성경 주석서

THE

SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS,

commonly called,

THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE KINGS

Ch. 2 Kings 1:1-18. Sickness of Ahaziah, King of Israel. His messengers sent to enquire of Baalzebub are destroyed by Elijah. Ahaziah dying is succeeded by his brother Jehoram (Not in Chronicles)

1. Then [R.V. And] Moab rebelled against Israel] The conjunction is the simple copulative. The less severance that is made between the portion of Ahaziah’s history in 1 Kings and that which is given in this chapter the better. The so-called two books of Kings are but one, and the division has been made quite arbitrarily and in the middle of a reign.

We have no record in Scripture how Moab came to be subject to Israel; but the inscription on the Moabite stone shews us that Israel and Moab were in conflict in the days of Omri, Ahab’s father. Of their previous subjugation by David we read 2 Samuel 8:2, after which we have no mention of them till this passage. It is by no means improbable that on the secession of the ten tribes, the Moabites became subjects of Israel, as the tribes on the east of Jordan all appertained to the northern kingdom. The death of Ahab, and the national prostration of the Israelites after their defeat at Ramoth Gilead would be counted a good opportunity for the Moabites to strike a blow for their freedom. The heavy burden laid upon them is seen from 2 Kings 3:4 where their tribute is specified as ‘an hundred thousand lambs and an hundred thousand rams with their wool’. Cf. also Isaiah 16:1. We know from the history of the settlement of the Israelites (Numbers 32:1-4) how well suited for cattle rearing were some parts of the Transjordanic country. From the nature of the Moabite tribute it is very likely that their whole wealth was in their flocks and herds.

after the death of Ahab] Ahab’s death was quite unexpected, and perhaps no long time elapsed between that event and Ahaziah’s fall. Affairs were sure to be out of joint, and would invite subjects who felt their yoke heavy to try and cast it off.

2. And Ahaziah fell down through a [R.V. the] lattice] From the use of the word rendered ‘lattice’ elsewhere (cf. Job 18:8), it must mean some kind of net or trellis-work put in front of an open space, a window or a balcony. As it is said the king fell through it, we may most probably conclude that an Oriental window space with its trellis-work is intended. The description of it as ‘in his upper chamber’ shews that it cannot have been a palisade round the flat roof of the house, as some have thought, which broke away as he was leaning on it, and let him fall down. Josephus (Ant. IX. 2. 1) represents the king as having fallen as he was coming down from the housetop.

and was sick] The verb is employed, as here, of sickness caused by wounds, and also of ordinary disease (cf. 2 Kings 13:14) as in the case of Elisha. It is also used metaphorically (cf. Song of Solomon 2:5; Song of Solomon 5:8).

inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron] The son of Jezebel follows his mother’s example in his adherence to false gods. It was probably because Ekron was the nearest shrine of such a divinity that Ahaziah was sending thither. Ekron was the most northern of the five great Philistine cities, and so most easily within reach from Samaria. It is not possible to say, from the form of the two Hebrew words which make up the name Baal-zebub, whether they are in construction or in apposition. The latter word signifies ‘a fly’, and the LXX. taking them as in apposition rendered ‘Baal, the fly’, as though the image of the god had been in that form, just as Dagon’s image, in the neighbouring Ashdod, was in part at least like a fish. But it seems more natural to regard the words as in construction, so that ‘the Baal (or lord) of flies’ would be an epithet implying that the god was supposed to be an averter of flies, these insects being, especially in hot countries, a very serious pest. Such among the Greeks was Ζεὺς ἀπόμυιος (Paus. v. 14. 2), and among the Romans a deity supposed to possess this fly-dispelling power was named ‘Myiagrus’ and ‘Myiodes’ = the fly catcher. (Plin. x. 28. 40; xxix. 6. 34.)

whether I shall recover of this disease] R.V. sickness. The noun is from the same root as the verb rendered ‘was sick’, just before. There must have been some oracle at Ekron, for it was an answer that Ahaziah sought. He did not send his messengers to make supplication for his recovery. The LXX. adds at the close of this verse ‘and they went to inquire concerning him’.

