The Twelve Districts of Solomon in the Kingdom of Israel
[PDF] [Bitmap]
|
|
|
The Twelve Districts of Solomon in the Kingdom of Israel |
The Lord has said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matthew 12:25). A great lesson to be learned in life is to live in harmony with others. Where there is disharmony, unhappiness and tragedy result. On the other hand, where there is harmony, happiness and progress follow. Not only is this true in nations or kingdoms, but it is also true in personal and family relationships. Harmonious relationships can be developed and enhanced by understanding and applying insights from the scriptures.
As you complete your study of this chapter, notice how the kings of Israel and Judah present both good and bad examples of the application of these principles.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Kings 12–16. See also 2 Chronicles 10–16.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
Rehoboam was the son and successor of King Solomon (see 1 Kings 11:43). The Bible does not mention any other sons or daughters of Solomon. Since Rehoboam’s mother, Naamah, was an Ammonite (see 1 Kings 14:21), he was only half Israelite. But his mother’s ancestry was Semitic since the Ammonites were descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew.
From the early years after the settlement of Israel in Canaan, there had been jealousy between the two most powerful tribes, Ephraim and Judah. Solomon’s son Rehoboam was the rightful successor to the throne, but northern Israel did not support him. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch explained why:
“Apart from the fact that the tribes had no right to choose at their pleasure a different king from the one who was the lawful heir to the throne of David, the very circumstance that the tribes who were discontented with Solomon’s government did not come to Jerusalem to do homage to Rehoboam, but chose Sichem [Shechem] as the place of meeting, and had also sent for Jeroboam out of Egypt, showed clearly enough that it was their intention to sever themselves from the royal house of David. . . .
|
|
|
Excavated ruins at ancient Shechem |
“Rehoboam went to Shechem, because all Israel had come thither to make him king. ‘All Israel,’ according to what follows [compare 1 Kings 12:20–21], was the ten tribes beside Judah and Benjamin. The right of making king the prince whom God has chosen, i.e. of anointing him and doing homage to him . . . , was an old traditional right in Israel, and the tribes had exercised it not only in the case of Saul and David [see 1 Samuel 11:15; 2 Samuel 2:4; 5:3], but in that of Solomon also [see 1 Chronicles 29:22]. The ten tribes of Israel made use of this right on Rehoboam’s ascent of the throne; but instead of coming to Jerusalem, the residence of the king and capital of the kingdom, as they ought to have done, and doing homage there to the legitimate successor of Solomon, they had gone to Sichem, the present Nabulus [see Genesis 12:6; 33:18], the place where the ancient national gatherings were held in the tribe of Ephraim [see Joshua 24:1]. . . . On the choice of Sichem as the place for doing homage Kimchi has quite correctly observed, that ‘they sought an opportunity for transferring the government to Jeroboam, and therefore were unwilling to come to Jerusalem, but came to Sichem, which belonged to Ephraim, whilst Jeroboam was an Ephraimite.’ If there could be any further doubt on the matter, it would be removed by the fact that they had sent for Jeroboam the son of Nebat to come from Egypt, whither he had fled from Solomon [see 1 Kings 11:40], and attend this meeting, and that Jeroboam took the lead in the meeting, and no doubt suggested to those assembled the demand which they should lay before Rehoboam.” (Commentary on the Old Testament, 3:1:191–93.)
This national meeting in which Rehoboam sought a vote of confidence was an important event. Life in Israel was never to be the same thereafter.
Jeroboam was the son of Nebat (see 1 Kings 12:15), an Ephraimite. He was one of Solomon’s twelve superintendents and had jurisdiction over all the taxes and labors exacted from the house of Joseph (see 1 Kings 11:28). The prophet Ahijah had prophesied that Jeroboam would someday take over much of the Israelite nation. To illustrate his prophecy, Ahijah tore a cloak in twelve pieces, gave ten to Jeroboam, and said: “Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (but he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:)” (1 Kings 11:31–32.) Thus, he prophetically outlined events which would soon transpire.
All of Samuel’s prophecies about Israel’s having a king were fulfilled in Solomon’s reign. Israel desired relief from the burdens of Solomon’s extravagance, which had brought upon them exorbitant taxes and conscript labor. The yoke mentioned here was symbolic of that burden.
One scholar noted that “Solomon’s kingdom barely outlived him. At his death his son and heir, Rehoboam, sought to ascend the throne of Israel and Judah. There was no difficulty in the south. The elders of Judah were no doubt pleased to anoint another native son to continue the rule which had favored Judah in so many ways. In the north, in Israel, it was a different story altogether. Before there was to be an acclamation of any son of Solomon, there must be some plain talk about certain policies of state which the men of the northern hills and valleys thought discriminatory if not unbearable. Forced labor gangs for royal building projects simply must not continue. Heavy and inequitable taxation favoring Judah would have to be modified. The new king would either have to find other ways to carry out his personal and imperial ambitions or else temper his desires. In any case, the northern tribes were clearly unwilling to bear the brunt of the monarchical burden. Underlying these real grievances was the reviving strength of the tribal elders. Solomon had not completely destroyed their power after all.” (Harry Thomas Frank, Discovering the Biblical World, p. 99.)
The episode recorded in these verses demonstrates the value of age when wise counsel is needed. Because of their experience, older people are generally wiser than younger people. But because of their great energy and ability to adapt, youth can be very effective leaders. It is often best to allow the wisdom of the aged to guide the energy of youth. (Concerning the wisdom of the counsel given to Rehoboam by the old men, compare 1 Kings 12:7; Matthew 20:25–28; 23:11–12; Mosiah 2:9–18.)
The reference to scorpions (see 1 Kings 12:14) seems to be an allusion to scourges or whips made of several thongs of leather which had metal barbs embedded in the ends (see William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. “scorpion”). Rehoboam was simply announcing that he would deal even more sternly with the tribes of Israel than Solomon had.
Those assembled made it clear that they no longer considered themselves to be part of the house of David (Judah). They rebelled against the dominion of Rehoboam and moved to establish their own kingdom. “To your tents” is an idiom meaning “Let’s go home!” (D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 337; see also 1 Kings 12:19; 2 Samuel 20:1–2; 2 Chronicles 10:16). The northern tribes withdrew their allegiance from Rehoboam and the house of David and said in essence, “David, you take care of your own house. We will no longer be associated nor have an inheritance with you” (see Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:436).
Rehoboam must not have thought the people were serious about their rebellion, for he sent Adoram to them. Since Adoram “was the person who was superintendent over the tribute, he was probably sent to collect the ordinary taxes; but the people, indignant at the master who had given them such a brutish answer [to their request for relief from burdens], stoned the servant to death. The sending of Adoram to collect the taxes, when the public mind was in such a state of fermentation [particularly after they had disavowed any allegiance to Rehoboam], was another proof of Rehoboam’s folly and incapacity to govern.” (Clarke, Commentary, 2:436.)
“These ‘sons of Israel’ are members of the ten tribes who had settled in Judah in the course of ages [compare 1 Kings 12:23]; and the Simeonites especially are included, since they were obliged to remain in the kingdom of Judah from the very situation of their tribe-territory, and might very well be reckoned among the Israelites who dwelt in the cities of Judah, inasmuch as at first the whole of their territory was allotted to the tribe of Judah, from which they afterwards received a portion [see Joshua 19:1].” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:196.)
First Kings 12:17 has particular interest for students of the Book of Mormon. This passage helps to explain why such men as Lehi and Nephi, who were descendants of Manasseh (see Alma 10:3), and the family of Ishmael, who were descendants of Ephraim (see 1 Nephi 7:2; Erastus Snow, in Journal of Discourses, 23:184), were living in the land of Jerusalem several generations after Rehoboam. Laban, a record-keeper for the tribe of Joseph, also lived in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi and Ishmael (see 1 Nephi 3:2–4). This matter is explained more fully in 2 Chronicles 11:13–17 and 15:9 than in 1 Kings.
The dating in this chart represents a consensus of commonly held views of scholars. The dates are best taken as approximate and may differ slightly from those in other chronologies.
*Joint rule
|
Chronological correlation of the reigns of the kings of Israel and of Judah |
The statement “there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only” is true only in very general terms. The members of the tribe of Benjamin, long associated with the tribe of Judah, and the Levites already living in and near Jerusalem and serving in the temple must also be included with Judah (see 1 Kings 12:21). Also, once Jeroboam established idolatry, many Levites and no doubt righteous individuals from all of the northern tribes migrated to the kingdom of Judah.
Although the people of Judah were not a righteous people (see 1 Kings 11:33), they were willing, in this case, to listen to the counsel of the Lord’s prophet (see also 2 Chronicles 11:1–12).
With the kingdom divided, the ten tribes could not conveniently worship in the temple at Jerusalem because Judah controlled the city. Jeroboam, concerned with keeping Israel under his control, devised a new scheme for worship that would cause his people to worship away from Jerusalem. He built two golden calves in northern cities and invited his people to worship them. Adam Clarke said that Jeroboam “invented a political religion, instituted feasts in his own times different from those appointed by the Lord, gave the people certain objects of devotion, and pretended to think it would be both inconvenient and oppressive to them to have to go up to Jerusalem to worship. This was not the last time that religion was made a state engine to serve political purposes.” (Commentary, 2:437.)
Even though he made golden calves, “that Jeroboam had in his mind not merely the Egyptian Apis-worship generally, but more especially the image-worship which Aaron introduced for the people at Sinai, is evident from the words borrowed from [Exodus 32:4], with which he studiously endeavoured to recommend his new form of worship to the people: ‘Behold, this is thy God, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’ . . . What Jeroboam meant to say . . . was, ‘this is no new religion, but this was the form of worship which our fathers used in the desert, with Aaron himself leading the way.’ . . . And whilst the verbal allusion to that event at Sinai plainly shows that . . . Jehovah was worshipped under the image of the calves or young oxen; the choice of the places in which the golden calves were set up also shows that Jeroboam desired to adhere as closely as possible to ancient traditions. He did not select his own place of residence, but Bethel and Dan. Bethel, on the southern border of his kingdom, which properly belonged to the tribe of Benjamin [see Joshua 18:13, 22], the present Beitin, had already been consecrated as a divine seat by the vision of Jehovah which the patriarch Jacob received there in a dream [see Genesis 28:11, 19], and Jacob gave it the name of Bethel, house of God, and afterwards built an altar there to the Lord [see Genesis 35:7]. . . . Dan, in the northern part of the kingdom, . . . was also consecrated as a place of worship by the image-worship established there by the Danites, at which even a grandson of Moses had officiated; and regard may also have been had to the convenience of the people, namely, that the tribes living in the north would not have to go a long distance to perform their worship.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:198–99.)
In ordaining a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, Jeroboam subverted the great feast of Tabernacles (which was held on the fifteenth day of the seventh month). He held a similar feast but at the same time undermined the ordinance. (See Clarke, Commentary, 2:437–38.)
Jeroboam cast off the Levite priests (see 2 Chronicles 11:14; 13:19) and ordained “priests of the lowest of the people” (1 Kings 12:31), allowing any to be appointed if they would just consecrate themselves by offering “a young bullock and seven rams” (2 Chronicles 13:9). He also assumed priestly functions himself (see 1 Kings 12:33). His rejection of the Levites resulted in their evacuation from his kingdom and uniting themselves with the kingdom of Rehoboam in Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 11:13–16).
“The pouring out of the sacrificial ashes in consequence of the breaking up of the altar was a penal sign, which indicated, along with the destruction of the altar, the desecration of the sacrificial service performed upon it” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:204).
The fulfillment of 1 Kings 13:1–10 is recorded in 2 Kings 23:15–20.
True prophets obey the word of God; false prophets do not. In this story are two prophets, one pictured as lying and the other pictured as disobeying God’s instructions. Ellis T. Rasmussen wrote: “There are some problems in this story of the man of God who came from Judah to warn the king of northern Israel and lost his life in the mission. Some help is available in the [Joseph Smith Translation] of verse 18, which indicates that the old prophet said, ‘Bring him back . . . that I may prove him; and he lied not unto him.’ Also there is a change in verse 26, in which the last part reads: ‘. . . therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto me.’ These make the account more understandable and more acceptable. The young prophet should have obeyed God.” (An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its Teachings, 2:4; emphasis added.)
This passage means that the “man of God that came from Judah” (1 Kings 13:21) would meet an untimely death and not be buried in his homeland. The ancient Hebrews believed it a great tragedy not to be buried properly.
Perhaps Jeroboam felt that the prophet of the Lord would listen or yield more to a mother’s enticings than to a father’s. Certainly he knew that he was not worthy to ask for any blessings from the Lord. This incident teaches the great lesson that one should live so that in a crisis he can call upon the Lord with confidence and faith. Jeroboam could not do so, and so he sent his wife instead. He also caused her to be disguised so that she might not be recognized as his wife. He had her take a gift to the prophet, as was considered proper in such instances, but the gift was the kind that a common citizen’s wife would take, thus adding to the deception.
Ahijah was blind, or at least his eyes had become so weak with his old age that he could hardly see. The phrase “his eyes were set” indicates that he could not properly focus and follow images.
This fallen world is rampant with deception and dishonesty. Though men often deceive one another, the Lord’s anointed can draw upon the gift of revelation and thereby see into the hearts of others or have things made known to them which cannot be obtained through the natural senses (see Jacob 2:5; Job 42:1; 1 Kings 8:39; Hebrews 4:12–13; D&C 6:16; 33:1).
|
|
|
Israel was taken captive into Assyria. |
There is an error in this verse. In the Joseph Smith Translation the verse reads as follows: “And rent the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it thee, because he kept not my commandments. But thou hast not been as my servant David, when he followed me with all his heart only to do right in mine eyes.” (Emphasis added; see also JST, 1 Kings 11:33, 38; 15:3, 5, 11.)
“The expression, to cast God behind the back, which only occurs here and in [Ezekiel 23:35], denotes the most scornful contempt of God, the strict opposite of ‘keeping God before the eyes and in the heart’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:210–11).
Though this phrase is offensive to modern readers, it was not so when the King James Version was translated, nor was it in ancient times. The Hebrew idiom originally meant “every male.” The phrase “is only met within passages which speak of the destruction of a family or household to the very last man [see also 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8]” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:242). The same idea occurs in modern revelation without the offensive expression in Doctrine and Covenants 121:15.
The prophet indicated that all of Jeroboam’s posterity would be slain and none would receive a proper burial except his son “because in him there is found some good thing toward the Lord” (1 Kings 14:13). Among the Hebrews, to be unburied is the worst thing that can happen to a dead person (see Philip Birnbaum, A Book of Jewish Concepts, p. 531; Notes and Commentary on 1 Kings 13:22).
This passage refers to the captivity of the ten tribes of Israel: “After many minor losses in war the kingdom of Israel met an overwhelming defeat at the hands of the Assyrians, in or about the year 721 B.C. We read that Shalmanezer IV, king of Assyria, besieged Samaria, the third and last capital of the kingdom, and that after three years the city was taken by Sargon, Shalmanezer’s successor. The people of Israel were carried captive into Assyria and distributed among the cities of the Medes. Thus was the dread prediction of Ahijah to the wife of Jeroboam fulfilled. Israel was scattered beyond the river, probably the Euphrates, and from the time of this event the Ten Tribes are lost to history.” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, pp. 322–23.)
Second Chronicles 13:1–20 records some of the “rest of the acts of Jeroboam.” Reference is made in 1 Kings 14:19 and other places to “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” (or Judah; see 1 Kings 14:29). These references are not to the present books of Chronicles but to official records kept by the kings, which were used as source books by the author or authors of the present books of Kings. These records are lost to us.
After the Israelites settled in the land of Canaan, they began to adopt many of the practices and religious rites of the corrupt heathen nations that surrounded them. For example, they followed many of the aspects of Baalism. The sun god Baal, the supreme god of the Phoenicians, was a fertility god. Those who worshiped Baal felt that such worship would ensure the generative and reproductive power of the soil and their animals as well as themselves. Settled in Canaan, Israel became a more sedentary, agricultural people, whereas before they had been more nomadic. Their dependence upon the productivity of the soil enticed them to turn to the worship of Baal. In such worship, with its emphasis on fertility, such practices as ritual prostitution of both sexes became rampant. Those who engaged in such practices were referred to by the Lord as sodomites. Other terms, such as high places, images (idols), groves, high hills, green trees, were all associated with the false and reprehensible forms of worship that often led Israel far from the Lord and that Judah, too, practiced under Rehoboam and at other times: “Among early nations it was the custom to erect altars on hilltops (Gen. 12:7–8; 22:2–4; 31:54). After the settlement in Canaan heathen altars were found set up on various hills and were ordered to be destroyed (Num. 33:52; Deut. 12:2–3). Altars to Jehovah were built at several high places (Judg. 6:25–26; 1 Sam. 9:12–25; 10:5, 13; 1 Chr. 21:26; 1 Kgs. 3:2–4; 18:30). Such altars became local centers of the worship of Jehovah. When idolatry came in, many of these altars were desecrated and used for heathen worship.” (Bible Dictionary, s.v. “high places.”)
