2 Kings 1 Commentary

“Now therefore thus saith the LORD, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed. Thou shalt: Heb. The bed whither thou art gone up, thou shalt not come down from it”

Away; probably to his usual abode, at Carmel, where the king sent to seize him.

“And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why are ye now turned back?”

Messengers. They were perhaps citizens of Accaron, who had extolled the sagacity of their god, but were totally unacquainted with Elias. Yet as he shewed his knowledge of secret things, by telling them what they were going about, (Salien) and spoke with such assurance, (Haydock) they thought proper to return, lest they should incur a similar punishment. (Menochius)

“And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.”

Chance. He feigned this to obtain the favour of David; but the king punished him as he deserved. (Worthington) — Spear, or sword, as it is before expressed. (Menochius)

“And they answered him, He was an hairy man , and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.”

Man. Hebrew ish bahal sehar, “a man lord of hair,” or all covered with it, having a long beard, like the ancient sages, (St. Jerome, in Ezechiel xxxv.) and clothed with a skin, (Bochart) as the first inhabitants of the earth, the heroes, prophets and St. John the Baptist, are described, Hebrews xi. 37., and Matthew iii. 4. So Statius (ii., and iv.) says:

“Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.”

Under him; his own guards. The captain was to request him to pray for the king’s recovery; (Calmet) or rather, (Haydock) to punish him for what he had said to the messengers. (Calmet) — Of God. Procopius and others think that he spoke contemptuously, and was therefore punished. (Menochius) — Down. The prophets are not bound to obey kings, in the exercise of their ministry. (Grotius) — Elias complies as soon as he had orders from God. (Calmet)

“And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.”

Let fire, &c. Elias was inspired to call down fire from heaven upon these captains, who came to apprehend him; not out of a desire to gratify any private passion, but to punish the insult offered to religion, to confirm his mission, and to shew how vain are the efforts of men against God and his servants, whom he has a mind to protect. (Challoner) — The Roman laws authorize a person, in authority, to punish those who refuse to obey. (Ulpin 1 D.) Si quis jus dicenti non obtemperaverit, omnibus concessum est suam jurisdictionem defendere pœnali judicio. Elias acted as God’s envoy, and the insult reverted upon him. (St. Thomas Aquinas, 2. 2. q. 108, a. 2.) — The Manichees have blamed the conduct of the prophet: but the miracle justifies him, as God would never countenance the private revenge of any one; and the Holy Ghost places this transaction on a level with that when Elias shut up the heavens, Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 3. St. Peter was moved with the like zeal, Acts v. 5. The sons of Zebedee gave way to some private indignation, when they wished our Saviour to call down fire from heaven upon a city of Samaria, Luke ix. 54. But he reprimanded them for it; as the citizens might not be so well acquainted with him, as these soldiers must have been with Elias: and he came to display the spirit of mildness, (Calmet) to attract all to his holy religion; while Elias had manifested the severity of the divine judgments, conformably to the law of terror, under which he lived. (Haydock) — In zeal of justice, Elias procured fire to burn these wicked men, as he had done for the holocaust. (St. Augustine) (Worthington)

“Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.”

Another, not knowing what was become of the first, or why he did not return; as Ochozias was eager to have the prophet in his power. (Menochius) — If he were acquainted with his fate, (Haydock) this second captain was guilty of greater insolence. But there are such generally to be found at courts; men who are ready to execute the king’s orders, without considering whether they be contrary to God’s law or not.

“And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.”

Of the Lord, the priests; (Abulensis) though it seems to be explained by the following words, of all the Israelites. (Haydock)

“And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. fell: Heb. bowed”

Again. This third captain is commonly supposed to be Abdias, (3 Kings xviii. 3.) though without much reason. (Calmet) — John of Jerus, (c. 15) says he left the court, and became a disciple of Elias, and a prophet. (Menochius) — But he is very different from the prophet, whose writings are still extant. (Calmet) — The report of the two miracles had come to his ears, and filled him with fear. (Menochius) — Despise not. Hebrew, “let my life….be precious in thy sight,” 1 Kings xxvi. 21., and Psalm cxv. 15.

“And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.”

Head. None but thyself can be answerable for thy death. See Matthew xxvii. 25. David was already supreme magistrate, and he wished that all should be convinced that he rejoiced not at the death of the king, and that none might imitate the example of this wretch. (Calmet) — Thus Vitellius punished the murderers of Galba, “not out of respect to Galba; but, according to the custom of princes, as a protection for the present, and a threat of vengeance for the future,” in case any should dare to treat him in like manner. (Tacitus i.) Tradito principibus more, munimentum in præsens, in posterum ultionem.

“So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.”

