF JUDAH)

2 Kings 5:1-8:24

We commence this chapter with the story of Naaman, recorded in 2 Kings 5:1-24, which is a continuation of the record of Elisha’s miracles. In this passage we have a very graphic and complete account of two miracles which are especially remarkable in their relation to each other. One was the cure of leprosy and the other was the infliction of leprosy. One was wrought on a foreigner and a man of prominence; the other, on a Hebrew and a servant. The second was consequential on the first and the two together must have given Elisha a great reputation at home and abroad, and at the same time extolled Jehovah as the great God in the surrounding nations.

This Naaman was by nationality a Syrian, by position a captain, a great and honorable man. "He was also a mighty man of valor," one who had rendered valuable services to his country in giving deliverance (Hebrew salvation) from an oppressor. Here arises the question, "What was this deliverance of Naaman?" To this question we find no reply in the Scriptures but there is evidence enough from the Assyrian monuments. Prior to this time an Assyrian monarch had pushed his conquests as far west as Syria bringing this country into subjection, but Syria revolted after a few years and once more gained her independence. It was this deliverance that was wrought by Naaman in which he distinguished himself and won the special favor of the Syrian king.

But Naaman had one serious defect. He was a leper. The way this fact is introduced is most natural, viz.: by the adversative conjunction but. It is true that the conjunction is in italics, showing that the word does not occur in the original, yet the adversative idea is there. It is suggestive of the fact that too often people spoil a splendid recommendation of other people with the introduction of some defect; as, Byron was a great poet but was clubfooted. Or that man is an excellent gentleman but he has one failing, etc. So we go on describing people, saying all the good things we know about them, and then marring their fine reputation by pointing out some fault, altogether unlike the spirit of the inspired historian here in the case of Naaman. This thought is further illustrated in the case of David. Nathan said to him, "Jehovah hath put away thy sin, howbeit," and then follows with a long list of consequences of the sin which would come upon David. We find the adversative conjunction used to introduce good qualities also, as in 2 Chronicles 19:3. After Jehu the prophet had rebuked Jehoshaphat for his sin, he said, "Nevertheless there are good things found in thee," etc. Other examples might be given but these are enough. To sum up what I have said: But may be used adversely to introduce the bad when the good is mentioned first, and to introduce the good when the bad is mentioned first. A fact generally admitted by all, is that both qualities are found in varying ratios in all of us. Therefore we should remember the saying, "There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it scarcely behooves any of us to say anything about the rest of us."

As has already been stated, this defect of Naaman was leprosy, which comes from the Hebrew word meaning a stroke, because the ancients regarded this disease as a stroke from God. Of course it carried with it the idea of penalty for sin committed, just as the three friends of Job reasoned with respect to his case. They said, "This stroke is from God because of your sins." They thus attributed all afflictions to sin as the cause and to God as inflicting the penalty. The Greek word from which we get our word leprosy means "a scale" and thus indicates a certain characteristic of the disease, viz: that in certain stages of the disease the skin becomes scaly.

There is a most impressive lesson here for us in the instrumentality of this miracle. On some one of their marauding expeditions into northern Israel they had captured a little Jewish maiden who was made servant to Naaman’s wife. The beauty and radiance of her life are seen in the few words here said about her. She expressed a most ardent desire that her master might be healed and pointed out the source of such healing as her God, who would effect such a cure through his servant, Elisha, the prophet in Samaria. All this is an expression of affection, the affection of a servant for her master. How sublime such affection under such conditions! A captive maiden, with the loyalty of a child for a parent, reveals to her master the true source of healing. May we not think of this little Jewish maid in her love for and her loyalty to her oppressors, as a kind of type of Christians in their relation to the world? Surely the human instrumentality in this great divine transaction should not be underestimated. Neither can we fail to recognize the human in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. This little maid played her part and played it well. Are we doing our part in the great plan of God as well as she?