Concerning the sanctuaries wherein worship of Baal took place, one author explained: “Each place has its own Baal, who is worshipped at the local sanctuary. The sanctuary is at an elevated spot outside the town or village, either on a natural eminence or on a mound artificially made for the purpose; these are the ‘high places’ of the Old Testament; originally Canaanite places of worship, they drew to themselves also the worship of Israel. The apparatus of worship at these shrines is of a very simple nature. An upright stone represents the god. . . . He was supposed to come to the stone when meeting with his worshippers; and in the earliest times of Semitic religion this stone served the purpose of an altar: the gifts, which were not originally burned, were laid upon it, or the blood of the victim was applied to it. But besides the altar and the upright stone of massebah the Canaanite shrine had another piece of furniture. A massive tree-trunk, fixed in the ground and with some of its branches perhaps still remaining, represented the female deity who is the invariable companion of the Baal. This is the Ashera of Canaan, a word which in the Authorized Version is translated ‘grove,’ after an error of the Vulgate, but which in the Revised Version is rightly left untranslated. [Judges 3:7; 6:25, 2 Kings 23:6.] The word Ashera is in such passages the designation of the tree which stood to represent the goddess.” (Allan Menzies, History of Religion, 172; see also Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel [religion 301, 2003], pp. 245–48, 255.)
The word jealousy used here means much the same as it did in Exodus 20:5. The Hebrew root kanah denotes “ardour, zeal, jealousy” (William Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 888). The implication is that the Lord possesses sensitive and deep feelings about false and degrading forms of worship (see Exodus 20:5b). The reason seems clear: the only power to save mankind from sin lies with God. Any false worship, therefore, cuts the sinner off from that power. Since God loves His children and wishes only their best eternal welfare, He is jealous (that is, feels very strongly) about any vain or false worship they perform.
The Lord was jealous of the sins of Judah because by these sins they, like Israel, were being turned from Him to a course that would deprive them of the salvation that only He could offer.
The king of Egypt referred to here as Shishak was most probably the “Libyan prince who founded Egypt’s XXIInd Dynasty as the Pharaoh Sheshong I. He reigned for 21 years c. 945–924 B.C. He harboured Jeroboam as a fugitive from Solomon, after Ahijah’s prophecy of Jeroboam’s future kingship [see 1 Kings 11:29–40]. Late in his reign, Shishak invaded Palestine in the fifth year of Rehoboam, 925 B.C. He subdued Judah, taking the treasures of Jerusalem as tribute [see 1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chronicles 12:2–12], and also asserted his dominion over Israel, as is evidenced by a broken stele of his from Megiddo. At the temple of Amun in Thebes, Shishak left a triumphal relief-scene, naming many Palestinian towns.” (J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Shishak”; see also 2 Chronicles 12:5–12 for a detailed account of Shishak’s invasion.)
The phrase “slept with his fathers” is a euphemism that means that someone has died and his spirit has passed on to join the other departed spirits. The phrase is also used to indicate burial in the family tomb. (See Guthrie and Motyer, Commentary, p. 326).
Abijam was unrighteous, as his father had been. “But for David’s sake,” for the sake of the promises made about the house of David and to preserve the royal lineage through which the Messiah would come (see Isaiah 9:6–7; Luke 1:32; Acts 13:22–23), the Lord did not reject Abijam, who was David’s great-grandson, but allowed the throne to pass to him and then to his son (see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:217). The word lamp refers to the idea of a light or a candle that continues to burn rather than being put out. Symbolically, then, Abijam’s line, or light, was allowed to continue rather than being extinguished. (Concerning Christ as the Son of David, see Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pp. 188–95).
For an account of Abijam’s reign, see 2 Chronicles 13 (where he is called Abijah). Although he was not a righteous man, neither was he completely unrighteous, for he called Jeroboam and his army to repentance (see 2 Chronicles 13:4–12), and his army prevailed over Jeroboam’s “because they relied upon the Lord” (v. 18).
See Joseph Smith Translation, 1 Kings 15:5, for a clarified translation of this verse. The statements throughout the Bible that credit David with being perfect, except for the one episode with Bath-sheba, are correct in that David was no idolator, nor did idolatry prosper while David was king. Idolatry and its accompanying vices were the greatest sin of Israel and the one least excused by the Lord. Although David succumbed to personal temptation and brought spiritual tragedy upon himself, he was faithful to the Lord in the sense that he did not tolerate idolatry in Israel.
For a detailed account of Asa’s reign, see 2 Chronicles 14–16. (Concerning very large numbers, such as in 2 Chronicles 14:9, see Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel, pp. 193–95.)
Since Abijam’s mother was Maachah and Asa was a son of Abijam, it is highly likely that the word mother as used here was intended to be grandmother. She was still queen because she was still alive during Asa’s reign.
Asa came to the throne of Judah after his father’s death. He had seen the tragic consequences of sin and had also seen his father start a reform from these sinful practices. Asa launched an all-out campaign to complete the job his father had begun. He had idolatrous altars and images torn down. He also began to eliminate the male and female prostitutes who attended the pagan temples, groves, altars, and shrines. The reforms soon brought peace among the people, which made them more happy and content. He realized that the pagan peoples might again try to impose their false religious practices on his people, so he also used this interval of peace to build up his territorial defenses (see 2 Chronicles 14:7).
Asa’s actions towards his mother are important (see 1 Kings 15:13), for, although family ties are of great importance, allegiance to God is more so (see Matthew 10:34–35; Luke 12:51–53).
|
|
|
Nebi Samwil may be ancient Ramah. |
Adam Clarke explained: “As the word signifies a high place, what is here termed Ramah was probably a hill, (commanding a defile through which lay the principal road to Jerusalem,) which Baasha fortified in order to prevent all intercourse with the kingdom of Judah, lest his subjects should cleave to the house of David. Ramah was about two leagues [six miles] northward of Jerusalem.” (Commentary, 2:446–47.)
The alliance with Ben-hadad, king of Syria, displeased the Lord (see 2 Chronicles 16:1–9). Asa trusted and used an enemy—Ben-hadad—instead of a friend—the Lord—who had already both shown Asa and told him that he needed no other friends (see 2 Chronicles 15:2–4).
First Kings 15:23 says that Asa “was diseased in his feet” during “his old age.” 2 Chronicles 16:12 says the disease began in the thirty-ninth year of Asa’s reign and became “exceeding great.” Asa relied solely upon physicians rather than turning to the Lord for help. He seems to have moved further from the Lord as he grew older (see 2 Chronicles 16:10). He died in the forty-first year of his reign, and the people “made a very great burning [of sacrifices] for him” (2 Chronicles 16:13–14).
The antecedent of him in verse 28 is Nadab. Baasha slew Nadab, not Asa.
Concerning the Lord’s message to Baasha, “I . . . made thee prince over my people Israel” (1 Kings 16:2), Clarke commented: “That is, in the course of my providence, I suffered thee to become king; for it is impossible that God should make a rebel, a traitor, and a murderer, king over his people, or over any people. God is ever represented in Scripture as doing those things which, in the course of his providence, he permits to be done.” (Commentary, 2:448.)
Jehu prophesied that Baasha’s posterity would be totally cut off—a consequence considered by Hebrews to be one of the greatest evils that could come upon a person. Zimri fulfilled this prophecy (see 1 Kings 16:11–13), but even though Zimri “did as had been prophesied and wiped out the house of Baasha, it is not to be supposed that he was ordained of the Lord to do so. Prophets can prophesy what men will bring upon themselves without necessitating the Lord’s predestining and controlling them to make it so.” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2:5.)
In slaying the friends and kinsfolk of Baasha, Zimri “endeavoured to exterminate his race, and blot out his memory; and the Jews say, when such a matter is determined, they not only destroy the house of the person himself, but the five neighbouring houses, that the memory of such a person may perish from the earth” (Clarke, Commentary, 2:449).
Rasmussen wrote of Omri: “Non-Biblical sources tell more about his eleven years of reign than does the Bible. In addition to his procuring Samaria and building it into a well-fortified capital city for northern Israel, the stone inscription of Mesha, King of Moab, admits that he [Omri] conquered Moab and exacted tribute all his days. And later inscriptions, such as the annals of Shalmaneser III, designated Israel as the ‘land of the house of Omri,’ and its kings were called in that text ‘sons of Omri’ even after his dynasty had been long replaced by another ruling family. Ben Hadad of Syria said his father took certain cities from Omri and forced him to allow free trade in Samaria. Omri made an alliance with Ethbaal, King of Tyre (Phoenicia), and took the Phoenician princess Jezebel for his son Ahab to marry. That alliance had deep and serious results in the religion and politics of Israel for forty-five years, and also in Judah some fifty years later.” (Introduction to the Old Testament, 2:5–6.)
Josephus wrote that the city built on this hill was called “by the Greeks Samaria; but he [Omri] himself called it Semareon, from Semer, who sold him the mountain whereon he built it” (Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 8, chap. 12, par. 5). Today the ruins of the city are called both Samaria and Sebastia, a name given to the city by Herod. The city, located six miles northwest of Shechem, remained the capital of the ten tribes until they were carried away captive. It was rebuilt into a city of great magnificence by Herod but was destroyed by the Romans in the First Jewish Revolt about A.D. 68 or 69.
|
|
|
Samaria, or Sebastia, in the land of Manasseh |
Ahab, son of Omri, was even more evil than his father, who had “[done] worse than all that were before him” (1 Kings 16:25). The scripture states that Ahab “did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him” (1 Kings 16:30). Ahab married Jezebel, daughter of King Ethbaal of Phoenicia, who practiced idolatry of a most depraved kind. Ahab built a house of Baal in the capital city of Samaria and placed an altar to the Phoenician sun god inside it (see 1 Kings 16:32). He then made a grove in which the people could indulge themselves in immoral practices around a symbol dedicated to the fertility goddess Ashtaroth. Four hundred priests, who ate at Jezebel’s table at state expense, assisted her in the extravagant and unholy religion she had brought into Israel.
Clarke summed up this marriage, as well as Jezebel’s life, in these words:
“This was the head and chief of his offending; he took to wife, not only a heathen, but one whose hostility to the true religion was well known, and carried to the utmost extent. 1. She was the idolatrous daughter of an idolatrous king; 2. She practised it openly; 3. She not only countenanced it in others, but protected it, and gave its partisans honours and rewards; 4. She used every means to persecute the true religion; 5. She was hideously cruel, and put to death the prophets and priests of God; 6. And all this she did with the most zealous perseverance and relentless cruelty.
“Notwithstanding Ahab had built a temple, and made an altar for Baal, and set up the worship of Asherah, the Sidonian Venus, . . . yet so well known was the hostility of Jezebel to all good, that his marrying her was esteemed the highest pitch of vice, and an act the most provoking to God, and destructive to the prosperity of the kingdom.” (Commentary, 2:450–51.)
The prophecy by Joshua in Joshua 6:26 concerning Jericho referred not just to building houses there but to restoring the city as a fortification (see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:1:73).
Clarke outlined three opinions about the correct interpretation of Joshua’s prophecy:
“1. It is thought that when he [Hiel] laid the foundation of the city, his eldest son, the hope of his family, died by the hand and judgment of God, and that all his children died in succession; so that when the doors were ready to be hung, his youngest and last child died, and thus, instead of securing himself a name, his whole family became extinct.
“2. These expressions signify only great delay in the building; that he who should undertake it should spend nearly his whole life in it; all the time in which he was capable of procreating children; in a word, that if a man laid the foundation when his first-born came into the world, his youngest and last son should be born before the walls should be in readiness to admit the gates to be set up in them; and that the expression is of the proverbial kind, intimating greatly protracted labour, occasioned by multitudinous hinderances and delays.
“3. That he who rebuilt this city should, in laying the foundation, slay or sacrifice his first-born, in order to consecrate it, and secure the assistance of the objects of his idolatrous worship; and should slay his youngest at the completion of the work, as a gratitude-offering for the assistance received. This latter opinion seems to be countenanced by the Chaldee, which represents Hiel as slaying his first-born Abiram, and his youngest son Segub.
“. . . None of these versions [Chaldee, Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, or Arabic], the Chaldee excepted, intimates that the children were either slain or died; which circumstance seems to strengthen the opinion, that the passage is to be understood of delays and hinderances.” (Commentary, 2:451.)
As you read the story of the tragedy that befell the house of Israel following the death of Solomon, did you feel sorrow for those who suffered and died during this period of time? What went wrong? How could they have averted the troubles that befell them? Your answers may give a pattern to follow in living your own life without such troubles. Give some real thought to the questions of how you can control disobedience and rebellion in your life. What results do you expect? Is it true of families as it is of nations that elimination of wickedness and selfishness will also produce harmony and unity? Why do you feel as you do? On a separate sheet of paper write your answers to these questions.
The Lord admonished the Israelites to maintain proper relationships, especially within their families and religious groups. He said, “Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren” (2 Chronicles 11:4). He also told them that as long as they followed His advice they would prosper; but if they forsook Him, He would forsake them (see 2 Chronicles 15:2). The Israelites disregarded His admonition, and soon disputations, violence, and hatred broke out. The scriptures, in describing this situation, record: “And in those times there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the countries” (2 Chronicles 15:5). Thus, the kings of Judah and Israel failed to give their subjects the legal basis of peace. The spirit of contention is of the devil (see 3 Nephi 11:29). Do you have any need for improvement in this area? How would more harmonious relationships with your parents, brothers or sisters, and other people in your life affect your happiness and theirs? Write your answers on paper.
President David O. McKay said of unity: “In branches and wards, there is no virtue more conducive to progress and spirituality than the presence of this principle [unity]. When jealousy, backbiting, evil-speaking supplant confidence, self-subjection, unity, and harmony, the progress of the organization is stifled.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1939, p. 102.)
If you hope to fulfill your potential as a child of God, you must learn to work with others toward an established goal. You need to give help and accept help. This principle is true in society, in the Church, and, especially, in the home. President McKay said: “I can imagine few if any things more objectionable in the home than the absence of unity and harmony. On the other hand, I know that a home in which unity, mutual helpfulness, and love abide is just a bit of heaven on earth. I surmise that nearly all of you can testify to the sweetness of life in homes in which these virtues predominate. Most gratefully and humbly, I cherish the remembrance that never once as a lad in the home of my youth did I see one instance of discord between father and mother, and that goodwill and mutual understanding have been the uniting bond that has held together a fortunate group of brothers and sisters. Unity, harmony, goodwill are virtues to be fostered and cherished in every home.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1939, p. 102.)
The Apostle James wrote: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. . . . Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.” (James 1:8; 4:8.) These statements teach the necessity of avoiding hypocrisy and of always being true to the principles by which we claim to live.
Most of the kings of Israel and Judah were double-minded in the scriptural sense recorded by James. This double-mindedness created instability in their own lives as well as in the lives of all Israel. Elder Bruce R. McConkie tersely but fully described a double-minded man in these words: “A fickle, wavering man, as contrasted with one who is constant and firm, who always sustains the cause of righteousness. A member of the Church who tries both to forsake and to follow the world and who does not serve the Lord with an eye single to his glory.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:248.)
Elder Alvin R. Dyer said: “Many centuries ago Jesus made clear the fact that ‘man cannot serve two masters’; he will either love one and despise the other or hate the one and love the other. (See Matt. 6:24.) The Apostle James emphasized the importance of constantly choosing right over wrong. For those who attempt an allegiance to both, there will come instability. One psychologist calls such an individual a neurotic freak.” (The Nobility of Teaching, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, 20 Jan. 1970, p. 3.)
To be double-minded in the classical, scriptural sense is to be astride the high, sharp fence that separates allegiance to the kingdom of God from allegiance to the world. On one side of the fence are Jehovah and Zion; on the other side are idols and Babylon.
Review the lives of the kings you have read about in this chapter of the Old Testament. Were any of them completely on the Lord’s side of the fence—not even peeking enviously through a knothole? Or did they try to maintain a position on both sides—an absolute impossibility?
What made the case of these kings even worse was that accepting the throne of either Israel or Judah meant accepting a position of agency or trust. The earthly king should always have been the embodiment of the Heavenly King, the only true king in Israel. The earthly king should have accepted the responsibility of leading the people to obey the Heavenly King and of punishing all who disobeyed Him. But apostasy set in; kings were no longer chosen by revelation and anointed by prophets. Therefore, it is not surprising that the rulers of both kingdoms so often led their people in a way directly opposed to the ways of God. Consider the following record.