The second year of Joram, &c., counted from the time that he was associated to the throne of his father Josaphat; (Challoner) so that it is said that he reigned also in the 18th year of Josaphat, chap. iii. 1. See also chap. viii. 16. To obviate these apparent contradictions, chronologists suppose that Joram reigned over Israel in the 18th of Josaphat, king of Juda, and in the second year after the latter had appointed his son Joram viceroy. He was associated with his father on the throne two years before his death, and in the 5th of Joram, king of Israel. Examples of this kind are frequent among the Hebrews, and particularly among the Persians, whose chronology is thus rendered very difficult. Why should we allow that the numbers are erroneous, when this explanation will suffice? (Calmet) — Grotius leaves the matter undecided. (Du Hamel) — Capel (Crit. p. 414.) maintains that the numbers have been ill transcribed; and so does Houbigant, who asserts that such a mode of writing would not be tolerated in a profane author; thus to mention different dates, without intimating how they are to be reconciled. If we should read, that Heraclius began to reign “in the 18th year of Chosroes,” and a little after, that he ascended the throne “in the second year of the son of Chosroes,” without ever specifying how Heraclius began his reign at two different periods, who would not suspect a mistake? Is it not more rational to throw the blame on the transcriber, than on the author? The modern chronologists seem to have invented the idea of viceroys and simultaneous kings, among the Hebrews, merely to get over difficulties; though the Scripture be entirely silent on this head. Houbigant would therefore read, “in the 22d year of Josaphat,” as the mention of Joram seems here improper, (absurda) his father reigning 25 years. Ochozias began to reign when Josaphat had almost completed his 17th year. See 3 Kings xxii. 52. (Haydock) — His brother is not specified in Hebrew, Chaldean, Arabic, and in some copies of the Septuagint, but it is in most others, as well as in the Syriac, (Calmet) Josephus, &c., (Haydock) and this is the common opinion. The Roman edition here inserts (Calmet) after Elias spoke, (18) “And the, &c….and Joram,” &c., nearly as chap. iii. 1, 2, 3; only for father, it substitutes, “not like his brothers;” and adds, “the wrath of the Lord was enkindled against the house of Achab.” No mention is made of the second year of Joram, &c., (Haydock) in any edition of the Septuagint. (Capel) — In the mean time Josaphat, being returned from the unfortunate expedition with Achab, set his kingdom in order, purifying it from all the vestiges of idolatry, as much as he was able, and appointing proper judges, 2 Paralipomenon xix.

“Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?”

Bow. So this canticle was entitled, because it spoke in praise of the bow and arrows of Saul and Jonathan, ver. 22. So one of the works of Hesiod is called “a buckler;” of Theocritus “a flute;” of Simmias “a wing;” &c. Septuagint have neglected this word entirely (Calmet) in the Roman edition. But it is found in the Alexandrian copy, which reads “Israel,” instead of Juda, perhaps properly. (Grabe, prol. iv. 2.) (Haydock) — Chaldean, “to shoot with the bow.” Many suppose that David cautioned his men to exert themselves in that art, (Menochius) as they might soon expect to have to encounter the Philistines, (Tirinus) who were very expert bowmen. (Worthington) — But the former interpretation seems preferable. (Calmet) — The bow might be also the beginning of some favourite song, to the tune of which (Du Hamel) David would have his men to sing this canticle, (Haydock) particularly when they went to battle. (Grotius) — Just. See Josue x. 3. (Menochius) — It seems this was a more ancient record, to which the author of this book refers. (Calmet) — He might have in view the canticle of Anna, (1 Kings ii. 4,) or some other. (Haydock) — The custom of composing canticles, on such solemn occasions, is very ancient and frequent. See 3 Kings iii. 33., and xiii. 29., and Jeremias xlviii. 31. (Homer, Iliad ps & ch) The style of this piece can hardly be equalled by the most polite writers. (Calmet) — David is chiefly occupied with the praises of Jonathan. (Haydock) — Consider….places. This sentence is omitted in Hebrew, Chaldean, Septuagint, and in some copies of St. Jerome’s version. (T. i. p. 365, Nov. edit. op.) It is a farther explication of the subsequent verse. (Calmet) — Yet the Septuagint read, “Erect a pillar, O Israel, [upon thy heights; the Vatican Septuagint places this after slain. (Haydock)] in honour of the slain, thy wounded soldiers. How are the mighty fallen?” The Hebrew seems to be different from what the Septuagint, Chaldean, &c., read, as the Masora now adopts etsbi, instead of etsib, which has greatly puzzled interpreters. Hence Aquila translates akriboson, with the Septuagint of Ximenes, i.e., “Execute or consider with attention,” this sepulchral monument on which you shall inscribe, “For the dead and for thy wounded.” It was to be placed on some “eminence,” according to custom. The present Hebrew is very indeterminate, denoting “glory, a honey-comb,” &c., Ezechiel xx. 6., and Daniel xi. 16, 41. See Grabe, Prol. (Haydock)