The transactions from this point in the story are rapid and interesting. Naaman appeals to the Syrian king who in turn sends a letter to Jehoram the king of Israel asking for the recovery of Naaman of his leprosy. This royal courtesy of the Syrian king was misunderstood by the king of Israel, who thought that the king of Syria was seeking a quarrel with him. Just here Elisha intervenes to save the day, by offering to do what Jeroboam in his royalty could not do, viz: to heal Naaman of his loathsome disease. But how simple the prescription! Dip in the Jordan seven times. Why seven? Seven was a symbol of perfection and here symbolized the perfect obedience required upon the part of Naaman. But Naaman was wroth and went away saying, "Behold, I thought, he would surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and recover the leper. Are not . . . the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean?" This reply shows what was in Naaman’s mind. He expected Elisha to make a great display, and he seems also to have expected an incantation by which the cure would be effected, but the prophet understood human nature too well to be engulfed into violating the law of his God. The captain’s anger was most natural; it was the result of a keen disappointment, but it prepared the way for a hearing from his servants, which resulted in his cure.

There are several lessons here for us: (1) Human nature calls for display. This is true often in the most vital matters, such as the salvation of the soul; (2) May we not find in this incident an illustration of the simplicity of the plan of salvation? Upon this point many stumble. They say, "What shall I do to be saved?" or "What shall I give?" (3) Healing is obtained by taking the remedy: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).

It is noteworthy in this connection that the servants of Naaman interceded with him as children begging a father and this influenced him to try the offered remedy. Their reasoning with him was simple and effective: "If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather then when he saith to thee, Wash and be clean"? This was sufficient. He went down, dipped himself and was healed. Here arises the question of the virtue of his cure. It was not in the Jordan, nor in the seven dips, but in the power of God. Of course, it came in response to conditions met, just as in the case of all other blessings.

May we not find here a parallel case to the New Testament teaching on baptismal regeneration? Hardly; here the dipping was made a condition of Naaman’s healing, but in the New Testament we do not find baptism a condition of salvation, but the conditions of salvation are repentance and faith. However there is this parallel: that God’s own prescribed conditions must be met before there is any blessing. In this connection it is well to note also that the word for "dip" here, in the Septuagint, is bapto from which comes the New Testament word "baptize," and that this word means the same as the original Hebrew word, viz: to dip, to immerse. This Old Testament incident is an illustration of the meaning of bapto and baptize and thus confirms the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion.

Naaman’s gratitude for his healing is very beautifully and impressively expressed: (1) He returned from the Jordan to Elisha, a journey of forty or fifty miles out of his way; (2) he offered the prophet the presents which he had brought from Damascus; (3) he embraced the Jehovah religion and made a vow to renounce all other gods but Jehovah; (4) he honored the request of Elisha (as he thought) by his servant, Gehazi. In all this one is reminded of the incident in the New Testament where the one leper returned to thank our Lord for his healing, evidencing the additional blessing of salvation, yet this act of Naaman involved far more trouble and inconvenience than that of the Samaritan leper..

It should also be noted here that Elisha refused his presents, not because he was not worthy to receive them, but to show this heathen man that not all of God’s prophets were mercenary, as was the case with the priests of other religions. It sets forth Elisha in a beautiful light. We see here the spirit of self-denial which reminds us of Paul’s life and teaching. One could wish that he might always be able to find just such a spirit in the prophets of Jehovah in this twentieth century. Alas, too often the spirit of Gehazi possesses them rather than the spirit of Elisha. But we thank God that the majority are walking in the steps of Elisha.

But what did Naaman mean by wanting "Two mules’ burden of earth"? It cannot be definitely known just what was in his mind, but of all the theories proposed, the context seems to have a great bearing on the one which says that he wanted this earth from the land of Israel to erect an altar to Jehovah in the land of Syria or, perchance, to sprinkle it upon a certain area of his own land, thereby making it "holy ground" and suitable for the worship of Jehovah. History tells us that some of the Jews carried earth from their own land when they were carried into captivity to Babylon. This seems to have been the prevailing idea among the Orientals. Yet another matter should be considered here, viz: If Naaman here embraced the Jehovah religion, why should he bow himself down in the house of Rimmon? This seems to be a reference to his work, as an attendant upon the king of Syria, to perform certain duties relative to his master in the house of Rimmon. He seemed to realize that Jehovah was a jealous God, but he was not strong enough to become a martyr to the Jehovah religion. In this we may not judge Naaman too severely, especially in view of the fact that Naaman was a heathen, reared in a heathen religion, and going back to a heathen environment, and may we not confidently expect to meet Naaman in the "Sweet By and By" as one of God’s jewels gathered out of a foreign land? One could wish that he might greet this Syrian general and this little Jewish maid along with Elijah’s widow of Zarephath, Elisha’s Shunammite woman and our Lord’s Syro-Phoenician woman on the bright shores of everlasting deliverance.