Rehoboam (Judah) Forsook the law of the Lord
Jeroboam (Israel) Set up idols and false priesthood
Nadab (Israel) Followed Jeroboam’s pattern
Abijam (Judah) “Walked in all the sins of his father”
Baasha (Israel) Followed the pattern of Jeroboam
Jehoshaphat (Judah) Did not take down high places, but was otherwise right
Elah (Israel) Was a drunkard—”made Israel to sin”
Zimri (Israel) Was a murderer, idolater (reigned seven days)
Omri (Israel) Was a worse idolater than all before him
Ahab (Israel) Was even worse than Omri; married Jezebel
What was the one cause of downfall? Was it not double-mindedness that led to disobedience? Did not Israel trust more in the world and work harder to obtain its rewards than they trusted in the Lord and worked to obtain His rewards?
|
|
God raised up prophets in ancient Israel for the same reasons He raises up prophets today. They are to teach the people the laws of God and how to live them, call the people to repentance when necessary, and bear witness of Jesus Christ. The work of all true prophets of all ages is to act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will.
Elder John A. Widtsoe explained that “a prophet is a teacher. That is the essential meaning of the word. He teaches the body of truth, the gospel, revealed by the Lord to man; and under inspiration explains it to the understanding of the people. He is an expounder of truth. Moreover, he shows that the way to human happiness is through obedience to God’s law. He calls to repentance those who wander away from the truth. He becomes a warrior for the consummation of the Lord’s purposes with respect to the human family. The purpose of his life is to uphold the Lord’s plan of salvation. All this he does by close communion with the Lord, until he is ‘full of power by the spirit of the Lord.’ (Micah 3:8; see also D. & C. 20:26; 34:10; 43:16) . . .
“In the course of time the word ‘prophet’ has come to mean, perhaps chiefly, a man who receives revelations, and directions from the Lord. The principal business of a prophet has mistakenly been thought to foretell coming events, to utter prophecies, which is only one of the several prophetic functions.
“In the sense that a prophet is a man who receives revelations from the Lord, the titles ‘seer and revelator’ merely amplify the larger and inclusive meaning of the title ‘prophet.’ . . .
“A prophet also receives revelations from the Lord. These may be explanations of truths already received, or new truths not formerly possessed by man. Such revelations are always confined to the official position held. The lower will not receive revelations for the higher office.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 257–58.)
What qualifies a man to be a prophet? Elder A. Theodore Tuttle answered that question by saying:
“Foremost, God must choose him as his prophet! This is entirely different than for man to choose God. The Savior, speaking to his apostles, said, ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit. . . .’ (John 15:16.)
“‘We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.’ (Article of Faith 5.)
“A prophet, then, is the authorized representative of the Lord. While the world may not recognize him, the important requirement is that God speaks through him.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1973, p. 11; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 18; emphasis added.)
“A seer is one who sees with spiritual eyes. He perceives the meaning of that which seems obscure to others; therefore he is an interpreter and clarifier of eternal truth. He foresees the future from the past and the present. This he does by the power of the Lord operating through him directly, or indirectly with the aid of divine instruments such as the Urim and Thummim. In short, he is one who sees, who walks in the Lord’s light with open eyes. (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 8:15–17)” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 258.)
As Ammon said, “A seer is a revelator and a prophet also” (Mosiah 8:16). When necessary he can use the Urim and Thummim, or holy interpreters (see Mosiah 8:13; 28:13–16; 1 Samuel 9:9; 2 Samuel 24:11; 2 Kings 17:13; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 33:19; Isaiah 29:10; 30:10; JST, John 1:42; 2 Nephi 3:6–14; D&C 21:1; 107:92; 134:94, 125; 127:12; 135:3; Moses 6:36, 38.)
Although the prophets doubtless thought much about the future, most of their work among their contemporaries was certainly of a practical and current nature. They were teachers, statesmen, and guides of the people. They were expounders of truth. They showed that the way to human happiness is obedience to God’s will. They called to repentance those who wandered away from the truth. They upheld the Lord’s plan of salvation. It was and is their right and responsibility to counsel the Saints in all ages.
The prophets were spokesmen of God, yet they were not impersonal machines that simply repeated His messages. They were great individuals, colorful in their personalities and expressions. They saw things through their own eyes according to their circumstances. They spoke in the language and understanding of the people of their day.
Individual prophets were raised up at particular times to fill a special need. Obviously the Lord’s hand was in their call. For example, Amos was called at a time when affluence and religious formalism combined to produce a high tide of social decadence and permissiveness. He responded in a style and with a message fitting the times. Hosea addressed the people of an era in which established social forms were dissolving. Ezekiel, fearless in his cry for right, declared, “Then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them” (Ezekiel 33:33), speaking of the time when predicted calamities would befall the people. His were cries of warning while he was in exile with his people. Isaiah preached to a people who, by rejecting his message, would pass the point of no return and condemn themselves. Jeremiah lived amid the final agonies of Jerusalem. He warned a king who chose to ignore the warning and suffered the consequences. Elder Mark E. Petersen said of the importance of the role of prophets:
“The whole program of the Lord’s dealings with his people centered about them. So well established was this procedure that one of them said, ‘Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.’ (Amos 3:7.)
“The entire pattern of the Bible, as shown in both Old and New Testaments, reflects this important fact.
“Whenever God had a people on earth whom he recognized as his own, he provided constant guidance for them, and this guidance was by divine revelation given through living prophets.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1970, p. 82.)
Sometimes there was more than one prophet in Israel, and sometimes there were many prophets. Lehi and Jeremiah were contemporaries (see 1 Nephi 5:13; 7:14), as were many others. Isaiah and Micah are thought to have lived at the same time, addressing different audiences. The question of which prophet had ecclesiastical authority over the others (if one did) cannot be answered because there is insufficient information about their times. Latter-day Saints are more aware of the role of a presiding prophet because the expanded nature of the Church today requires it and because the Lord has directed that there be a presiding prophet today. Elder John A. Widtsoe explained: “When others besides the President of the Church hold the title ‘prophet, seer, and revelator,’ it follows that the ‘power and authority’ thus represented are called into action only by appointment from the President of the Church. For example, a man may be ordained a High Priest, an office in which the right of presidency is inherent, but he presides only when called to do so. It is even so with the exercise of authority under these sacred titles.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 257.)
The prophets portrayed God in such a way as to make Him comprehensible to the weak understanding of His people. The Lord was therefore shown as possessing attributes much in common with man. He was described as being a jealous God and as being very concerned about the reverence due Him. He desired to be a personal God, to reveal Himself to His people (see Exodus 19:10–11). But the people became frightened and refused to let Him come directly into their lives (see Exodus 20:18–19).
It must be remembered in studying the lives and messages of the prophets that their day and time were not exactly like man’s today. There were no television sets, no automobiles, no jet aircraft. Generally the prophets were confined to a rather small geographical area. They acted within their culture, just as do the prophets of today. (For more detail on the role of a prophet see Exodus 4:12, 16, 30; Numbers 12:6; 2 Kings 17:13; Jeremiah 1:7; Ezekiel 2:7; Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 1:1; Mosiah 8:15; Helaman 5:18; D&C 1:38; 20:26; 21:5; 84:36.)
In a broad sense, every Saint should be a prophet. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:
“Prophets are simply members of a true Church who have testimonies of the truth and divinity of the work. They are the saints of God who have learned by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“A heavenly visitant, upon whom the Lord had placed his name, told the Beloved Revelator: ‘The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’ (Rev. 19:10.) That is, every person who receives revelation so that he knows, independent of any other source, of the divine Sonship of the Savior, has, by definition and in the very nature of things, the spirit of prophecy and is a prophet. Thus Moses exclaimed, ‘Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!’ (Num. 11:29.) And thus Paul counseled all the saints, ‘Covet to prophesy,’ and promised the faithful among them, ‘Ye may all prophesy.’ (1 Cor. 14:31–39.)
“A testimony comes by revelation from the Holy Ghost, whose mission it is to bear ‘record of the Father and the Son.’ (Moses 1:24.) Of Christ, Moroni says: ‘Ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost.’ (Moro. 10:7.) Prophecy comes from the same source and by the same power. In Peter’s language, ‘Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet. 1:21.)
“When a person abides the law which enables him to gain a revealed knowledge of the divine Sonship of our Lord, he thereby abides the law which empowers him, as occasion may require, to prophesy. In Nephite history we find an account of a people who gained testimonies and as a consequence had also the gift of prophecy. After expounding the plan of salvation, as such operates through the atoning blood of Christ, King Benjamin desired ‘to know of his people if they believed the words which he had spoken unto them.’ Their answer: ‘We believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent.’ That is, they had gained testimonies. Then they said, ‘We, ourselves, also through the infinite goodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things.’ (Mosiah 5:1–3.) That is, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; both testimony and prophecy come by the power of the Holy Ghost; and any person who receives the revelation that Jesus is the Lord is a prophet and can, as occasion requires and when guided by the Spirit, ‘prophesy of all things.’” (The Promised Messiah, pp. 23–24.)
|
|
|
Elder John A. Widtsoe |
Elder John A. Widtsoe gave this important insight about prophets as men:
“Men are called to the prophetic office because of their humility and their willingness to be in the hands of the Lord as clay in the hands of the potter. Yet a man called to the prophetic office is almost without exception of high native endowment, often with large experience in life, and possessed of wisdom and sound judgment. That is, the prophet, though but a man, is an able man, rising in ability above the multitude. An examination of sacred history from Adam to the present will show that able men, in the words of Jethro, men ‘such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness’ (Exodus 18:21), have been called to the prophetic office. The unofficial views and expressions of such a man with respect to any vital subject, should command respectful attention. Wise men seek the counsel of those wiser or abler than themselves. . . .
“How may the rank and file of the Church recognize the prophetic voice, whether official or unofficial, when it speaks? The answer is simple enough. A person who is in harmony in his life, in thought and practice, with the gospel and its requirements, who loves truth so well that he is willing to surrender to it, will recognize a message from the Lord.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 237–38.)
Elder Widtsoe also explained that “the teacher must learn before he can teach. Therefore, in ancient and modern times there have been schools of the prophets, in which the mysteries of the kingdom have been taught to men who would go out to teach the gospel and to fight the battles of the Lord.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 257.)
The disciples of the prophets were called sons, just as teachers were sometimes called fathers (see 2 Kings 2:12; 6:21). These “sons of the prophets” formed a peculiar group. Possibly they assisted the prophets in their duties, and in time succeeded them. These “sons of the prophets” were trained teachers of religion. Some of them were married and probably lived in houses of their own. Others were unmarried and occupied a building in common, eating at a common table.
It is supposed that the schools of the prophets were founded by the prophet Samuel. A description of him instructing them is found in 1 Samuel 19:19–20. But just how long the schools of the prophets lasted in Old Testament times is not known. They seem to have flourished in the times of Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha. Eventually they degenerated into an unscrupulous guild that divined for money and power. (See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 2:2:199–206.)
Not all prophets are of God. There are false prophets who call people away after other gods (see Deuteronomy 13). The wicked prophets of Baal were prominent in Israel during the reign of Ahab. They officiated in the perverted Canaanite religion and won great favor in the eyes of Ahab’s wife, Jezebel. The Lord’s true prophets had to compete with these and other false prophets for the people’s attention, and in the case of Elijah, supernatural demonstration was necessary to convince the people that the prophets of Baal were unreliable. Probably all of the true prophets had to contend constantly with false prophets (see Jeremiah 23:13–17).
A classic example of a confrontation between false prophets and a true prophet is found in 1 Kings 22. The kings of Judah and Israel had joined forces to fight the Syrians, and Ahab suggested to Jehoshaphat that they go together and take the city of Ramoth. Jehoshaphat asked for the opinion of the prophets. All of Ahab’s prophets counseled them to go to battle. Jehoshaphat pressed Ahab, saying, “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might enquire of him?” (v. 7), and he was told there was one, Micaiah. But Ahab hated him because, he said, “He doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (v. 8). Micaiah was called, but Ahab’s servant instructed him, “The words of the prophets [of Baal] declare good unto the king with one mouth; let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good” (v. 13). And Micaiah said, “As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak” (v. 14). Though it put his own life in jeopardy, he spoke the truth. The false prophets said whatever would please the king and help them maintain their favored status in the court.
President Spencer W. Kimball said this of the true prophet:
“What the world needs is a prophet-leader who gives example—clean, full of faith, godlike in his attitudes with an untarnished name, a beloved husband, a true father.
“A prophet needs to be more than a priest or a minister or an elder. His voice becomes the voice of God to reveal new programs, new truths, new solutions. I make no claim of infallibility for him, but he does need to be recognized of God, an authoritative person. He is no pretender as numerous are who presumptuously assume position without appointment and authority that is not given. He must speak like his Lord: ‘. . . as one having authority, and not as the scribes.’ (Matt. 7:29.)
“He must be bold enough to speak truth even against popular clamor for lessening restrictions. He must be certain of his divine appointment, of his celestial ordination, and his authority to call to service, to ordain, to pass keys which fit eternal locks.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1970, p. 120.)
For a more complete understanding of the wide-spread existence of false prophets in Old Testament times, read Deuteronomy 18:20; Isaiah 9:15–16; 28:7; Jeremiah 2:8; 5:31; 23:9, 11, 16; 27:15; 28:15; Lamentations 2:14; Ezekiel 22:25; Micah 3:5, 11; Zechariah 10:2.
Much prophecy comes because of the panoramic view prophets have of events from the beginning to the end. Although they saw the calamities of their day and the subsequent punishments God would administer to Israel, the Old Testament prophets also saw in the future a day of gladness and rejoicing. They recognized that national salvation would not come during their time but that it would occur at some future date, and they gave a glimpse of that hopeful sight.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie said of the actions and purposes of prophets:
“In this day we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and gain salvation, and the prophets and apostles of our day reveal him to the world and serve as the legal administrators to perform the ordinances of salvation in his name so that such ordinances will be binding on earth and sealed everlastingly in the heavens. So likewise was it in days of old. Salvation was in Christ then as it is now, and the prophets of those days taught the same doctrines we teach today.
“At the very beginning of his ministry, the prophet Nephi recorded his purpose and summarized his divine commission by saying, ‘For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved.’ (1 Ne. 6:4.) King Benjamin (reciting the words spoken to him by an angel) affirmed and expanded the same concept in these words: ‘Salvation cometh . . . through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceeding great joy, even as though he had already come among them.’ (Mosiah 3:12–13.)
“Alma’s son Corianton, rebellious and carnally inclined, was unable to understand ‘concerning the coming of Christ.’ His father said to him, ‘I will ease your mind somewhat on this subject. Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand.’ And this was Alma’s reasoning:
“‘Is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming?’
“‘Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be made known unto this people as well as unto their children?’
“‘Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to send his angel to declare these glad tidings unto us as unto our children, or as after the time of his coming?’ (Alma 39:15–19.) . . .
“‘These glad tidings’—that salvation was in Christ and came by obedience to his holy gospel—were declared unto those in the so-called pre-Christian era so ‘that salvation might come unto them,’ and also ‘that they may prepare the minds of their children to hear the word at the time of his coming.’ (Alma 39:16.)
“That relatively few who lived when he came, or who have thereafter dwelt on this benighted globe, were in fact prepared to receive him as Savior, Lord, and King is the saddest commentary found in all the history of his dealings with men. However, many of the prophecies (together with much of the doctrine interwoven as an essential part thereof) are still extant, and, the Lord guiding, many sincere souls will yet be brought to a knowledge of the truth through a Spirit-led study of them.” (Promised Messiah, pp. 29–30.)
Later in the same work, Elder McConkie continued:
“Such sectarian scholars as happen to believe in Messianic prophecies suppose that these divine statements are few in number and came from a comparatively few seeric souls. The fact is, these prophecies are in number as the sands upon the seashore, and those who spoke them are sufficient in number to people cities, populate nations, and cover continents. All of the prophets, all of the ancient preachers of righteousness, all of the citizens of Zion, all of the saints of old, all of those from Adam to John who had the gift of the Holy Ghost—all of these bore testimonies in Messianic terms. They all had a Spirit-borne hope in Christ who was to come, and fortunately some few of them were called to be prophets to the people and have had portions of their words preserved for us.” (p. 77.)
To the Jews in His own day the Savior said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Others saw it and prophesied concerning it (see Jacob 4:4–5; Acts 3:21–24; Helaman 8:16–18).