Illustrious. Hebrew, “the glory (beauty, hart, &c.) of Israel hath been pierced,” &c. The comparison of Saul with a hart, is noble enough in the ideas of the ancients, Psalm xvii. 34., Canticle of Canticles ii. 9., and viii. 14. Syriac and Arabic, “O hart of Israel, they have been slain,” &c. (Calmet) — Slain. Hebrew chalal, signifies also “a soldier;” and this word agrees perfectly well with giborim, “valiant,” both here and ver. 22 and 25. Kennicott would apply it to Jonathan, upon whom David’s attention is mostly fixed. “O ornament of Israel! O warrior, upon thy high places! How,” &c. (Haydock) — In this manner many such pieces commence, Lamentations i. (Tirinus)

Triumph. He was aware of the exultation of the infidels. (Haydock)

Fruits, which may be offered to the Lord. Inanimate things could not offend, nor does David curse them in earnest. But (Tirinus) nothing could more strikingly express his distress and grief, than this imprecation. It is false that those mountains have since been barren. This canton is one of the most fruitful of the country. (Brochard.) (Calmet) — Job (iii.) speaks with the same animation, and curses his day. (Menochius) — Of Saul, or “Saul, the shield of his people, was cast away, as,” &c. Protestants, “as though he had not been anointed with oil.” (Haydock) — He is not reproached for throwing away his buckler, for nothing was deemed more shameful. The ancient Germans would not allow such a one to enter their temples or places of assembly. (Tacitus, mor. Germ) — A woman of Sparta told her son, when she delivered one to him, “Bring this back, or be brought upon it” dead. Impositu scuto referunt Pallanta frequentes. (Virgil, Æneid x.) (Sanctius) (Calmet) — As though. Hebrew seems to have sh, instead of s, (as it is in several manuscripts correctly, in noshug) and bli, instead of cli, (Delany) as the former word seems no where else to signify quasi non; and the Syriac, Arabic, and Chaldean omit the negation. It might therefore be the shield of Saul, “the arms of him who has been anointed with oil.” (Kennicott) — Some would refer this unction to the shield, (Vatable) as this was some times done: (Menochius) but the reflection would be here too trifling. (Calmet)

From. Hebrew, “without the blood of soldiers, without the fat of the valiant, the bow of Jonathan had never returned.” (Kennicott) — Fat. The entrails. It might also denote the most valiant of the soldiers, as we read of “the fat or marrow of corn” for the best, Psalm lxxx. 17. (Calmet) — Jonathan attacked the most courageous, and laid them dead at his feet. (Haydock) — Empty. Saul carried destruction wherever he went.

Lovely, or united. Jonathan always behaved with due respect towards his father, though he could not enter into his unjust animosity against David. (Calmet) — The latter passes over in silence all that Saul had done against himself, and seems wholly occupied with the thought of the valour and great achievements of the deceased. (Haydock) — Sanchez believes that these epithets were introduced of course into funeral canticles, like Alas! my noble one, (Jeremias xxii. 18.; Menochius) as Saul could have no pretensions to be styled lovely, or friendly, towards the latter part of his reign; since he treated the priests, David, and even his son Jonathan, with contumely, and even with unrelenting fury. But all this David would willingly bury in oblivion. He will not even notice how different was the end of the two heroes. Jonathan died like a virtuous soldier in his country’s cause; Saul was wounded, but impiously accelerated his own death, through dread of torments and of insult. Though they died, therefore, on the same field of battle, their end was as different as that of the saint and of the impenitent sinner. (Haydock)

Battle. Hebrew, “in the midst of battle! O Jonathan, thou warrior upon thy high places!” (Kennicott, Diss. i. p. 123.)

Brother. So they lamented, Alas! my brother, Jeremias xxii. 18. (Menochius)

Perished, falling into the hands of the enemy; though Saul and Jonathan may be styled the arms, as well as the shield, of Israel. (Menochius) — No character could be more worthy of praise than the latter. His breast was never agitated by envy, though he seemed to be the most interested to destroy David. Even Saul had many excellent qualities; which makes Ven. Bede compare him in those respects with Jesus Christ; as most of the memorable persons and events of the Old Testament had a view to Christ on the one hand, and to the Synagogue on the other. Saul is one of the most striking figures of the reprobation and conduct of the Jewish church. As he was adorned with many glorious prerogatives, and chosen by God, yet he no sooner beheld the rising merit of David, than he began to persecute him: so the Jews had been instructed by the prophets, and had been selected as God’s peculiar inheritance; and nevertheless took occasion from the virtues and miracles of the Son of God, to conspire his ruin. The Romans were sent to punish the Jews, who are now become the most abject of all mankind, and are filled with rage, seeing the exaltation of the Christian Church, as Saul was reduced by the Philistines to the greatest distress, and his children were forced to implore the protection of the man whom he had so cruelly persecuted, &c. (Calmet) — Saul and Judas may be a warning to us, that no person ought to live without fear, since they perished so miserably, though they had been elevated by the hand of God. (St. Ambrose, &c.) (Haydock)