Over against this cheering picture of Elisha and Naaman hangs the blighting picture of Gehazi, a renegade Jew. With the spirit of avarice he seized his opportunity to get the presents offered his master. His sin was manifold. He was guilty of lying, covetousness, and sacrilege. He lied to Naaman outright in the matter of the presents; he was prompted in it all by the spirit of covetousness; and he committed sacrilege in the ill use he made of the name of his master and in his profane oath. But the eye of the seer was there and he was completely caught. May we not rejoice that justice found her own, or shall we revolt at the severity of the penalty inflicted? If the latter, then must we pass by the case of Ananias and Sapphira and a multitude of others like unto them? We will rejoice rather in the prophetic and apostolic judgments since they are strokes of God through his own appointed executioners. But what of the descendants of Gehazi involved in this penalty? Here comes in the law of heredity which he could escape only by denying himself of the privilege of marriage which he may have done; we do not know. One could wish that he might lift the curtain and see further into the course of Naaman and Gehazi, but we must be content with whatever revelation has disclosed, and dare not to intrude into the precincts of the Most Holy uninvited. Here they pass from our view never to reappear.

Turning to the Scriptures we meet again Benhadad II, king of Syria, who was under treaty with Israel twelve years during which time Ahab furnished troops in a league against Assyria, but now he breaks the treaty and invades Israel according to the prophecy given Ahab when he let Ben-hadad go (1 Kings 20:35-43). What a pity Ahab did not obey the Lord and put an end to him. But we should not have had this great lesson of national sin and its penalty.

This Benhadad comes now, besieges Samaria and causes sufferings in Israel unparalleled in their history. The head of an ass, the most undesirable part of the most undesirable animal, sold for 80 shekels, about $50.00; a kab of doves’ dung sold for 5 shekels, about $3.00; and the women killed their own sons and ate them. Such indicates the horrors of this terrible siege. But this is the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28:56-57, which has three literal fulfilments in the history of the Jewish people, viz: (1) in this instance, the siege of Samaria by Benhadad; (2) in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and (3) in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The story here of the two women and the appeal of one of them to the king is very pathetic. Who can censure the mother for hiding her son? The mystery is that the other one ever gave up hers. All this shows the dire straights into which they had become because of this siege.

For all this the king of Israel proposes a remedy, viz: that the head of Elisha be taken from his shoulders. But we note the fact that this was contrary to law. An Oriental monarch might do such a thing consistently. Beheading was practiced in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, but it was positively forbidden by the Jewish law. Why should he strike for Elisha when such a calamity came? He evidently thought that Elisha was to blame for their condition. He may have associated this instance with the drought which came at the word of Elijah, or he may have thought that Elisha could work miracles at will and that he purposely refused to relieve the people. However the case may be, it is the common plea of the enemies of God’s cause against his agents and ministers. So with an oath he vows to take the head of God’s prophet.

But Elisha was not to be so ill-treated. He was a seer and the Spirit of God in him was sufficient for every emergency. He saw the plan before the messenger of vengeance arrived and made counterplans to defeat the whole purpose of the king. The story of this incident is beautifully told in the record: how Elisha stopped the messenger and even his master, and with keen insight into the future made a most interesting prediction, viz: that on the morrow they would be amply supplied at reasonable prices. The messenger was doubtful but this prediction allowed for Elisha a probation and a respite from the wrath of the king.