Elder John A. Widtsoe summarized the role of prophets in these words:
“A prophet is a teacher of known truth; a seer is a perceiver of hidden truth, a revelator is a bearer of new truth. In the widest sense, the one most commonly used, the title, prophet, includes the other titles and makes of the prophet, a teacher, perceiver, and bearer of truth.
“One who bears the title of prophet, and they who sustain him as such, are first of all believers in God, and in a divine plan of salvation for the human family; and, secondly, they commit themselves to the task of bringing to pass the purposes of the Almighty. They believe that the children of men are capable of receiving and obeying truth. Were it not so, the title ‘prophet, seer, and revelator’ would be empty, hollow words. As it is, they are clarion calls of the Church of Christ to a world walking in the dim shadows of misunderstanding.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 258–59.)
|
|
What would you think about a man who had the power to raise the dead, call down fire from heaven, cause the heavens to withhold rain, and render a barrel of flour inexhaustible?
Elijah was such a man, a man of power, a man of miracles, a prophet so worthy that he was translated and taken from the earth in a chariot of fire.
Small wonder that Elijah became one of the great heroes in Israel’s history. Small wonder, too, that in Jewish households a place is set for him at every Passover feast in anticipation of his return as predicted by the prophet Malachi (see Malachi 4:5–6).
This assignment deals with the reasons Elijah is one of the greatest prophets of all time and why he was rejected by the people of his own day.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Kings 17 through 2 Kings 2.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
Elijah is here called “the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead.” Some scholars say that Elijah came from Tishbeh, in upper Galilee (see C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 3:1:234). Adam Clarke suggested a different place. Elijah came, he said, from Gilead beyond the Jordan in the land given to the tribe of Gad (see The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 2:452). Whichever is correct, it is clear that the title Tishbite refers to the place from which Elijah came.
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith found a special significance in verse 1:
“The first appearance of Elijah we read of is in the 17th chapter of 1st Kings, when he came before the king and said, ‘As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.’
“There is something very significant in that edict. I want you to get it. Follow me again closely: ‘As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.’ The reason I put emphasis upon this is to impress you with the sealing power by which Elijah was able to close the heavens, that there should be no rain or dew until he spoke.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:102.)
“We do not know which of the Jordan tributaries the brook Cherith might have been, but apparently it was an obscure and isolated place where Elijah could hide safely without being accidentally discovered by soldiers, shepherds or passersby. It was also a desolate place where no animal life existed, therefore Elijah was completely dependent upon the Lord for his sustenance.” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Fourth Thousand Years, p. 336.)
Some scholars insist that the word raven is a mis-translation and that merchants or traders is the correct rendering. Other scholars disagree. They insist that the Hebrew word is properly translated just as it stands. The fact that Elijah was in hiding makes it unlikely that merchants or traders would come to him twice a day, and the tone of the writer suggests that it was miraculous care rather than a normal interaction between Elijah and other men.
Zarephath was on the coast of the Mediterranean between Tyre and Sidon, in what is now Lebanon and was then Phoenicia, outside the boundaries of Israel. The poor widow had only a little flour with which to make a patty to fry. Her barrel would have been an earthen jar and her cruse a clay bottle. Wooden barrels are not suitable for storing flour in the Middle East because they do not protect the flour from insects.
Elijah’s request for the widow to prepare his food was not a selfish request but rather a test of her faith. Because she passed the test, Elijah’s promise that her barrel of flour and cruse of oil would not fail for the duration of the famine was fulfilled. This widow not only provided for her own needs in a time of great distress but provided for others an example of great faith. In an attempt to open the eyes of his prejudiced countrymen, Jesus spoke of this Sidonian woman who obeyed God’s command and physically sustained His prophet. “But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Serepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow” (Luke 4:25–26).
This is the fourth miracle mentioned in this chapter which Elijah performed by means of his priesthood power. First he brought famine by his word (see v. 1), then he was fed by ravens (see v. 6), then he caused the widow’s food supply to miraculously continue (see vv. 13–16). Then he worked another mighty miracle through the power of God. The widow’s cry (see v. 18) was more a plea for help than a criticism. In essence she was saying, “I thought sheltering a prophet would bring blessings and protection; instead, tragedy has struck my home.”
Obadiah was the king’s chamberlain, or governor of his house. As such it was his responsibility to arrange the king’s appointments. That is why Elijah told Obadiah to set up an interview between the prophet and King Ahab. The fact that a king and his chief steward had to look for water and grass by themselves shows that the famine had become acute (see vv. 5–6).
Ahab knew that Elijah had brought this distress, so he searched for him. Apparently Ahab had considerable power and authority among surrounding nations, for he was able to exact promises for them that they were not concealing Elijah or that they knew of his whereabouts (see v. 10). Sometimes, however, someone would see the prophet. But when he reported seeing Elijah, the prophet had disappeared by the time Ahab got there. Ahab then killed the person who said he had seen Elijah. Obadiah’s fear that Elijah would disappear again was caused by his awareness that Ahab would not hesitate to have him executed if he failed to deliver Elijah (see vv. 12–16). Elijah promised Obadiah that he would appear before Ahab (see v. 15).
Whether this Obadiah, who “feared the Lord greatly” (v. 3), is the author of the Old Testament book of the same name is not known, but it is doubtful.
These verses have inspired many sermons, for the wicked usually blame someone else for their misfortunes. Elijah had no power by himself to bring on the famine. He was only the agent of the Lord. Ahab and his policies were the true cause of Israel’s distress, but the king refused to accept that responsibility.
Mount Carmel is a mountain ridge several miles long that runs from southeast to northwest. Its southeastern slopes are very near the northwestern corner of the great Jezreel Valley, and its northwest edge juts into the Mediterranean on the northern coasts of modern Israel. (See “Old Testament Canaan” in Maps.) Rising abruptly to about eighteen hundred feet above sea level, it is an impressive prominence and became synonymous with beauty. It is referred to figuratively in the Doctrine and Covenants. (See D&C 128:19.)
|
|
|
Mount Carmel |
Clarke offered the following comment on Israel’s indecision: “Literally, [the phrase means] ‘How long hop ye about upon two boughs?’ This is a metaphor taken from birds hopping about from bough to bough, not knowing on which to settle. Perhaps the idea of limping through lameness should not be overlooked. They were halt, they could not walk uprightly; they dreaded Jehovah, and therefore could not totally abandon him; they feared the king and queen, and therefore thought they must embrace the religion of the state. Their conscience forbade them to do the former; their fear of man persuaded them to do the latter; but in neither were they heartily engaged; and at this juncture their minds seemed in equipoise, and they were waiting for a favourable opportunity to make their decision. Such an opportunity now, through the mercy of God, presented itself.” (Commentary, 2:457.)
The contest that Elijah proposed should have appealed to the prophets of Baal, since their god, the “Sun-god,” could surely send down fire if anyone could. Added to the four hundred and fifty priests of Baal were four hundred priests of his female counterpart, Ashtoreth, or Venus, whom Jezebel worshiped. Elijah commented on the number of prophets of Baal in contrast to the number of prophets of the Lord (see v. 22).
Elijah’s mocking words recorded in verse 27 furnished cause for a renewed frenzy among Baal’s prophets. Elijah was really saying, “Cry louder; if he is a god, he can surely hear you. But then, perhaps, he’s away on a trip, or he’s out hunting (pursuing game), or maybe he’s asleep.” Such taunting kept the priests of Baal in action all day long. Clarke commented: “From morning even until noon. It seems that the priests of Baal employed the whole day in their desperate rites. The time is divided into two periods: 1. From morning until noon; this was employed in preparing and offering the sacrifice, and in earnest supplication for the celestial fire. Still there was no answer, and at noon Elijah began to mock and ridicule them, and this excited them to commence anew. And, 2. They continued from noon till the time of offering the evening sacrifice, dancing up and down, cutting themselves with knives, mingling their own blood with their sacrifice, praying, supplicating, and acting the most frantic manner.” (Commentary, 2:457.)
Apparently they thought this act of self-abasement would endear them to their god, get his attention, and prove their sincerity. One ancient author told of antics very similar to these that he observed in Gaza in Roman times:
“‘A trumpeter went before them who proclaimed their arrival in the villages, the farmyards, or the streets of towns, by flourishes on his instrument—a twisted horn. The begging Galli followed in fantastic array, after a leader: an ass in their midst, carrying their begging bag and a veiled image of the goddess. . . . They danced along the streets to the sound of wild music, holding huge swords and bills, with whips for scourging themselves, in their hands, and making a hideous noise with rattles, fifes, cymbals or kettle-drums. When they came to a farmyard they began their ravings. A wild howl opened the scene. They then flew wildly one past the other: their heads sunk low towards the earth, as they turned in circles: their loose hair dragging through the dust. Presently they began to bite their arms, and next to hack themselves with the two-edged swords they carried.’ . . .
“Then began a new scene. ‘One of them, the leader in this frenzy, commenced to prophesy, with sighs and groans, lamenting aloud his past sins, which he would now avenge by the chastisement of his flesh. He then took the knotted whip and lashed his back, cutting himself also with his sword till the blood ran down.’” (In Cunningham Geikie, Hours with the Bible, 3:399–400.)
The priests of Baal were so unscrupulous that they rigged their altars with fires beneath them to make the sacrifices appear to ignite spontaneously. One ancient writer said he “had seen under the altars of the heathens, holes dug in the earth with funnels proceeding from them, and communicating with openings on the tops of the altars. In the former the priests concealed fire, which, communicating through the funnels with the holes, set fire to the wood and consumed the sacrifice; and thus the simple people were led to believe that the sacrifice was consumed by a miraculous fire.” (In Clarke, Commentary, 2:459.)
Elijah undoubtedly drenched the altar and sacrifice with water as much for the heathen priests as for the people. He wanted to convince them that there was no trickery and to show them that the power of the Lord was manifest. It was a bold and dramatic move that demonstrated his absolute confidence in the power of the true God.
“The fire proceeding from Jehovah, was not a natural flash of lightning, which could not produce any such effect, but miraculous fire falling from heaven, as in [1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1] (see [Leviticus 9:24]), the supernatural origin of which was manifested in the fact, that it not only consumed the sacrifice with the pile of wood upon the altar, but also burned up . . . the stones of the altar and the earth that was thrown up to form the trench, and licked up the water in the trench. Through this miracle Jehovah not only accredited Elijah as His servant and prophet, but proved Himself to be the living God, whom Israel was to serve; so that all the people who were present fell down upon their faces in worship, as they had done once before, viz. at the consecration of the altar in [Leviticus 9:24], and confessed ‘Jehovah is God.’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:249.)
These verses show how powerful and corrupt Jezebel was. Even after the miraculous fire from heaven, this woman was moved only to anger and swore she would take Elijah’s life in revenge. Elijah fled, first into the territory of Judah (at Beersheba) and then to Mount Horeb (or Sinai) 150 miles further south.
Elijah was either fasting or receiving food provided by the Lord during this period. If Elijah truly went without food for forty days, as verse 8 suggests, then he had an experience similar to that of Moses (see Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9–25) and the Savior (see Matthew 4:2). And like Moses at Sinai, Elijah there received revelations.
It must have been very lonely for Elijah during this period. Men were seeking his life, he felt himself to be the only faithful prophet left in Israel, and he was hiding in a cave. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “When he was there, the Lord called upon him and asked him what he was doing there; and in his sorrow, because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, he told the Lord the condition, that he alone remained, that they sought his life to take it away. But the Lord showed him that there were others who had remained true unto him, even 7,000.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:106.)
Those who listen for God’s voice know that it is not in the power to break rocks and earth (see v. 11), nor in the fire, but in the “still small voice” that speaks to the heart of man. When Elijah heard the still small voice, he “went out” to converse with the Lord (v. 13). Encouraged, Elijah returned at the Lord’s request and completed his assigned mission. The word jealous as used in verses 10 and 14 means diligent. The new prophet chosen to succeed Elijah was Elisha.
The accompanying map shows the journeys of Elijah from the time he left the Brook Cherith until he arrived at Damascus, Syria, where he anointed an earthly king in a foreign country. It provides a picture of how far-reaching his ministry was.
|
|
|
Elijah’s journeys |
This verse shows that God and Israel’s prophets influenced nations other than Israel. Nothing more is known about the circumstance that made it possible for Elijah to anoint a king of Syria.
There is no record of Elisha slaying anyone. This passage may mean that Elisha would prophesy the death of certain people. Of course, the Bible record as it is now is fragmentary at best, and the details of the incident referred to here may be lost.
Elisha must have been wealthy to have been plowing with twelve yokes of oxen, for each yoke pulled a plow and was driven by a servant. The feast of two oxen also indicates wealth. Eating the oxen and burning their equipment symbolically represents Elisha’s rejection of worldly wealth as Elisha prepared to follow Elijah and to make the considerable material sacrifice involved in responding to the prophetic call.
A mantle is a coat or similar covering.
“When Elijah walked up to the plow where Elisha was standing the prophet simply removed his rough mantle and placed it across the shoulders of Elisha. The astonished Elisha seemed to have known exactly what this emblematic gesture meant. He was being designated for the prophetic calling and being chosen as the understudy and future successor of Elijah. No lengthy discussion or art of persuasion was employed to induce Elisha to accept the call. It was not needed. He was one of the choice 7,000 referred to by the Lord who had not bowed the knee to Baal but respected the Holy Priesthood of God and accepted with enthusiasm the discipline and obedience required by such a calling.” (Skousen, Fourth Thousand Years, p. 359.)
Out of this simple act, the phrase “mantle of the prophet” has come to mean the calling and office of the prophet.
This is like saying “Don’t boast of the deed until it is done.” The imagery comes from the harnessing of work animals. It would be easy for an ox to boast of how much he can plow while he is being harnessed in the morning, but the boast would be meaningful only after the work was done, that is, when the harness is taken off.
These chapters detail two separate battles between Israel and Syria. Israel won the first battle but lost the second.
“There seems to be an allusion here to the opinion, prevalent among all heathen nations, that the different parts of the earth had different divinities. They had gods for the woods, for the mountains, for the seas, for the heavens, and for the lower regions. The Syrians seem to have received the impression that Jehovah was specially the God of the mountains; but he manifested to them that he ruled every-where.” (James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible, p. 165.)
In his encounter with the prophet of the Lord, Ahab unwittingly pronounced his own doom. The prophecy was fulfilled in the next battle with the Syrians (see 1 Kings 22:34–35). That was his reward for failing to slay Ben-hadad as the Lord had commanded.
Ahab’s offer to buy Naboth’s vineyard may seem fair at first glance, but Naboth could not sell. His land had been inherited from his forefathers, and the law of Moses did not permit the sale of one’s inheritance, except in cases of extreme destitution, and then it could be sold or mortgaged only until the time of jubilee, when it would be reclaimed. Ahab wished to acquire the land permanently. Hence Naboth’s reply: “The Lord forbid it me” (v. 3). Ahab’s tantrum over being refused (see v. 4) gives an insight into the character of Ahab. The king owned ten-twelfths of the land of Israel already, but he was miserable because he could not get everything he wanted.
These verses also show how Ahab’s wife, Jezebel, arranged her husband’s affairs without hindrance of any sort (see v. 16). The phrase “sons of Belial,” was a catch-all term that applied to almost any evil persons—liars, thieves, murderers. Notice how the punishment pronounced on Ahab and Jezebel matched their character (see vv. 19, 23).
|
|
|
Tel Jezreel, Ahab’s winter palace, overlooks the Jezreel Valley. |
Because of Ahab’s wicked life, the Lord prophesied that he would lose his posterity (see 1 Kings 21:21). Verses 27 through 29 show the relationship between repentance and the consequences of sin. Because Ahab repented, the “evil” was delayed until Ahab’s son was king.
The friendship between Ahab, king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, may have developed because Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son, had married Ahab’s daughter Athaliah. This friendship did not please the Lord, and Jehoshaphat was severely rebuked for encouraging it (see 2 Chronicles 19:1–3).
Ahab and Jehoshaphat were considering whether they should combine to fight against the Syrians. Ahab’s false prophets, or counselors, said yes, but Micaiah, a prophet of God, said no. The words of Micaiah in verse 15, “Go and prosper,” were said with great sarcasm. It is as though Micaiah said: “All your false prophets have predicted success. You want me to do the same, so I will: ‘Go and prosper.’” This was said scornfully to let King Ahab know that it was contrary to Micaiah’s true advice. Hence the King’s response in verse 16.