3. Elijah the Tishbite] See on 1 Kings 17:1. For a similar message to the prophet cf. 1 Kings 21:17. We know from 2 Kings 4:25 that Elisha was often to be found on Mt Carmel where there was most likely a school of the prophets (see 2 Kings 2:25). It may be that Elijah also made his most settled dwelling there. At this time he went and took up a position on some height (see below, verse 9) which commanded the road by which the messengers were journeying from Samaria to Ekron.

the king of Samaria] When the city of Samaria had been built and made the royal residence, the name ‘Samaria’ soon came to be used as the equivalent of ‘Israel’ for the kingdom of the ten tribes. See before 1 Kings 21:1.

Is it not because there is not a God in Israel] R.V. Is it because there is no God in Israel. The Hebrew could employ a double negative, as the Greek sometimes does, but the sense intended is given in English by the single one. This rendering the A.V. employs in Exodus 14:11 where the original is in the same form as in the verse before us: ‘Because there were no graves in Egypt’; and for a similar double negative in the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes 3:11 the A.V. gives ‘so that no man can find out’. The same form of phrase is repeated below in verses 6 and 16.

The LXX. takes away the first word of the Hebrew in the next sentence, וִלָכֵן = Now therefore, from its connexion and renders it as a separate phrase, and as if it had been וְלֹא כֵן = καὶ οὐχ οὔτως, putting ὄτι, which has nothing to represent it in the Hebrew, as the connecting particle of the next clause. The same misreading occurs in verses 6 and 16.

4. And Elijah departed] i.e. to fulfil the command which had been given him by the angel. The LXX. adds ‘and spake unto them’. The compiler of the Kings leaves out here any mention of the first meeting of the messengers by the prophet, because it may be assumed that what the prophet was bidden to do, he did.

5. And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said] More literally with R.V., And the messengers returned unto him and he said. The pronoun refers to the sick king in Samaria. They could only have gone a little way on their journey, and their early reappearance caused him some surprise.

‘The errand is soon done. The messengers are returned ere they go. Not a little were they amazed to hear their secret message from another’s mouth, neither could they choose but think: He that can tell what Ahaziah said, what he thought, can foretell how he shall speed. We have met with a greater god than we went to seek. What need we inquire for another answer?’ (Bp Hall’s Contemplations).

Why are ye now turned back?] To accord with the previous clause, render with R.V., Why is it that ye are returned?

6. There came a man up to meet] The R.V. puts ‘up’ before ‘a man’, because the Hebrew verb signifies ‘to come up’. So in A.V. in the next verse. It would appear as though the prophet had met the messengers very early in their journey while they were going down from the hill on which Samaria was built. They did not know Elijah, for he, like John the Baptist afterwards, was not one of those who were to be found in kings’ houses. And the messengers were most likely some of the persons in close attendance on the king.

Go, turn again &c.] These words are not in verse 3, but they are natural as a preface to the message there given.

that thou sendest] Elijah speaking to the messengers (verse 3) said naturally ‘that ye go’, but they put the words into a form suitable to their position as servants obeying an order. Yet we can see from some parts of the narrative which follows that some of the king’s servants were willing enough to follow where he led them.

7. What manner of man was he?] The Hebrew noun which is usually rendered ‘judgement’ is applied sometimes to external appearances of things. Thus Exodus 26:30, ‘Thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was shewed thee’. From the answer of the messengers it is clear that the dress and external peculiarities are what is here meant. From them Ahaziah was able to judge who the man must be.

8. He was a hairy man] Literally, ‘lord, i.e. possessor, of hair’. This might equally be used of the long hair of the head and beard, or of the shaggy cloak of hair worn as a garment. But when we know of him who came ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah’ that ‘his raiment was of camel’s hair and a leathern girdle about his loins’, it seems better to accept the expression as a description of Elijah’s dress. We know too that the prophets (Zechariah 13:4) did wear a mantle of hair, probably adopted from the garb of this greatest among them, Elijah.

It is Elijah the Tishbite] Though the messengers might not know the prophet, the king, from his father’s experience, must have heard a great deal about Elijah, and of his appearance and dress.