The fulfilment of this prediction is found in the incident of the lepers, the story of which is given in the record. The lesson of this incident is illustrative of the condition of the sinner: "Why sit we here until we die? If we say we will enter the city, when the famine is in the city, and we shall die there: and if we sit here, we shall die also . . . if the Syrians kill us, we shall but die." This pictures the state of the sinner and his reasoning when he faces the question of decision: "I can but die; therefore, will I trust him." This text has been used by hundreds of preachers to illustrate the point of decision. There is also another fine text in this connection, viz: "We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace." What a good missionary text! They told it and so should we. The world, like Samaria, is perishing for the necessaries of life, and we know where there is plenty. Let us tell it, lest when the blessed light of God’s eternal morning bursts forth upon us our sin of omission will overtake us.

They did tell it, but as is often the case when we preach, they did not believe it. It was received with distrust; they thought the Syrians had set a trap for them and so they sent messengers and chariots after them to ascertain the facts in the case. The report of these messengers was convincing. They pursued the Syrians as far as the Jordan and found garments and vessels scattered all along the way. Evidently the Syrians had gotten a good "scare" but this is easily explained when we take into consideration that it was the Lord’s "scare." He made them to hear a great noise of chariots, of horsemen and of a great host. It is no wonder that they ran for their lives. In this connection we find the fulfilment of the prophecy of Elisha to the messenger of vengeance in two important aspects, viz: (1) the price of flour and barley became reasonable; (2) the messenger of vengeance was made gatekeeper by the king and was trodden to death, thus fulfilling Elisha’s statement that he should see it with his eyes but should not eat thereof. This must have been a horrible death, to be trampled to death while starving and yet in sight of plenty. We may think of this as illustrating another class of sinners, those who die in sight of plenty and yet because of their previous course in sin are altogether unable to get to the table of God’s kingdom. This man died because of his unbelief, 2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:19 f.

The next event according to our study of this section is the death of Jehoram king of Judah and his sad funeral. He had a complication of dreadful diseases, which are mentioned in any good commentary. The sad feature of his funeral is the fact that he was not buried in the usual way in which they buried their kings. He had no burning for him, and was not interred in the sepulchers of the kings. It is sad to have such distinction in one’s death. But such must be the lot of those who sin against Jehovah. We may be sure our sins will find us out.

It is well to note that the book of Obadiah falls in this period, and will be studied in the light of this history when we take up the prophets of the Assyrian period.

QUESTIONS

1. Tell the story of Naaman, the leper.

2. Who was Naaman and what was his standing?

3. What was Naaman’s victory for God?

4. What word introduces the defect in Naaman, what play on it and what the lesson?

5. What this defect and why was it considered such a misfortune?

6. What was the instrumentality of his healing and what the lessons?

7. What was Elisha’s prescription, what was Naaman’s reply, and what the lesson?

8. How was he finally induced to take the remedy and in what was the virtue of his healing?

9. What was the word here in the Septuagint translated "dipped," and what was the bearing on the New Testament usage of the word?

10. What was the effect of this healing on Naaman and how did he show his gratitude?

11. Explain Naaman’s request for "two mules’ burden of earth" and his bowing himself in the house of Rimmon.

12. How did Gehazi get the reward, what was his sin and what was his punishment?

13. Who was Benhadad and what was his relation to Israel at this time?

14. What indicates the great suffering in the siege of Samaria?

15. What was the king’s proposed remedy and what the meaning of it?

16. Give the story of the king’s messenger of vengeance and Elisha’s promise of plenty.

17. Give the story of the four lepers at the gate. What was the lesson?

18. What missionary text in this connection?

19. How was the message of the lepers received, how was it verified, and how were Elisha’s promise and prophecy fulfilled?

20. Describe the awful sickness and death of Jehoram, and his sad funeral.

21. What prophetic book has its setting here?

XII

THE REIGNS OF AHAZIAH (OF JUDAH),

JEHORAM (OF ISRAEL) AND THE RISE OF THE HOUSE OF NIMSHI

2 Kings 8:25-10:17; 2 Chronicles 22:1-8

In the scriptures cited for this chapter there are some apparent discrepancies which first claim our attention. 2 Kings 8:25 says, "In the twelfth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign," while 2 Kings 9:29 says, "And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah." There are two possible solutions of this difficulty: (1) it may be accounted for by their method of reckoning in which they counted the king’s "first year" twice; first, from the accession to the end of the civil year and second, from the accession to the same day of the next year; (2) he may have begun to reign with his father as viceroy in the eleventh year and as full king in the twelfth year. Either of these explanations relieves us from the difficulty of an apparent discrepancy.

