II KINGS 3

 

2 Kings 3:1-3 Jehoram = Joram.

There seems to be a contradiction between this account and II Kings 10:26-27 regarding the pillar of Baal. Either (a) only one of the two pillars was destroyed or (b) the pillar was just “put away” but not actually destroyed until later by Jehu.

The previous king Ahab had been a powerful king and now Israel had a new king. That meant that it was a time of uncertainty in Mideastern politics. And that led up to the following events.

2 Kings 3:4-5 This was a high assessment, but it may have been a one-time gift to each king. However, contemporary Assyrian accounts show, for example, that 800,000 sheep were taken as spoil in one war.

The Moabite stone is a valuable resource for this part of the story. Pictures of this archeological find can be found on-line as well as an account of its interesting discovery. The inscription on this stone shows that there was a rebellion of Moab against Israel leadership, but there is some doubt as to its timing. The inscription says it was during Ahab's reign; the Bible says it was in Jehoram's time. Two possibilities are: (a) the revolt started during Ahab's days but only became serious enough to demand attention during his son's reign or (b) “Omni's son” may actually refer to his grandson, Jehoram.

From the names of the cities taken by Moab listed on the stone, we know that Moab crossed its borders to both the north and south (consult a Bible Atlas for clarity). The inscription also indicates that Mesha was a true believer in his god.

2 Kings 3:6-8 Jehoram had to approach Jehosaphat because he was planning to cross into his territory. The motive for Jehosaphat agreeing is not so clear. Was it due to: (a) friendship, (b) subservience, (c) a marriage alliance between the two kings or (d) because Edom was a vassal state of Judah and Edom had been invaded by Moab.

Jehosaphat's previous actions perhaps shed some light on the situation. Read I Kings 22:1-4 with his statement reminiscent of that found in Ruth. He had been criticized earlier by the prophets for aligning himself with a nation that didn't follow God (II Chronicles 19:1-3 and II Chronicles 20:35-37). In both earlier cases, Israel was that disobedient nation. So in the present case, either Jehosaphat was continuing to be disobedient or he felt that Jehoram was not as evil as the previous kings.

They followed the Desert of Edom Road, named after the final destination. A more logical route would have been more northerly crossing the Arnon River, but (a) that would have been expected and therefore more heavily defended with troops, and (b) the terrain would have been more difficult to traverse. See Biblical Archeology Review (May/June 1986 issue) for a thorough discussion.

II Kings 3:9-10 As stated before, the King of Edom was really only a vassal king under Jehosaphat. If the combined armies had conquered the enemy, there would have been no glory to God in the victory. So God now brings them to their knees.

Look at Jehoram's response to the situation. Here a non-believer suddenly blames God for his problems. It is interesting that often those who don't believe in God still make it obvious that they are mad at Him.

II Kings 3:11-12 Jehosaphat proves true to form; he knows whom to turn to in times of trouble. Elisha pours water, which was usually a servant's role (read I Kings 19:21). In actuality, Elijah was still alive at this time and sent a letter to Jehosaphat's son after his father's death (II Chronicles 21:12-15). Elijah may have sent Elisha as his representative to follow the army (a role earlier held by priests. Remember at this point that stories in the history books of the Bible are not necessarily told in strictly chronological order.

2 Kings 3:13-15 Obviously there were not the best relations between Jehoram and Elisha. Literally, the Hebrew reads: “What to me and to you?” This can mean (a) What do you have against me” or what concern is that to me? (“You've obviously confused me with someone who cares.”)

On the use of music to accompany prophecy, see I Samuel 10:5. Krummacher (Elisha: A Prophet for Our Times, p. 43) states: “Music was here put to its legitimate use, for it was employed in the service of holiness. Its inspiration was the love of God, its breathings were raised by the Spirit of the Lord, and the glory of the Lord was its end and object. Thus consecrated from on high and allied to the harmony of heaven, it ministered to peace and serenity around, to dispelling of discontent and care, to the suggestion and exercise of thought up the highest subjects, and to the preparation of the mind for every gracious impressions.”