The Lord does not place a lying spirit in anyone. As Clarke explained, the Hebrew expression means that the Lord “hath permitted or suffered a lying spirit to influence thy prophets. Is it requisite again to remind the reader that the Scriptures repeatedly represent God as doing what, in the course of his providence, he only permits or suffers to be done? Nothing can be done in heaven, in earth, or hell, but either by his immediate energy or permission. This is the reason why the Scripture speaks as above.” (Commentary, 2:476.)
An ancient warrior was covered with armor. To kill him, an arrow had to pass through the spaces where one piece of armor joined another.
The Moabites occupied the territory east of the Dead Sea. They were the descendants of Lot (see Genesis 19:37.) Years earlier David had conquered them and their distant relatives the Ammonites, who were also descendants of Lot and who occupied a territory just north of Moab. The Moabites now saw an opportunity to break connection with the Israelites, and they were determined to make the most of it. Their king, a man named Mesha, was so proud of the Moabites’ rebellion that he wrote about it on a large black stone that has been discovered by archeologists. More details of the rebellion are found on this stone than are recorded in the Bible. Mesha recorded on the stone the account of hundreds of cities being added to his kingdom and how he built reservoirs, aqueducts, and fortifications.
“This name for Satan signifies his position as the prince or chief of the devils. It is the same name (Baalzebub) as was given to an ancient heathen god. (2 Kings 1:3.) In their rebellion against light, the ancient Jews applied the name Beelzebub to Christ (Matt. 10:25), and also said that he cast out devils by the power of Beelzebub. (Matt. 12:22–30.)” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 75.)
The statement that Elijah “was a hairy man” refers to the fact that the prophet was dressed in a rough garment, probably made of either goat’s or camel’s hair. Perhaps he actually wore an animal’s skin with the hair still on it (see Hebrews 11:37).
“Some have blamed the prophet for destroying these men, by bringing down fire from heaven upon them. But they do not consider that it was no more possible for Elijah to bring down fire from heaven, than for them to do it. God alone could send the fire; and as he is just and good, he would not have destroyed these men had there not been a sufficient cause to justify the act. It was not to please Elijah, or to gratify any vindictive humour in him, that God thus acted; but to show his own power and justice. No entreaty of Elijah could have induced God to have performed an act that was wrong in itself. Elijah, personally, had no concern in the business. God led him simply to announce on these occasions what he himself had determined to do. If I be a man of God, i. e., as surely as I am a man of God, fire shall come down from heaven, and shall consume thee and thy fifty. This is the literal meaning of the original; and by it we see that Elijah’s words were only declarative, and not imprecatory.” (Clarke, Commentary, 2:482.)
There were two Jehorams who were contemporaries: Jehoram, son of Ahab, in the Northern Kingdom; and Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, in the Southern Kingdom.
It is clear from this chapter that Elijah and Elisha moved about a great deal during this period. See the accompanying map for the course of their travels.
|
|
|
The journeys of Elijah and Elisha |
Here is yet another miracle performed by the priesthood Elijah held. He divided, or unsealed, the waters of the Jordan. He brought this same priesthood power, and the keys to exercise it, to Peter, James, and John on the mountain of transfiguration (see Matthew 17:1–13; Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 158).
The term heaven has more than one meaning. Sometimes it is used to mean the sky; at other times it refers to the celestial glory. Elijah was taken from this earth as a translated being, but not into celestial glory. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:
“Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead. ‘Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.’ (See Hebrews 11:35.)
“Now it was evident that there was a better resurrection, or else God would not have revealed it unto Paul. Wherein then, can it be said a better resurrection. This distinction is made between the doctrine of the actual resurrection and translation: translation obtains deliverance from the tortures and sufferings of the body, but their existence will prolong as to the labors and toils of the ministry, before they can enter into so great a rest and glory.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 170–71.)
Elijah’s cloak, or mantle, was a symbol of his authority. Possession of it symbolized that Elijah’s former authority now rested on Elisha. (See Notes and Commentary on 1 Kings 19:19.)
The use of salt makes this a greater miracle, since salt normally corrupts rather than purifies water.
In answering this question consider the following interpretations:
1. The word that in the King James Version is translated “little children” means young as compared to old, and can be translated not only as child, but as young man, meaning a servant or one fit to go out to battle.
2. In verse 24 the idea ends. This ending is indicated by a period after “and cursed them in the name of the Lord.” The verse then states that two she bears came out of the woods. The assumption that Elisha directed the bears may not be justified. Clarke suggested: “But is it not possible that these forty-two were a set of unlucky young men, who had been employed in the wood, destroying the whelps of these same she-bears, who now pursued them, and tore them to pieces, for the injury they had done? We have already heard of the ferocity of a bear robbed of her whelps; see at the end of [2 Samuel chap. 17]. The mention of she-bears gives some colour to the above conjecture; and, probably, at the time when these young fellows insulted the prophet, the bears might be tracing the footsteps of the murderers of their young, and thus came upon them in the midst of their insults, God’s providence ordering these occurrences so as to make this natural effect appear as a Divine cause. If the conjecture be correct, the bears were prepared by their loss to execute the curse of the prophet, and God’s justice guided them to the spot to punish the iniquity that had been just committed.” (Commentary, 2:486.)
This section’s reading concerned two prophets, Elijah and Micaiah, whose counsel Ahab disliked. Even though Jehoshaphat did not like the counsel he and Ahab received, Ahab still did not want to seek advice from Micaiah, for Micaiah refused to flatter him (1 Kings 22). Because Ahab did not like what any of the prophets had to say about him, he persecuted them.
Now, however, Elijah is honored by people the world over, Jew, Christian, and Moslem, as one of history’s greatest prophets.
Is it easier to believe a dead prophet because his counsel applies more directly to another time? Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
“It seems easy to believe in the prophets who have passed on and to suppose that we believe and follow the counsel they gave under different circumstances and to other people. But the great test that confronts us, as in every age when the Lord has a people on earth, is whether we will give heed to the words of his living oracles and follow the counsel and direction they give for our day and time.
‘We be Abraham’s children, the Jews said to Jove;
We shall follow our Father, inherit his trove.
But from Jesus our Lord, came the stinging rebuke:
Ye are children of him, whom ye list to obey;
Were ye Abraham’s seed, ye would walk in his path,
And escape the strong chains of the father of wrath.‘We have Moses the seer, and the prophets of old;
All their words we shall treasure as silver and gold.
But from Jesus our Lord, came the sobering voice:
If to Moses ye turn, then give heed to his word;
Only then can ye hope for rewards of great worth,
For he spake of my coming and labors on earth.‘We have Peter and Paul, in their steps let us trod;
So religionists say, as they worship their God.
But speaks He who is Lord of the living and dead:
In the hands of those prophets, those teachers and seers,
Who abide in your day have I given the keys;
Unto them ye must turn, the Eternal to please.’”
(In Conference Report, Apr. 1974, pp. 100–101; or Ensign, May 1974, pp. 71–72.)
Sometimes modern Saints fall into the same traps as did ancient Israel. Have you heard people extol the teachings of Joseph Smith but murmur and criticize current Church leaders for a statement or a stand they take that contradicts the individual’s personal ideas or preference? Do we say we honor the prophets and yet not follow their instructions from the last general conference? Some who read the Old Testament have a tendency to shake their heads sorrowfully over those proud and rebellious people. But the great value of our studying this work is that it provides a clear standard for measuring our own behavior.
Do you remember the exchange between Ahab and Elijah at the end of the three-year drought? Ahab asked the prophet, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” And Elijah replied, “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord” (1 Kings 18:17–18).
By himself Elijah had no power to create a drought, call down fire from heaven, bring about the end of Ahab and his house, or punish or destroy Israel. He was only an instrument in the hands of the Lord. It was the wickedness of Israel that created the chaos and calamity. In some cases the Lord intervened to punish directly. In others He simply let the laws He gave the world (see D&C 88:42) run their course. Elijah knew what he prophesied only because he was the one chosen to reveal it. Who would think that idolatry could lead people to break as many other laws as it did in Elijah’s day?
It is easy to look back and see how foolish Ahab, Jezebel, and the Israelites who halted between two opinions were. But what of today? Are men still inclined to vacillate between serving God and serving the devil? Do they still want to hear only good things about their evil choices? Do they still tend to place the blame for life’s reversals on someone else? Or will they learn the eternal fact that men reap precisely what they sow? “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6:8).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie said that “the great need in the world today is not for the Lord to send a prophet to reveal his mind and will. He has done that; we have a prophet; we are guided by many men who have the spirit of inspiration. The great need today is for men to have a listening ear and to give heed to the words that fall from the lips of those who wear the prophetic mantle.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1974, p. 104; or Ensign, May 1974, p. 73.)
|
|
For centuries the prophets of Israel had foretold the coming of a Messiah. From Adam to Malachi, the prophets told the people of the day when the God of Israel would come to earth, take flesh upon Him, and become their Savior and Redeemer. Isaiah’s prophecy represents the Messianic hope that existed among the covenant people: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:6–7.)
And yet when the long-awaited day arrived, most of the Jewish people failed to see that the prophecies were fulfilled and rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
The Apostle John wrote that Jesus was “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and yet, “the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” (John 1:9–11.)
The English word Messiah comes from the Hebrew Meshiach, meaning “anointed.” The Greek equivalent is Christos. Both words carry the idea of one who is anointed of God. The Hebrew word Yeshua (Jesus in Greek) means “Savior” or “deliverer.” The two words combined denote one anointed of God to save or deliver His people.
Dozens of prophecies clearly signaled the coming of this Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled them all. Then why did so many of His own people reject Him? The answer to that question lies partly in an understanding of the Messianic hope of Israel.
When Jesus made His appearance on earth, the Jews were in bondage to the Romans. It was not the first time a foreign nation had controlled the Jewish land, nor would it be the last. But the Jews chafed under the Roman yoke and regarded their gentile overseers as hard taskmasters. During the years of bondage to the great empires, the idea of a deliverer began to take on political overtones. Many overlooked the spiritual significance of the coming Messiah because they longed for one with the power to throw off the hated enemies that ruled them.
The people came to see the Messiah not as one who would provide Atonement for their sins but as one who would deliver them from their enemies by physical force. A Book of Mormon prophet explained: “But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall.” (Jacob 4:14.)
They stumbled upon the very “stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation” (Jacob 4:15). The “mark” beyond which they looked was Christ. When He did not come in the manner they anticipated, they looked beyond Him for another who should come. Thus, “they still wait for the coming of the Messiah” (2 Nephi 6:13).
The expectation of an Anointed Deliverer is called the messianic hope. This hope was very real for the ancient house of Israel and extended into the distant past, even into the premortal council in heaven. After explaining the need for a redeemer, Father in Heaven asked, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Lucifer replied, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, . . . wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Jehovah replied, “Here am I, send me “ (Abraham 3:27). “Thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2). Jehovah was chosen as Messiah, and Lucifer, with a third of the spirit children of God, rebelled against the Father’s decision. As a result, Lucifer became the devil. He, with all his followers, was cast from heaven to the earth. (See Revelation 12:7–9.)
Adam was then placed on earth. After his fall from Eden, Adam was taught about the Messiah who would come to redeem “all mankind even as many as will” (Moses 5:6–9). Later, Enoch was shown in vision the mortal mission of the Son of God (see Moses 7:47), and Enoch rejoiced in these words: “Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come; for he saith—I am Messiah, the King of Zion, the Rock of Heaven” (Moses 7:53).
From Enoch to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses, the messianic hope was perpetuated. Moses taught his brethren: “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deuteronomy 18:15).
Jesus identified Himself to the Nephites as the very prophet of whom Moses spoke. “Behold, I am he,” he said, “of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you” (3 Nephi 20:23).
Like Moses, King David of Israel was a type, or symbol, of Christ. It was said that Messiah would sit on David’s throne and judge the house of Israel (see Isaiah 9:7). Jeremiah wrote: “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jeremiah 23:5–6.)
As the years passed and the messianic expectation remained unfulfilled, many interpreted the sayings and writings of the prophets erroneously. It is not surprising that they came to see only the political aspects of the Messiah, since there was a scriptural basis for such a belief. Several hundred years before the birth of Christ Zechariah wrote of a day when the Lord (Messiah) would fight against the Jewish enemies “as when he fought in the day of battle [anciently]” (Zechariah 14:3). Zechariah pictured Jerusalem being delivered in great power from all who had opposed her (see Zechariah 14:1–15). Isaiah spoke of the Messiah as having the government upon His shoulder (see Isaiah 9:6). That phrase certainly suggested a political kingdom. Numerous other prophets foretold His coming in power and glory.
When one studies the prophecies carefully, however, a dual picture of the Messiah emerges. One picture is that of the “suffering servant.” Isaiah 53 is an outstanding example of the “suffering servant” kind of prophecy. It foretells the sufferings of the Messiah: He will be “a man of sorrows” (v. 3), one who stands “as a sheep before her shearers” (v. 7), one who takes our transgressions upon Himself. The other picture of the Messiah is that of the “King of Glory.” Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 9 contain examples of the “King of Glory” prophecies, which paint a picture of deliverance, political power, and the destruction of the enemies of Israel.
Latter-day Saints, with the benefit of modern revelation and a perspective of history, easily understand this dualism. There are two comings of the Messiah. Christ came the first time as a mortal. He was born in a stable, lived in a town of little reputation, took no political role, and flatly rejected attempts to make Him a king. This coming was foretold in the “suffering servant” prophecies. His second coming will be in fulfillment of the “King of Glory” prophecies. He will put down all kingdoms and deliver Israel from the powers of Babylon.
David H. Yarn explained:
“From the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, with the exception of the short-lived and insecure Maccabean revolt, the Palestinian remnant of Israel was a subject people of the great powers. First they were victims of the Babylonian captivity; then they were ruled in turn by the Persians, the Greeks, the Ptolemies, and the Seleucids. And the efforts of the zealous Maccabeans to establish Judaic control was succeeded by subjection to the rising world power, Rome.
“As the centuries passed and the seemingly endless servitude to heathen powers continued, the Jews hungered for their liberation. It seems that the messianic vision of the prophets, which included the first coming of the Messiah, with his personal redeeming sacrifice, and his second coming to usher in the messianic age (millennial reign) in the last days, became fused in the minds of the people, or at least in the desires of the people.
“They remembered the prophets had promised one ‘like unto Moses,’ and a ‘son of David,’ who would be raised up as the Messiah to deliver them even as Moses and David had delivered them, but when the Lord came into the world they seem to have forgotten the personal aspects of the Redeemer’s life and remembered only those parts of the prophecies which had to do with political matters, or the establishing of a permanent kingdom.” (“The Messianic Expectation,” Ensign, Apr. 1972, pp. 20–21.)
Thus when the Savior refused to take up the sword against Rome, the Jews’ hopes were dashed. And His Crucifixion was seen by the majority not as a fulfillment of prophecy but as proof that He could not have been the promised deliverer.
The Old Testament and Book of Mormon prophets understood the true picture. In a great vision given some six hundred years before the Savior’s advent in the flesh (1 Nephi 11:13–33), Nephi learned that the Messiah would be born of a virgin “after the manner of the flesh,” (v. 18), would be baptized by a “prophet who should prepare the way before him” (v. 27), would go forth “ministering unto the people, in power and great glory” (v. 28), and would heal the sick and infirm.
They knew that He would “suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people” (Mosiah 3:7). Nephi and others foresaw that He would be treated as a thing of naught, rejected by His people, scourged, spit upon, and crucified (see 1 Nephi 19:9; Jacob 4:3–4).