A second apparent discrepancy occurs in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2. The Kings passage says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, while the Chronicles passage says that he was forty-two. The latter statement is impossible because his father was only forty years old when he died. So the only explanation of this difference in statement is that it must be an error of the copyist. Twenty-two is more advanced than we would ordinarily expect but it is probable in view of the early marriages in the Orient and also that each prince had, besides his wife, several concubines. That Jehoram had several appears from 2 Chronicles 21:17.

The character of Ahaziah is set forth in the record with the author’s accustomed clearness showing some of the antecedent forces that operated in his life. The first thing mentioned is the fact that his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter (granddaughter) of Omri, who is here mentioned because of his prominence. She was a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, passing on to this king the full benefit of the law of heredity. So we are not surprised that the record says that he walked in the ways of the house of Ahab. The Kings account says, "for he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab," i.e., he was related to the house of Ahab by marriage. An added reason for this course of Ahaziah is given by the Chronicles account: "for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly . . . for they [the house of Ahab] were his counsellors after the death of his father, to his destruction." Our sympathy goes out to Ahaziah in view of these conditions. How could he, in view of these hereditary traits and special maternal instruction) have done otherwise than to walk in the "ways of the house of Ahab"? Only by the grace of God which is able to overcome all the forces of the past, whether they be hereditary or environmental.

On Elisha’s interview with Hazael we need to note: (1) this visit of the prophet to Damascus was perhaps for protection, but it is not definitely known as to why he went there; (2) that Elisha, whatever his reason for going, did not hide himself but was recognized upon his arrival; (3) that in his answer to Hazael he sarcastically told him to tell his master just what Hazael wanted to tell him and then gave him the true revelation of the case; (4) that Hazael did not tell his master all that Elisha said and thus falsified to him, but it was not the fault of the prophet; (5) that Elisha here showed his great heart of sympathy for his people in their sufferings, and (6) that God revealed the future of Benhadad, Hazael and Israel to Elisha, a clear proof of predictive prophecy.

The next topic for our discussion is the aid rendered Jehoram by Ahaziah in the defense of Ramothgilead; then follows the other events leading up to the anointing of Jehu as king over Israel. In the defense of Ramothgilead Ahaziah and Jehoram co-operate, uniting their forces against Hazael, king of Syria. Here Jehoram was wounded. Then the two kings withdrew – Ahaziah to Jerusalem and Jehoram to Jezreel to be nursed. Soon after this Ahaziah visited Jehoram there and Just at this time Elisha appears upon the scene and commissions a son of the prophets to anoint Jehu. Thus the events pass in rapid succession leading to the destruction of the house of Ahab. We should note in this connection the striking fact that Jehu was not in the regular line of succession and was one of the two kings of Israel selected by Jehovah.

The circumstances and events of his anointing are graphically told by the author of Kings. The prophet who had been commissioned by Elisha went to Ramothgilead, found the captains sitting, called out Jehu, anointed him, gave him his commission, outlined his work and fled. According to this prophecy Jehu was to avenge the blood of the prophets against the house of Ahab by destroying every man child, as in the case of Jehoram and Baasha, and the dogs were to eat Jezebel in Jezreel. Immediately Jehu returned to the servants, his fellow captains, and made known unto them the prophet’s message and they arose at once and proclaimed him king. This involved the duty of preaching righteousness and executing God’s orders as sheriff, a very great responsibility and no small task. Later we see that Jehu was equal to the task thrust upon him, and God is abundantly vindicated in making this selection.