II Kings 3:16-20 The Hebrew can be read one of two ways: (a) in the imperative (MAKE!) or (b) I will make. If we assume the imperative, then it is a lesson in faith for the kings. God would provide the water, but they must be prepared to capture the blessing.

The key word here may mean pools or ditches. A “natural explanation” for this miracle is that there was rain in the distant mountains which caused a flash flood with water flowing down the dry river beds. As a side note concerning ecology: We must realize that this was not the usual pattern for Jewish warfare (read Deuteronomy 20:19-20). The literal phrase for “you shall ruin” is “you shall cause pain” in recognition that the land will suffer. But God's specific commands sometimes override His general principles and certainly our own feelings in the matter.

II Kings 3:21-24 Either the morning sunlight or red clay caused it to look like blood. They run out unprepared for battle, just expecting loot.

There are several interesting lessons here:

1. It demonstrates God's economy of action. He uses the same event to save the allies from thirst and to defeat their enemies. This is in the same way that he used the lack of water to punish Jehoram, chasten Jehosaphat, and bring glory to Himself.

2. The same event (pooled water) seen through the eyes of faith is an answered prophecy, and through the eyes of unbelief is a chance to exercise their greed.

3. God's direct actions are often at a distance where we can't directly observe them.

II Kings 3:25-27 Now the story takes an unexpected turn. These verses have been called among the most difficult in the whole OT to understand.

Kirhareseth provided a good location for defense.

The attempted breakthrough can be interpreted in two ways: (a) it was to the king of Edom to induce them to join Moab or (b) it was through his forces, assuming that his troops were the weakest link since they had been brought in to fight under duress.

In any case, it was not successful, but Jewish tradition says that the King of Edom was killed during the battle (see Amos 2:1).

Carrying out human sacrifices during a siege to get aid or divine advice was known to have taken place in Phoenician, Egyptian and other ancient cultures.

The wrath mentioned here may have been from (a) Chemosh (the least likely explanation), (b) from the Edomites (the son of the Edomite king was captured and sacrificed) or (c) from God. If it was the last explanation, then that still raises the question as to why God was angry with them. Was it (a) for believing in the power of Chemosh now that they were in his “territory” rather than Yahweh's, (b) for fearing the plague (Human sacrifice was often practiced to stop plagues from spreading or warding them off during siege.), or (c) for Israel's general sinfulness (but there were no different conditions now than earlier when victory was first promised by God through Elisha)?

The indignation / repulsion shown by the people has been explained as (a) a case of mass hysteria, (b) righteous indignation over the human sacrifice, or (c) anger with God.

The major remaining question is why there was not complete victory even though it had been promised. Actually Moab remained free of Israel's rule from that point on. Did God lie or change his mind? We must realize that there are always unspoken conditions attached to God's promises. Look at the following pertinent passages: Numbers 14:30; Exodus 13:14; I Samuel 2:30-31, Jeremiah 18:7-10.

Applications:

1. Of what value are godly people to the fate of a nation? Jehosaphat knew where his real strength lay and is an example of what one righteous man can accomplish.

2. Elisha demonstrates that we should be where we can best serve God, shouldn't be afraid to confront the powers-to-be if they are wrong, should be known as one who knows the word of God and follows it, and being a servant is no disgrace.

3. F. W. Krummacher (Elisha: A Prophet for Our Time, p. 42) wisely notes: “an alarming danger has passed harmlessly away from a town or village, and the preservation of the place has been attributed to some fortunate accident or to the side measures of magistrates; while the sole occasion of deliverance might, perhaps, have been sought in a few of the humblest intermingled dwellings where prayers and intercessions were made by some that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.”

Negative Lessons:

1. King Jehoram demonstrates how a half-hearted faith leads to a half-hearted victory in this life.

2. King Jehosaphat demonstrates that those who yoke themselves unequally with unbelievers may find themselves sharing in their unpleasant fate with them. Lot just barely escaped such a fate.

3. Our relation to worldly powers is to be limited.

Positive Lessons:

1. We must be where we can serve.

2. Our reputation should precede us.

3. Don't be afraid to confront the powers.

4. Recognize righteousness in others.

5. Focus on God and His will.