Other messianic prophecies revealed the life and mission of the Messiah in detail. Those who believed in Christ saw the fulfillment of these prophecies in His life. The writers of the four Gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, pointed out how Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that referred to the coming Messiah. For example, Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea (compare Micah 5:2 with Matthew 2:1–6), would be an object of great adoration (compare Psalm 72:10 with Matthew 2:1–11), would be preceded by a forerunner (compare Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 with Luke 1:17 and Matthew 3:1–3). His ministry was to begin in Galilee (compare Isaiah 9:1–2 with Matthew 4:12, 16–23), He would teach in parables (compare Psalm 78:2 with Matthew 13:34–35). His ministry would be marked by miracles (compare Isaiah 35:5–6 with Matthew 11:4–5) and by rejection of His message (compare Psalm 69:8 and Isaiah 53:3 with John 1:11 and John 7:5). Near the end, Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph on the back of an ass (compare Zechariah 9:9 with Matthew 21:4–5), would be sold for thirty pieces of silver (compare Zechariah 11:12 with Matthew 26:15), would be betrayed by a close friend (compare Psalm 41:9 and 55:12–14 with John 13:18, 21), and would be deserted by His associates (compare Zechariah 13:7 with Matthew 26:31–56). He would be smitten on the cheek (compare Micah 5:1 with Matthew 27:30), spat upon (compare Isaiah 50:6 with Matthew 27:30), mocked (compare Psalm 22:7–8 with Matthew 27:31, 39–44), and beaten (compare Isaiah 50:6 with Matthew 26:67; 27:26, 30). His hands and feet were to be pierced (compare Psalm 22:16 and Zechariah 12:10 with John 19:33–37); yet not a bone in His body would be broken (compare Psalm 34:20 with John 19:33–36). He would be numbered with transgressors (compare Isaiah 53:9 with Matthew 27:38). He would be given vinegar to drink (compare Psalm 69:21 with Matthew 27:34) while thirsting and in pain (compare Psalm 22:15 and John 19:28). When dead, He would be buried with the rich (compare Isaiah 53:12 with Matthew 27:57–60); but His body would not see corruption (compare Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:31), for He would rise from death (compare Psalms 2:7; 16:10 with Acts 13:33), making it possible for all the dead to rise (compare Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2 with Matthew 27:52–53).
|
|
|
When Christ appeared to His disciples after His resurrection, He revealed that He was the risen Lord. |
Jesus is the Son of God. He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. He made an infinite Atonement for man’s sins. He was resurrected, thus opening the doors of immortality and eternal life for all mankind. Jesus is the only individual who ever lived to have the details of His birth, life, mission, death, and resurrection spelled out in public documents centuries before.
Who could have written the life of any great man before it happened? Nothing but divine foreknowledge and power could have revealed the life of Jesus in such detail and then brought it to pass. No person could have done this. It was God’s way of placing His divine stamp on the life and work of His Only Begotten Son, a means for letting all mankind know that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the hope and desire of the ages. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., said:
“We of our faith know that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. This is our knowledge. We must proclaim it at all times and under all circumstances. . . .
“So as I conceive it, we must stand adamant for the doctrine of the atonement of Jesus the Christ, for the divinity of his conception, for his sinless life, and for, shall I say, the divinity of his death, his voluntary surrender of life. He was not killed; he gave up his life. . . .
“It is our mission, perhaps the most fundamental purpose of our work, to bear constant testimony of Jesus the Christ. We must never permit to enter into our thoughts and certainly not into our teachings, the idea that he was merely a great teacher, a great philosopher, the builder of a great system of ethics. It is our duty, day after day, year in and year out, always to declare that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ who brought redemption to the world and to all the inhabitants thereof.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1955, pp. 22–24).
Messianic prophecy was given by revelation. To understand it, one must have the same spirit of prophecy as the one who gave it. Peter said, “No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20–21). And John was told that the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus (see Revelation 19:10). The Jewish nation did not have this spirit. Because the leaders of the Jews had interpreted privately many prophecies concerning the Messiah, they did not recognize Him as the Savior when He came to earth the first time. When prophecies began to be fulfilled, the Jews did not have the spiritual eyes to see the signs.
Today Latter-day Saints have every expectation that Jesus will come again. The prophecies and signs concerning His Second Coming are found in the scriptures. Those who have interpreted privately or have built false notions of the Savior’s Second Coming may not recognize the signs. The prophecies concerning the expected return of the Messiah “are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy” (2 Nephi 25:4). It is an individual responsibility to seek diligently with pure hearts in order to recognize the signs.
|
|
|
Elisha’s Spring at Jericho |
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” (2 Nephi 9:28–29).
This scripture applies very well to the children of Israel in ancient times. Israel seems to have had great difficulty listening to and obeying the counsel of their prophets. They trusted in their own wisdom and rejected the counsel of the Lord. Elisha found no better response, even though his ministry was as remarkable as Elijah’s. As he wrestled with the problems of prophetic leadership, he found the nation of Israel plagued with apostate kings and leaders. The common people followed the example of their leaders in having trouble heeding the prophetic call to righteousness.
Second Kings 3–13 tells of such people as Gehazi, Naaman, and a woman of Shunem. The wicked kings of Moab, Israel, and Syria are also encountered. Each person responded to Elisha’s counsel in a different way and for different reasons.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 2 Kings 3–13.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.)
The accompanying map indicates the relative locations of the kingdoms and places written of in 2 Kings 3–13. Note especially Judah, Israel, Edom, Moab, and Syria.
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch noted that Jehoram’s attempt to reform Israel was only partial. “Joram or Jehoram was not so ungodly as his father Ahab and his mother Jezebel. He had the statue or pillar of Baal, which his father had erected in Samaria, removed; and it was only to the sin of Jeroboam, i.e., the calf-worship, that he adhered. Joram therefore wished to abolish the worship of Baal and elevate the worship of Jehovah, under the image of the calf (ox), into the religion of his kingdom once more. . . . He did not succeed, however, in exterminating the worship of Baal. It not only continued in Samaria, but appears to have been carried on again in the most shameless manner . . . at which we cannot be surprised, since his mother Jezebel, that fanatical worshipper of Baal, was living throughout the whole of his reign.” (Commentary on the Old Testament, 3:1:300–301.)
The worship of Baal, who was a fertility god, involved all sorts of immorality, temple prostitution, and other wicked practices that were extremely difficult to stop when most of the people were themselves immoral and wicked. (See Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel [religion 301, 2003], pp. 245–48.)
|
|
|
Israel and Moab |
The Moabites had paid tribute to Israel since the days of King David. They gave a hundred thousand lambs and the same number of rams to the king of Israel each year (see v. 4). With the death of Ahab, King Mesha of Moab thought Israel was weakening, so he rebelled and began to attack nearby towns and villages.
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, had maintained friendly relations with Ahab (see 1 Kings 22:4) and wanted to maintain them with Jehoram, Ahab’s son and successor. Judah had also been attacked by Moab (see 2 Chronicles 20:1), so it was natural for Jehoshaphat to agree to an alliance with Israel against a common enemy. By marching through Edom, Judah and Israel could increase their army with Edomite soldiers, who were in servitude to Judah. They could also surprise Moab by attacking from the geographically most difficult, and therefore the least likely, direction.
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, desired the advice of a true prophet of God before he went into battle because he was a follower of Jehovah. The kings went to the prophet Elisha, who was irritated by the presence of Jehoram, king of Israel. Elisha sarcastically advised him to seek the counsel of the false prophets of his father (see v. 13).
A minstrel, or harpist, was then called to soothe Elisha before he complied with King Jehoshaphat’s request to seek the Lord’s direction. It seems ironic that even though they were not willing to follow Elisha’s counsel, they were anxious to have his blessing on their endeavor.
In the East a servant pours water over the hands of his master after each meal so he can clean them. The expression merely indicates that Elisha was the servant and disciple of Elijah (see James M. Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible, pp. 169–70).
The prophet Elisha commanded Israel to do three things as they went through the land of Moab: (1) cut down all trees that could be used to build fortifications (see Deuteronomy 20:19–20 for the justification of this practice); (2) destroy the wells that provided the life-giving waters of the land; and (3) throw rocks on the fields. A large army passing through an area could quickly cover the land with rocks. It would then take months of hard work to uncover the land so crops could again be grown. The reasoning was that the defeated enemy would have to spend its labor in recovering from war rather than in preparing to wage it again.
“On hearing the report of the march of the allied kings, Moab had raised all the men that were capable of bearing arms, and stationed them on the frontier. In the morning, when the sun had risen above the water, the Moabites saw the water opposite to them like blood, and said: ‘That is blood: the (allied) kings have destroyed themselves and smitten one another; and now to the spoil, Moab!’ Coming with this expectation to the Israelitish camp, they were received by the allies, who were ready for battle, and put to flight. The divine help consisted, therefore, not in a miracle which surpassed the laws of nature, but simply in the fact that the Lord God, as He had predicted through His prophet, caused the forces of nature ordained by Him to work in the predetermined manner. . . .
“From the reddish earth of the freshly dug trenches the water collected in them had acquired a reddish colour, which was considerably intensified by the rays of the rising sun, so that when seen from a distance it resembled blood. The Moabites, however, were the less likely to entertain the thought of an optical delusion, from the fact that with their accurate acquaintance with the country they knew very well that there was no water in the wady at that time, and they had neither seen nor heard anything of the rain which had fallen at a great distance off in the Edomitish mountains. The thought was therefore a natural one, that the water was blood, and that the cause of the blood could only have been that their enemies had massacred one another, more especially as the jealousy between Israel and Judah was not unknown to them, and they could have no doubt that Edom had only come with them as a forced ally.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:305–6.)
The king of Moab made a desperate attempt to flee the city because of its imminent destruction. But his flight was stopped by the Edomites, and he was forced back into the city. When his attempted flight failed, the king offered his firstborn son, who would have succeeded him, as a burnt offering. Chemosh, god of the Moabites, was frequently offered human sacrifice to appease his anger. This custom may have prompted the Moabite king in this case.
With the death of the heir, Israel lifted their siege and departed, perhaps feeling that Moab’s power as a nation had ended. This feeling, however, was a mistake (see 2 Kings 13:20).
Anciently, when one was unable to meet a legal debt, one could bind out one’s sons as servants to satisfy the obligation (see Leviticus 25:39–40). If a thief could not restore what he had stolen, he could be sold to square a debt (see Exodus 22:3). Sometimes creditors would even take children from their parents and sell them into slavery to pay a debt (see Nehemiah 5:5, 8). The custom of paying off a debt through servitude was apparently still practiced in the days of Jesus, for the Savior referred to it in one of his parables (see Matthew 18:25).
Those who receive the servants of the Lord also receive Him (see D&C 84:36). The Shunammite woman showed her love for God by her kindness to His chosen servant Elisha. She, in turn, was assured that she would be blessed with a child. Like the widow who helped Elijah, she received a special blessing from the prophet.
“The aliyah, ‘chamber,’ is an upper room of an Eastern house, being sometimes built on the roof, and sometimes making a second story to the porch, to which it has access by stairs. It is hence called in 2 Sam. xviii, 33, ‘the chamber over the gate.’ . . . In the text it is called a chamber ‘in the wall,’ probably because its window, opening to the street, made a break in the dead wall, and was thus about the only evidence to an outside spectator of the existence of rooms in the house. It is usually well furnished, and kept as a room for the entertainment of honored guests.” (Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible, p. 171.)
These verses recount three great miracles Elisha performed through the power of the priesthood. First, he raised from the dead the son of the Shunammite woman who had shown so much kindness to him. Second, he blessed food that was bitter and inedible and made it whole, or good. And third, he multiplied a small number of loaves of barley bread and ears of corn to feed many people.
Many features of Elisha’s ministry parallel those of the Savior’s. He truly was a type of the Messiah, as Elijah had been before him.
The woman’s response to Elisha’s promise of a child is not one of doubt but one of hope. In essence she was saying, “Let not your words be a lie,” or “Let your words come true.”
“The Shunammite’s husband did not connect his wife’s proposed visit to the prophet with the death of his child, but with some religious duty. The new moon (i.e. the first day of the month) and the sabbath were feasts at which the prophets might be asked to preside, as Samuel did at the feast held at the high place of Ramah [see 1 Samuel 9:12–13].” (J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible, p. 231.)
|
|
|
Shunem, at the southwest foot of the Hill of Moreh |
Naaman was a great warrior and appears to have been a very good man, for “by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria” from the Assyrians. He was captain of the entire army of the Syrians, but he was plagued with leprosy. Leprosy, which has been called the living death, is any of a variety of chronic skin diseases. Its most mild form is characterized by skin that is scaly with reddish patches. In the most extreme cases of leprosy, the flesh actually falls off the bone. The law of Moses required that those afflicted with it live apart from society (see Leviticus 13:46). It is not known how severe Naaman’s leprosy was.
Learning from an Israelite girl in his household that there was a prophet in Samaria who could heal him, Naaman asked the king of Syria for a letter to introduce him to Jehoram, king of Israel. However, Jehoram’s response, “Am I God, to kill and to make alive?” (v. 7), shows that he immediately saw the difficult situation Naaman’s request put him in. Jehoram was saying, in essence, “Only God can perform such miracles.” If Jehoram sent him to Elisha and the prophet failed to heal him, the situation could cause a difficult rift between Israel and Syria. Perhaps, if Naaman were not healed, Jehoshaphat would grow angry and declare war on Jehoram.
When Elisha learned of the distress of the king of Israel, he sent for Naaman. Elisha tested Naaman’s faith by telling him to wash in the Jordan seven times. Though skeptical at first, Naaman complied because of the persuasion of his servants, and he was made whole.
“It is very evident from Naaman’s explanation, ‘for thy servant,’ etc., that he wanted to take a load of earth with him out of the land of Israel, that he might be able to offer sacrifice upon it to the God of Israel, because he was still a slave to the polytheistic superstition, that no god could be worshipped in a proper and acceptable manner except in his own land, or upon an altar built of the earth of his own land. And because Naaman’s knowledge of God was still adulterated with superstition, he was not yet prepared to make an unreserved confession before men of his faith in Jehovah as the only true God, but hoped that Jehovah would forgive him if he still continued to join outwardly in the worship of idols, so far as his official duty required.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:320.)
Elisha told Naaman to go in peace, evidently accepting the sincerity of his conversion, even though Naaman obviously had more to learn about the true God.
Elisha refused the gifts Naaman offered for his use of God’s power, but Gehazi did not. The temptation to use priesthood power for personal gain has plagued man throughout history (see for example the account of Balaam in Jude 1:11 and the account of Nehor in Alma 1). Nephi called such employment priestcraft and said it is forbidden by the Lord (see 2 Nephi 26:29–31). Paul suggested that if one charged for his service in the priesthood, he would abuse his power in the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 9:18). And Jesus taught His ministering servants, “Freely ye have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8). It is, after all, by divine power that men are able to perform priesthood miracles.
Elisha understood this truth perfectly, but Gehazi saw a chance for personal gain slipping away and let his greed overpower his good judgment.
Keil and Delitzsch noted that Elisha was asking, “Is this the time, when so many hypocrites pretend to be prophets from selfishness and avarice, and bring the prophetic office into contempt with unbelievers, for a servant of the true God to take money and goods from a non-Israelite for that which God has done through him, that he may acquire property and luxury for himself? . . . It was not too harsh a punishment that the leprosy taken from Naaman on account of his faith in the living God, should pass to Gehazi on account of his departure from the true God. For it was not his avarice [greed] only that was to be punished, but the abuse of the prophet’s name for the purpose of carrying out his selfish purpose, and his misrepresentation of the prophet.” (Commentary, 3:1:322–23.)
The scarcity of iron and its great value were not sufficient reason to perform such a miracle. “The prophet’s powers were exerted to help one who was honest enough to be the more concerned for his loss because the axe was not his own” (Dummelow, Commentary, p. 232).
Syria attacked Israel several times but was always defeated. When it finally came to the attention of the king of Syria that his soldiers were losing because of the prophetic power of Elisha, he sent a large army to destroy Elisha. The Syrian army located Elisha in Dotham (see v. 13) where they surrounded the city so he could not escape. The next morning Elisha’s servant, realizing the precarious situation they were in, said to his master, “How shall we do?” (v. 15.) Elisha asked the Lord to let his servant see that “they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (v. 16). Elisha’s servant was then allowed to see the Lord’s host that had been sent to protect them. (For other examples of the Lord’s host, see Joshua 5:13–15; History of the Church, 2:381–83.)
Josephus explained the apparent contradiction between these two verses: “Now when these men were come back, and had showed Ben-hadad how strange an accident had befallen them, and what an appearance and power they had experienced of the God of Israel, he wondered at it, as also at that prophet with whom God was so evidently present; so he determined to make no more secret attempts upon the king of Israel, out of fear of Elisha, but resolved to make open war with them, as supposing he could be too hard for his enemies by the multitude of his army and power.” (Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 9, chap. 4, par. 4.)
Instead of trying to take Samaria by force, the king of Syria surrounded it and attempted to starve its inhabitants. The severity of the famine is attested to by this verse. The ass was an unclean animal (see Leviticus 11) and was not to be eaten by an Israelite. The head of an animal was also the most inedible part. To eat bird dung for what little nutritional value there was in it also graphically illustrates the severity of the siege. A cab of dove dung would be a little less than two quarts. A fourth part, then, would be about one pint. (See Dummelow, Commentary, p. 232.)
Eventually the famine became so severe that some even resorted to cannibalism (see vv. 28–29). Like Ahab, who had blamed Elijah and sought his life (see 1 Kings 18:17–18), King Jehoram refused to see that his own actions had caused Israel’s problems. Instead, he blamed Elisha and tried to kill him.
The king of Israel was simply saying that he could not provide food or drink.