The chief characteristic of Jehu’s work is, that it is iconoclastic. He was an image smasher, a great revolutionist. Was he pious? Not very pious, i.e. in the sense of reverencing the traditions of the past. He was, perhaps, filial toward his parents; we don’t know, but he had full regard for his mission under God. If he was not pious he was religious in that he executed the program that God handed to him through the prophet. To be sure he was not a "sissy" but was a kind of "dare-devil" in spirit, a stern, John the Baptist sort of fellow. Such are the characteristics of the men who have led great revolutionary movements.

The first act of his reign was the slaying of Jehoram which is vividly presented in 2 Kings 9:14-26. The salient points in this story are: (1) Jehu’s journey to Jezreel and his approach recognized by the watchman in the tower; (2) Jehoram’s messengers to Jehu and his disposition of them; (3) Jehoram and Ahaziah’s advance to meet Jehu, Jehoram’s greeting and Jehu’s reply; (4) Jehu’s execution of Jehoram and Ahaziah’s escape, and (5) the disposition of the body of Jehoram and the fulfilment of prophecy. The second act of his reign was the slaying of Ahaziah. After the death of Jehoram Jehu pursued Ahaziah who had fled by the way of the "garden house" or perhaps a better translation would be, "Beth-Gan," a town at the foot of the hills bounding the plain of Esdraelon, south of Jezreel, and on the road to Samaria. It is somewhat difficult, but not impossible, to harmonize the Kings account with the Chronicles account of this episode. Omitting the italics in 2 Kings 9:27 and inserting 2 Chronicles 22:9 a just after "and he fled to Megiddo," we may conceive of this transaction as follows: Jehu ordered Ahaziah to be smitten at the ascent of Gur, but he fled to Megiddo where he was wounded, then carried to Samaria and concealed but was discovered by the emissaries of Jehu who carried him to Megiddo where Jehu was at this time; then and there Jehu put him to death. Such is a possible combination of the two accounts and removes the difficulty so far as a contradiction is concerned. 2 Chronicles 22:7 explains Ahaziah’s death as the direct cause of his alliance with Jehoram and his untimely death was a judgment upon him for his idolatry. Murphy (Handbook on Chronicles) explains his hiding in Samaria thus, "And he was about to hide in Samaria," but he was turned aside by his pursuers, was wounded and went to Megiddo where he died. There is one fault with this explanation: it does not provide for the expression, "they caught him and carried him to Jehu," etc. So withal the method of combining, as given above, is more satisfactory.

Here may be raised the question of the morality of the action of Jehu in killing Jehoram and Ahaziah. The answer is simple and easy. It was clearly God’s execution, and was therefore nothing more than the stroke of the law. The Jehovah religion was very much endangered by the house of Ahab and these kings, one of Israel and the other of Judah, were branches of that house. If Jehu sinned, it was in the method or spirit in which he did the work, rather than in the taking of the life of these men. That was clearly his commission from Jehovah. He did not sin in this transaction any more than a sheriff does who executes a criminal under the penalty of the law. God had rendered the verdict and appointed Jehu the executioner. But if he used unnecessary cruelty in this execution, or did it in the spirit of vengeance, then we would admit that he sinned, because God has said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay" and no man, mob, or court of men has the right to execute a criminal in the spirit of vengeance. The cruel fate of Jezebel is horrifying and bloodcurdling. Her cunning attempt to thwart her predicted fate is repulsing and disgusting. Upon learning of Jehu’s approach, Cleopatra-like, she painted her eyes, attired her head, and from a window saluted her executioner with, "Is it peace?" From Jehu came the prompt and decisive response, "Who is on my side? Throw her down," and down she came with a crash, spattering her blood upon the wall and upon the horses. Then Jehu drove right over her body trampling her underfoot. She was so mangled that the dogs found her body an easy prey and when they went to take her up to bury her there was nothing left except the skull, the palms of her hands and her feet. What a horrible picture, but it was the just recompense for sin. She was the greatest enemy of the Jehovah religion after the days of Pharaoh, and God made Pharaoh an example to the world; so did he make Jezebel, and in Revelation we find her followers given space to repent and then sternly threatened with eternal destruction. All this was according to the prophecy of Elijah, 1 Kings 21:17 ff. How definitely and surely God forecasts the fate of the wicked. We should not be deceived. "God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." When one walks the streets of a modern city and beholds the painted faces of our own American women, he is constrained to ask, "Have all our women become Jezebels, and what will the harvest of this generation be?"