Elder Orson Hyde said:
“Once on a time there was a great famine in Samaria, and so sore was that famine that a mule’s head sold for four score pieces of silver in the market, and a cab of dove’s dung sold for food in the market, I can not recollect for how much. We should consider it pretty much of a task or penalty to be compelled to use an article like that for food, but the people of Samaria were sorely distressed with famine, and which way to turn to save themselves they knew not. About this time, the King of Syria, with a large army, came to besiege the city, and there was a mighty host of them, and they brought everything in the shape of food that was necessary for the comfort and happiness of man; and although the famine was so sore among the Samaritans, the old Prophet, Elisha . . . , told them that on the next day meal should be sold in the gate of their city at very low figures, lower than it had ever been known to be sold before. A certain nobleman, who heard the prophecy of Elisha expressed his doubt of its truth, and he said that if the windows of heaven were opened and meal poured down from above it could not fall to such low figures. Now see what he got by doubting the words of the Prophet—said Elisha to him—’Your eyes shall see it, but you shall not taste it.’ That night the Lord sent forth the angels of his presence and they made a rustling in the trees, and sounds like horses’ hoofs and chariots, as if the whole country had combined to go out to battle against the Syrians, and they did not know what to make of it, and they were frightened, and fled, leaving almost everything they had brought with them in the borders of the town; and as they went, the rustling of the trees and the noise of the horses and chariots seemed to pursue them, and in order to make their burdens as light as possible, they threw away everything they had with them, and their track was strewed with everything good and desirable. The next morning the people of Samaria went out and brought the spoils into the market, and it was overstocked with provisions, and the word of the Lord through the Prophet was fulfilled.
“Now, you see, the Lord knew they had eaten mules’ heads long enough, and that they had need of something more palatable; he had had the matter under advisement, no doubt, when the crusade was inaugurated against the people of Samaria, and he, in all probability, inspired them to take abundant supplies, that they might feel all the more confident on account of their great numbers being so well provided for. They no doubt calculated that they had the sure thing, little thinking that God was making them pack animals to take to his people what they needed. Their Father in heaven knew that they had need of them, and he sent them, and the people of Samaria brought them into market, and behold and lo the multitude rushed together just as hungry people will, and this nobleman came out also, and he was trodden down under foot and stamped to death—he saw it but he never tasted it. That is the reward of those who disbelieve the Prophets of God; it was so then, and if the same thing does not occur in every instance something of a similar character is sure to take place. There was no living faith in that man, he could not believe the testimony of the Prophets, and in this he was like some of our—what shall I say, great men, whose faith is weak and sickly, and they think they know it all, and can chalk out right and left that which would be best for building up the kingdom of God.” (In Journal of Discourses, 17:6–7.)
In a similar prophecy, Heber C. Kimball prophesied that the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley would be able to purchase goods more cheaply than they could back East. The prophecy was fulfilled when thousands came through the valley during the California gold rush. (See B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 3:349–53.)
It is probable that more than one king of Syria bore the name Ben-hadad. The name means “son of Hadad” (J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Ben-hadad”).
The Syrian leaders were well acquainted with the prophet Elisha, for they knew of Naaman’s miraculous healing. They also remembered Elisha’s leading a contingent of the Syrian army into captivity single-handedly and then releasing them (see 2 Kings 6:18–23). Ben-hadad’s reaction, when he heard that Elisha was in Damascus, was one of jubilation. Perhaps the prophet of God would tell him whether he would recover from his disease.
Verse 9 indicates that the gifts Ben-hadad sent with Hazael to Elisha were not just a token gesture. It took forty camels to carry them. Elisha informed Hazael (see v. 10) that the disease the king was suffering from was not fatal, but he would die by other means. Elisha knew the heart of Hazael and the evil he would cause, for the wicked cannot look unashamedly into the piercing eye of the righteous (see v. 11). Upon his return Hazael smothered Ben-hadad and became the king. He ruled Syria for forty-two harsh and brutal years in which he did Israel much harm, fulfilling Elisha’s prophecy.
|
|
|
Jehu went to Jezreel from Ramoth-gilead. |
Jehoram, king of Judah, married Athaliah, who was the daughter of Ahab, king of Israel, and Jezebel. She, like her mother, was an evil woman who worshiped the gods of Baal, and she helped corrupt the Southern Kingdom of Judah as her mother had done the Northern Kingdom of Israel. (See Enrichment A for more information on Athaliah.)
Because of the wickedness of Jehoram, the Lord would not support him during his administration, and he was greatly afflicted. Edom revolted, as did Libnah, against his rule. Libnah was a royal city of the Canaanites that had first been conquered by Joshua. Jehoram probably lost Libnah at the time the Philistines attacked Judah and plundered Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 21:16–17). Jehoram finally died of a terrible disease (see 2 Chronicles 21:18–20).
Athaliah was the daughter of Ahab, who was the son of Omri (see 2 Chronicles 21:6). “The terms ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ were used not only of remote descendants but even of successors who were not blood relations” (Dummelow, Commentary, p. 233). The phrase here means that Athaliah was of the Omride dynasty.
One of the last commissions the Lord gave Elijah was to anoint Jehu as king of Israel (see 1 Kings 19:16). Elisha now carried out that commission for Elijah. The purpose of Jehu’s reign was, according to verse 7, to completely destroy the house, or family, of the wicked Ahab and Jezebel. Notice the prophecy about Jezebel in verse 10. The young man Elisha sent to deliver this message and anoint Jehu was probably a priesthood bearer.
Verse 13 describes a special ceremony in which a man was acknowledged king. Those present laid their cloaks down at his feet as a symbol of their loyalty and recognition of his authority.
Jehu met King Joram and King Ahaziah in the vineyard called Naboth (see v. 21). This was the very vineyard that Jezebel had obtained by murdering Naboth. This was also the exact spot where Elijah had appeared to Ahab years before and prophesied that his posterity would one day be exterminated (see 1 Kings 21:21–23). That day had come.
Jehu’s being anointed by Elisha’s servant to be king and the prophecy of his brutal destruction of the house of Omri should not be construed to mean that the Lord commanded Jehu to do these things. The prophet simply foresaw what would happen, but Jehu himself was a wicked man (see 2 Kings 10:31), although he was a means for destroying the wickedness out of Israel.
“Jezebel [painted her face] that she might present an imposing appearance to Jehu and die as a queen; not to allure him by her charms. . . . For (ver. 31) when Jehu entered the palace gate, she cried out to him, ‘Is it peace, thou Zimri, murderer of his lord?’ She addressed Jehu as Zimri the murderer of the king, to point to the fate which Jehu would bring upon himself by the murder of the king, as Zimri had already done [vv. 32–33]. But Jehu did not deign to answer the worthless woman; he simply looked up to the window and inquired: ‘Who is (holds) with me? who?’ Then two, three chamberlains looked out (of the side windows), and by Jehu’s command threw the proud queen out of the window, so that some of her blood spurted upon the wall and the horses (of Jehu), and Jehu trampled her down, driving over her with his horses and chariot.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:345.)
The death of Jezebel fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah (see 1 Kings 21:23).
By this time Ahab had been dead fourteen years. Some of the seventy sons mentioned in verse 6 could have been Ahab’s; however, sons as used in these verses could also mean grandsons of Ahab. Master’s sons, as used in verse 2, is an obvious reference to the sons of Joram.
Jehu wanted to kill all the sons or grandsons of Ahab who were part of the royal line and therefore heirs to the throne of Israel.
Brethren, as used in this verse, could not be a reference to the actual brothers of Ahaziah because the Philistines had taken them in a battle many years before (see 2 Chronicles 21:17). It is, however, a reference to the relative of Ahaziah who lived in the royal household (see 2 Chronicles 22:8).
“Jehu is promised the possession of the throne to the fourth generation of his sons for having exterminated the godless royal house of Ahab. . . . The divine sentence, ‘because thou hast acted well to do right in mine eyes, (because thou) hast done as it was in my heart to the house of Ahab,’ refers to the deed as such, and not to the subjective motives by which Jehu had been actuated. For it is obvious that it had not sprung from pure zeal for the honour of the Lord, from the limitation added in ver. 31: ‘but Jehu did not take heed to walk in the law of Jehovah with all his heart, and did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam.’—Vers. 32, 33.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:354–55.) In other words, the house of Omri had reached such a state of wickedness that it deserved destruction. Jehu was the means of bringing about the Lord’s will in this regard, but that does not mean the Lord was pleased with his brutal methods or his wickedness.
When Athaliah killed the heirs to the throne (see vv. 1–3), Jehoash escaped through the intervention of his aunt (see vv. 2–3). After hiding Jehoash in the temple for six years, Jehoiada the priest decided to make the child’s existence known and install him as Judah’s king. He sent the king’s bodyguard throughout the land of Judah to gather in the Levites and chief rulers to sustain Jehoash as king of Judah (see 2 Chronicles 23:1–3). Because Jehoash was only seven years old at the time he began to reign, he would certainly have received the counsel and guidance of Jehoiada in administering the affairs of Judah.
“As soon as Athaliah heard the loud rejoicing of the people, she came to the people into the temple, and when she saw the youthful king in his standing-place surrounded by the princes, the trumpeters, and the whole of the people, rejoicing and blowing the trumpets, she rent her clothes with horror, and cried out, conspiracy, conspiracy! . . . Jehoiada then commanded the captains . . . those placed over the army, i.e., the armed men of the levites, to lead out Athaliah between the ranks, and to slay every one who followed her, i.e., who took her part.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:362–63.)
The reign of Jehoash, or Joash, lasted forty years.
It appears that the single most important factor in Jehoash’s reign was the wise advice and support he received from the high priest, Jehoiada (see v. 2). During Jehoash’s administration the temple was repaired, but unfortunately, Jehoash did not continue as he had commenced. Later in his reign he turned to idolatry and led Judah into sin (see 2 Chronicles 24:17–18), for soon after Jehoiada’s death, Jehoash became weak and allowed heathen rituals to be performed in Judah again (see 2 Chronicles 24:16–22). He also sought to appease Hazael, king of Syria, through bribery. He even sent Hazael holy objects from the temple (see 2 Kings 12:18).
|
|
|
The holy sanctuaries were vandalized. |
The account in Kings is a little difficult to follow, and it is not clear what exactly is happening. But the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 24:4–14 is more clearly written. Under Athaliah, Solomon’s temple had been vandalized and images of Baal set up within it. It seems to have been in a poor state of repair, and the king decided to take up a collection from the people to restore it. He gave the priests charge of this fund-raising, but “the Levites hastened it not” (2 Chronicles 24:5). In other words, they did not carry out their task very successfully. Therefore King Jehoash took the responsibility away from them (See 2 Kings 12:7–8). Instead, he set up a chest within the temple courtyard into which the people put money. He had his scribes collect it each day and used it to pay the workmen on the project.
When Jehoash turned to idolatry, the Lord sent prophets to testify against him and to call the people of Judah to repentance. One such prophet was Zechariah, son of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoash had him killed along with the other sons of Jehoiada. Because Jehoash had murdered the sons of Jehoiada, some of his own servants slew him while he lay on his bed (see 2 Chronicles 24:20–22, 25–26).
Josephus wrote the following about this king who ruled in the Northern Kingdom at the same time Jehoash ruled in Judah: “He did not [properly] imitate his father, but was guilty of as wicked practices as those that first had God in contempt: but the king of Syria [Hazael] brought him low, and by an expedition against him did so greatly reduce his forces, that there remained no more of so great an army than ten thousand armed men, and fifty horsemen. He also took away from him his great cities, and many of them also, and destroyed his army. And these were the things that the people of Israel suffered, according to the prophecy of Elisha, when he foretold that Hazael should kill his master, and reign over the Syrians and Damascenes. But when Jehoahaz was under such unavoidable miseries, he had recourse to prayer and supplication to God, and besought him to deliver him out of the hands of Hazael, and not overlook him, and give him up into his hands.” (Antiquities, bk. 9, chap. 8, par. 5.)
The narrative here is difficult to follow because the historian continually moves ahead of the circumstances he is discussing. He could do so because he was writing many years later.
The Lord’s response to Jehoahaz’s prayer promised a Savior to deliver Israel from the Syrians. Because the title of Savior is associated with Jesus, some may think the Lord was promising a deliverer, but all that was being promised was deliverance. Deliverance from Hazael, king of Syria, and later his son, Ben-hadad, was to come through the son and grandson of Jehoahaz. Keil and Delitzsch explained: “In this oppression Jehoahaz prayed to the Lord . . . and the Lord heard this prayer, because He saw their oppression at the hands of the Syrians, and gave Israel a saviour, so that they came out from the power of the Syrians and dwelt in their booths again, as before, i.e. were able to live peaceably again in their houses, without being driven off and led away by the foe. The saviour . . . was neither an angel, nor the prophet Elisha, . . . nor a victory obtained by Jehoahaz over the Syrians, . . . but the Lord gave them the savior in the two successors of Jehoahaz, in the kings Jehoash and Jeroboam, the former of whom wrested from the Syrians all the cities that had been conquered by them under his father (ver. 25), while the latter restored the ancient boundaries of Israel (ch. xiv. 25). According to vers. 22–25, the oppression by the Syrians lasted as long as Jehoahaz lived; but after his death the Lord had compassion upon Israel, and after the death of Hazael, when his son Ben-hadad had become king, Jehoash recovered from Ben-hadad all the Israelitish cities that had been taken by Syrians.” (Commentary, 3:1:375.)
The Jehoash mentioned here is not the same Jehoash who was king of Judah (discussed in Notes and Commentary on 2 Kings 11; 2 Kings 12; 2 Kings 12:1–16). There were two kings by the same name. Jehoash who became king of Israel, the Northern Kingdom, was the son of Jehoahaz and helped deliver Israel from the Syrians. The other Jehoash, also called Joash, was the one hid by the priests in Judah when Athaliah had the royal seed killed (see 2 Kings 11:1–3). He became king of Judah, the Southern Kingdom, at the age of seven and ruled for forty years.
These verses record the death of Elisha. Jehoash, king of Israel, sought the prophet before his death, perhaps feeling that Elisha alone held the key to Israel’s future safety. Elisha responded by inviting Jehoash to open a window and shoot an arrow toward the east. The arrow symbolized the Lord’s deliverance of Israel from the Syrians. Elisha also told the king to shoot some arrows into the ground, which he did. “The shooting of the arrows to the earth was intended to symbolize the overthrow of the Syrians” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 3:1:377). The king shot only three arrows. For this Elisha chastised him, saying that had Jehoash shot five or six times he would “have smitten the Syrians to destruction” (2 Kings 13:19).
As you read 2 Kings 3–13, you probably noticed that every time people obeyed the counsel of the prophet Elisha they were blessed, and every time they rejected his counsel they suffered. Just how important is it for men to receive the counsel of the Lord? Study the following scriptures to help you formulate your answer: Doctrine and Covenants 103:5–8; 105:37; 124:84; 136:19; 2 Nephi 9:28–29.
President Spencer W. Kimball spoke of the importance of these prophets and of the flimsy reasons people have for rejecting them:
“Various excuses have been used over the centuries to dismiss these divine messengers. There has been denial because the prophet came from an obscure place. ‘Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1:46.) Jesus was also met with the question, ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son?’ (Matt. 13:55.) By one means or another, the swiftest method of rejection of the holy prophets has been to find a pretext, however false or absurd, to dismiss the man so that his message could also be dismissed. . . . Perhaps they judged Paul by the timbre of his voice or by his style of speech, not the truths uttered by him.
“We wonder how often hearers first rejected the prophets because they despised them, and finally despised the prophets even more because they had rejected them. . . .
“The trouble with rejection because of personal familiarity with the prophets is that the prophets are always somebody’s son or somebody’s neighbor. They are chosen from among the people, not transported from another planet, dramatic as that would be!
“The prophets have always been free from the evil of their times, free to be divine auditors who will still call fraud, fraud; embezzlement, embezzlement; and adultery, adultery.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1978, pp. 115–17; or Ensign, May 1978, pp. 76–77.)
Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught that “the basic truths are always the same, but the emphasis needed will be made by the living prophets under inspiration from the living God, and the people of the living Church will respond. . . .
“In the living Church, members must have living testimonies of the living prophets as well as of the living scriptures and living God. President Lee once gave a speech to seminary and institute faculty members on ‘The Place of the Living Prophet’ in which he observed how proximity and familiarity sometimes get in the way of people’s following the living prophet because ‘he is so close.’ He commented on the responsiveness of heaven to changing circumstances: ‘. . . had you ever thought that what was contrary to the order of heaven in 1840 might not be contrary to the order of heaven in 1960?’ (Address to Seminary and Institute Faculty, Brigham Young University, July 8, 1968.)” (Things As They Really Are, pp. 67, 71.)