Jehu did not stop with the execution of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Jezebel but pursued his destructive work in the judgment on the house of Ahab. The record says that Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria, meaning descendants, sons and grandsons, whom Jehu ordered the elders or rulers of Jezreel to slay. He first challenged them to select one for a king and "put up" their fight, but they declared their allegiance to Jehu. Then he wrote them to execute these sons at once and bring him their heads. This they did, upon which Jehu justified his course by citing a prophecy (1 Kings 21:17 ff), and then extended his destructive course so as to include the rest of Ahab’s house at Jezreel: his great men, his familiar friends and his priests. What a sweep of destruction in human life! But he did not stop there. The princes of Judah were a menace to his reign and therefore he must dispose of them. This he did in wholesale massacre at the shearing house of the shepherds. These princes royal of Judah were on their way to see their relatives at Samaria when they met Jehu who took them in charge at once and put them to death. Pursuing his course, Jehu met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him, and after an exchange of greetings he found in this man a suitable companion and associate in his "zeal for the Lord," as Jehu called it.

With Jehonadab originated the Rechabites, taking the name from Rechab, Jehonadab’s father. They were descended from a family of the Kenites and were a very sturdy people, with some remarkable characteristics. They drank no wine, built no permanent dwelling houses, planted no vineyards, sowed no seed, but lived in tents and followed the most simple habits of life. In Jeremiah’s day they were still holding to the tenets of Jehonadab in teaching and practice and because of their faithfulness in obeying the commandments of Jehonadab, Jehovah promised that Jehonadab should never want a man to stand before him. This promise is being fulfilled to this day. In the vicinity of Medina are to be found today the descendants of the Rechabites with the same characteristics and habits. This is a remarkable fulfilment of promise, but it is just what may come to any people who will keep the commands of Jehovah. He will not suffer his faithfulness to fail, and consistent with his holy nature, "He never denies himself, but he abideth faithful."

Jehonadab’s character is not hard to determine in the light of his affiliations. Two cannot walk together except they be agreed. Jehu was a "dare-devil" sort of character, and he found his match in Jehonadab. They were partners and coworkers from this time on and the work of Jehu was the work of Jehonadab.

Jehu’s last act of establishing himself on the throne of Israel is recorded in 2 Kings 10:17, and refers, perhaps, to the destruction of the female descendants of Ahab. Thus was finally completed the political revolution which transferred the throne from the house of Omri to that of Nimshi, the fifth of the royal families of Israel.

QUESTIONS

1. How do you harmonize the apparent discrepancies in 2 Kings 8:25 and 2 Kings 9:29; 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2?

2. What was the character of Ahaziah and what were the examples of a mother’s influence here?

3. Describe the interview of Elisha with Hazael and explain the difficulty of this passage.

4. What were the events which led to the anointing of Jehu as king over Israel? . .

5. What striking fact with reference to Jehu’s anointing?

6. Recite the circumstances and events of his anointing.

7. According to this prophecy what was Jehu to do and what was to be the fate of Jezebel?

8. How was he made king and what involved in his call to be king?

9. What were the chief characteristics of his work, was he pious, what is the meaning of piety and what kind of character necessary to a resolution.

10. What was the first act of his reign and how was this accomplished?

11. What was the second act of his reign and how was this accomplished?

12. How does Chronicles explain Ahaziah’s death?

13. What question of ethics relative to Jehu’s slaying Jehoram and Ahaziah and what the explanation?

14. What was Jezebel’s fate and what prophecy was fulfilled in her death?

15. What was the judgment on the house of Ahab?

16. What prophecy was fulfilled in the judgment on the house of Ahab?

17. What was the judgment on the princes Royal of Judah?

18. Whom did Jehu attach to his support, and what is the origin of the Rechabites and what were their practices?

19. What was the character and work of Jehonadab?

20. What was Jehu’s last act in establishing himself on the throne of Israel?