Write a short essay on what caused the people of ancient Israel to reject Elisha in spite of marvelous demonstrations of his power. Draw parallels to our own time. Do people still reject the prophets for the same reasons?
|
|
Prophets of the Lord were called to labor among people whose lives remained in spiritual darkness. Joel was one of these prophets called to minister to a people who refused to repent. His prophecies have a common theme with those of Isaiah, Jonah, Amos, and others: repent or face destruction.
Joel is particularly significant to us because he prophesied of our day. On the night he visited Joseph Smith, Moroni quoted from Joel and said that the prophecies would shortly be fulfilled. (See Joseph Smith—History 1:41.) Joel is also a major source of information on the battle of Armageddon, one of the momentous events in the coming history of the world. So, although the book of Joel is a short work, it is full of valuable insights and information. They are applicable to us today, although they were written over twenty-five hundred years ago.
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study the book of Joel.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual-study students should complete all of this section.
Biblical scholars do not agree on when Joel lived. Some think he preceded Amos and Hosea because both men quoted him (compare Amos 1:2 with Joel 3:16), but it is also possible that Joel quoted them, so this evidence is not conclusive. Joel may have served before the time of Isaiah, for Isaiah quoted one of Joel’s prophecies (compare Isaiah 13:6 with Joel 1:15), but it may be that Joel quoted Isaiah.
All things considered, it seems probable that Joel’s ministry took place about the time that Joash reigned in Judah (see Enrichment A for more information on the reigns of the kings). Joel’s ministry evidently came before Uzziah’s reign but after the rule of the infamous Athaliah, the queen who tried to exterminate the Davidic line.
The message of the book of Joel is simple and straightforward. The house of Israel has fallen into a state similar to drunkenness caused by iniquity. Therefore, great judgments will come upon them from the Lord. The judgments will be so terrible that Joel calls on the Lord’s people to howl and cry for repentance. They are to call solemn assemblies (see Joel 1:14; 2:15–17) and tell the people of these judgments so that they can cry for deliverance through repentance. Though the warnings are grim and terrible, Joel holds out the assurance that if the people will turn to God in sorrow and repentance, He will respond and the disasters can be averted (see 2:12–14).
As is typical of Old Testament prophecies, Joel’s prophecies are dualistic: They warn of an immediate and impending destruction (through the conquests of Assyria and Babylonia), but they also refer directly to the last days and the destruction that will again threaten Israel just before the Millennium.
Hebrew literature is noted for its rich imagery. In these verses and those that follow, Joel used the figure of a famine to portray Judah’s future. The palmerworm is the Hebrew gazam, which means “gnawer.” The locust is in Hebrew arbeth, which means “many.” The cankerworm is the Hebrew yeleq, which means “licker”; and the caterpillar is the Hebrew chasil, which means “consumer” (see Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 4:658). These Hebrew terms refer to the stages of development in the life of a locust. Such imagery fixed forever in the minds of the Jews the devastation prophesied by Joel for the latter days.
Is the famine spoken of only literal and physical? Or does it have a symbolic and spiritual meaning?
Looking at what happened to Judah in Joel’s day, many scholars feel that the palmerworm was a metaphor for the Assyrian-Babylonian invasions of the Holy Land. What these two empires left, the Medes and Persians “ate” during their invasions. Joel 1:4 can be seen as an example of the Hebrew dualism previously mentioned. A prophet may refer to one incident and also mean another. For example, the cankerworm could also represent the invasions and suppression of the Holy Land by Greece under Alexander the Great and his successors. Then the caterpillar would represent the invasion that consumed Judah when she was overrun by Rome and eventually destroyed by Titus. These references seem also to apply to the coming battle of Armageddon, when armies from the north will gather and fight just before the Millennium.
Judah had become drunken with the wine of iniquity and would have cause to weep and to howl, for the Lord would not tolerate their glorying in sin. Judah’s security and wealth, which lay at the root of this wickedness, were compared to the vine from which the grapes for wine are taken. They vineyard was to be cut off: Judah would be humbled by the Lord’s almighty hand so they could be drunken no more.
The vine and the fig tree, among the most stable and enduring of the plants that nourished Israel anciently, represented the finest that the Lord had given His chosen people. But they had rejected the gift and the Giver, and all would be laid waste by the numberless nation of invaders who, as a lion, would not be denied. The lion is the most feared of animals and pulls down his prey with great savagery. A tree is barked by stripping the bark from the trunk, which kills the tree. The imagery was clear. The house of Israel would be pulled down, or cut off, and spoiled by powerful outside nations. Their vineyards and orchards would be desolate.
One of the consequences of Judah’s destruction and scattering as a nation was the loss of her temple worship, the source of joy and gladness (see Joel 1:16). Their field was wasted; they were no longer a fruitful people unto the Lord (see vv. 10, 12).
At this time a husbandman was a person who tended an orchard, and a vinedresser was one who cultivated a vineyard. (In New Testament times a husbandman also took care of a vineyard.) The girding in verse 13 refers to putting on clothing of sackcloth (coarse cloth made of animal hair), which would constantly remind them of the great tragedy coming to their people. Joel called upon all the people to howl and lament because the temple would fall and the people of God would undergo national disaster.
Just as Moses had instructed Israel to learn a song (see Deuteronomy 31:30–32:43), the words of which would remind them of their condemnation if they broke their covenants, so Joel instructed Judah to learn the words they would cry in the last days as a reminder of her future sorrow. A solemn assembly was held to gather priesthood leaders and members to consider these sacred matters (see v. 14).
“The seed [being] rotten under their clods” (v. 17) refers to the fact that when the sprout was bitten off by the locusts, the seed simply rotted away. When Israel and Judah were devoured by their invaders, they, too, would spoil. The barns would be of no value, for they would house nothing.
These dire predictions were fulfilled when the covenant people fell, first to Assyria and then to Babylon, and then were ruled by a series of empires. But these verses also seem to require a latter-day fulfillment with destruction again threatening Judah. (The phrase “day of the Lord,” in verse 15, is a phrase often associated with the time just before the Second Coming. Chapters 2 and 3 of Joel definitely apply to the final days.)
|
|
|
Joel predicted the destruction of the temple. |
The Lord’s holy mountain is the place where His temple is, or the place from which He speaks to the people. Sometimes it is the temple (see Isaiah 2:1–3) or the New Jerusalem (see D&C 84:2). The Zion of the latter days, also frequently referred to in scripture as “my holy mount” (D&C 45:66–70; 82:14; 133:2, 13, 18, 26–32, 56), is a spiritual condition as well as a place. “Verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—THE PURE IN HEART” (D&C 97:21).
Speaking of Zion as a spiritual condition Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
“Zion is people. Zion is the saints of God; Zion is those who have been baptized; Zion is those who have received the Holy Ghost; Zion is those who keep the commandments; Zion is the righteous; or in other words, as our revelation recites: ‘This is Zion—the pure in heart.’ (D&C 97:21.)
“After the Lord called his people Zion, the scripture says that Enoch ‘built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even ZION’; that Zion ‘was taken up into heaven’ where ‘God received it up into his own bosom’; and that ‘from thence went forth the saying, Zion is fled.’ (Moses 7:19, 21, 69.)
“After the Lord’s people were translated—for it was people who were caught up into heaven, not brick and mortar and stone, for there are better homes already in heaven than men can build on earth—after these righteous saints went to dwell beyond the veil, others, being converted and desiring righteousness, looked for a city which hath foundation, whose builder and maker is God, and they too ‘were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.’ (Moses 7:27.)
“This same Zion which was taken up into heaven shall return during the Millennium, when the Lord brings again Zion; and its inhabitants shall join with the New Jerusalem which shall then be established. (See Moses 7:62–63.)” (“Come: Let Israel Build Zion,” Ensign, May 1977, p. 117.)
The Prophet Joseph Smith also taught that the place of Zion, or the “land of Zion,” is North and South America (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 362).
Though the context makes it difficult to say in which sense Joel used the terms, Zion and holy mountain, they are probably yet another example of Hebrew dualism. Mount Zion was one of the names of Jerusalem, and thus it is a cry for the inhabitants to awaken. But Mount Zion also has a meaning in the latter days.
The “day of the Lord” will be great because Zion will be a reality, but the events associated with it will also make it terrible, as these verses make clear (see Notes and Commentary on Ezekiel 38 and 39).
An event of the latter days known as the battle of Armageddon is described in these verses. Like the locusts that devour the crops and cover the heavens with blackness because of their numbers, so “a great people and a strong” (v. 2) shall descend upon the land of Israel in the latter days. (Compare this language with that of John and Ezekiel when they describe the battle of Armageddon in Revelation 9:1–10 and Ezekiel 38:8–9.) So great shall be the number of this people that “the earth shall quake before them” (v. 10). The sun, moon, and stars will be darkened.
The horses (see v. 4) symbolize war. Chariots (see v. 5) symbolize a very powerful army.
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said of the warning given in these verses: “Here we have a great, terrible army, marching with unbroken ranks and crushing everything before it, finding the garden like Eden before them, leaving the wilderness behind, causing mourning, causing suffering; and so the prophet raises the warning voice, and that voice is to us, if you please, that we might turn unto the Lord and rend our hearts.” (The Signs of the Times, p. 160.)
When these events occur they will strike fear into the hearts of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. The siege against the city will be severe. The relentless army will overrun the land of Israel. The city walls will be breached and the houses plundered (see v. 9). The phrase “when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded” (v. 8) may simply be a way of saying that the armaments used against the invaders will be ineffectual. But the Lord is strong, and He will keep His word. He has promised to rescue the people, and He will (see v. 11; see also Zechariah 14; Revelation 9, 11; Ezekiel 38–39).
Other events, such as the land being “as the garden of Eden before them” (v. 3), refer specifically to the latter days. Today the Galilee area and the Jezreel Valley in modern Israel have truly “blossomed as the rose.”
The Lord calls to His children in all ages: “Turn ye unto me with all your heart” (v. 12). He desires them to become His people so that He can be their God. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith commented on the Lord’s powerful intervention and redemption in the latter days: “You know, they used to rend their garments and sit in sack cloth when they were repentant. So the Lord says, ‘Rend your heart and not your garments.’ Humble yourselves. Prepare yourselves, oh Israel, that you may receive My blessings, that you might be protected from this condition that is going to come. And then the last words that I have read from this part of this chapter, the Lord says that He will take that great army in hand, that He also has an army. His army is terrible, just as terrible as the other army, and He will take things in hand. When I say the other army, the Lord’s army, do not get an idea He is thinking about England or the United States. He is not. He is not thinking about any earthly army. The Lord’s army is not an earthly army, but He has a terrible army; and when that army marches, it will put an end to other armies, no matter how terrible they may be; and so He says in these closing words I have read to you that He would do this thing. He would drive this terrible northern army into the wilderness, barren and desolate, with his face towards the east sea and his hinder part towards the utmost sea. He would do that, and then He would bless His people—having references, of course, to Israel.” (Signs of the Times, pp. 160–61.)
The figure of the bride and bridegroom (see v. 16) is very apt. Israel was married to the Lord in the Abrahamic covenant (see Jeremiah 3:14; see also Notes and Commentary on Hosea). The Bridegroom was Jehovah, and the bride was Israel. The Bridegroom returned to claim His bride, who had been temporarily set aside for wickedness. (See Joel 2:13–14 notes for further clarification.)
These verses describe Judah’s and Israel’s eventual deliverance. The years of the locust, the cankerworm, the caterpillar, and the palmerworm indicate generations of oppression for scattered and rejected Israel. All was not lost, however, for the Lord promised “the former rain and the latter rain” (v. 23). After a punishing drought, these rains returned, a symbol of God’s acceptance of His people, who had been chastened and redeemed. “And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed” (v. 27; see also Philippians 2:10–11). One major theme of the Old Testament prophets is that although there will be a great apostasy in Israel, in the end Israel will be restored to the covenant (the gospel) and become faithful.
When Moroni appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith he quoted these verses, saying that they were not yet fulfilled but soon would be. Moroni also explained that the “fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in” (Joseph Smith—History 1:41). These statements clearly put the fulfillment of this part of Joel’s prophecy after A.D. 1823. It obviously applies to the latter days in its language and content, although it has also been fulfilled previously. Verse 32 is a reference to Jesus Christ (see Romans 10:13).
Sidney B. Sperry added: “In the mind of the writer no doubt remains that Joel foresaw the dispensation in which we live and God’s judgments upon the world. This he expressed in figures that would be easily understood by his people. So acutely and painfully were the judgments that Joel saw impressed upon his mind that he cried out in anguish—as if he were present—to the people of our day to repent and escape God’s wrath.” (The Voice of Israel’s Prophets, p. 297.)
The last days are to be characterized by the pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh. Peter, experiencing a rich and wonderful outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, quoted Joel (see Acts 2:17–21), who spoke of the latter days, the time just before the Lord’s Second Coming when He would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. That Spirit is not only the Holy Ghost but also the Spirit of Christ, that Spirit which enlightens everyone (see Moroni 7:16; D&C 93:2). Sons and daughters will prophesy—preach, exhort, pray, and instruct so as to benefit the Church. Direct revelation will be given. Young men and women who are representatives of the Lord will be inspired. The gifts of teaching and inspiration will be given to all classes and levels of people. The Lord will call and qualify those He chooses. He will pour out His Spirit upon them, and they will be endowed with the gifts necessary to convert sinners and to build up the Church. Certainly this prophecy is now beginning to be fulfilled.
The message of this passage is fourfold: (1) there will be a rich outpouring of the Spirit of the Lord in the latter days; (2) certain signs will be fulfilled before Christ’s Second Coming in the clouds of heaven; (3) His coming will be great for the righteous and terrible for the wicked; and (4) the “remnant” (v. 32), Israel of the latter days, will be those who are left after the period of tribulation and scattering is over.
These verses add to the picture described in chapter 2. Joel used allusions and figures well understood by his people to describe the great signs and judgments to take place in the latter days just before the return of the Lord. In chapter 3 Joel gave another picture of God’s judgment upon the nations. Israel, who had been scattered among the nations, will receive a change in her fortunes, and retribution will come upon her enemies in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, literally, the “Valley of Decision” in Hebrew. Just where this valley is located is not entirely clear. Most likely it is the Kidron, a narrow valley between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (see D&C 45:47–49; 133:19–21; Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, s.v. “Jehoshaphat”). This passage seems to refer to the final scenes of the battle of Armageddon in Jerusalem, when the great earthquake will strike the massive army and Jesus will appear on the Mount of Olives to deliver Israel (see Notes and Commentary on Ezekiel 38–39 for a more detailed treatment of Armageddon).
|
|
|
The Kidron Valley is also known as the Valley of Decision. |
These verses are a declaration of war on the Lord’s part. They are also a challenge to those who would test His might. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “We find Joel, Zephaniah, Zechariah, all proclaiming that in this last day, the day when the sun shall be darkened and the moon turned to blood and the stars fall from heaven, that the nations of the earth would gather against Jerusalem. All of them speak of it; and when that time comes, the Lord is going to come out of His hiding place.” (Signs of the Times, p. 170.)
The Lord will be the strength of Israel and will smite her enemies with plagues so severe that their flesh will rot and fall from their bones, their eyes will be consumed in their sockets and their tongues in their mouths—both man and beast (see Zechariah 14:12–15). And then Judah will know that Christ is the Lord their God, for He will stand on the Mount of Olives, which will cleave in twain and Judah will see Him as their delivering Messiah. They will ask about His wounds and learn that He is the Christ, and their mourning will know no bounds, for they will know that this is He for whom they have waited and whom their fathers crucified (see Zechariah 12:9–11; 13:6; D&C 45:51–53).
Strangers as used in the Old Testament refers to Gentiles, or those not of Israel. This verse states that no strange god nor impure people will be permitted to enter or pass through the city. This promise is yet to be fulfilled.
See Notes and Commentary on Ezekiel 47:1–12.
Upon accepting Jesus Christ as their Redeemer, the Jews will enter into a new era. The very mountains and hills will flow with the riches of heaven. This imagery implies more than just an abundance of tangible fruits. Judah will know her God, and He will own His people; they will build their Jerusalem and inhabit it in peace thereafter. (See Smith, Signs of the Times, pp. 171–72.)
The message of Joel is important for us as Latter-day Saints. Although he used imagery that is not always familiar to us, he dealt with four major issues quite clearly:
1. A lamentation over the devastation of the land by great armies (symbolized by locusts) and other judgments.
2. The destruction of the army of locusts and a renewal of spiritual and material blessings.
3. The outpouring of God’s Spirit upon all flesh.
4. The judgment upon the nations and deliverance of God’s people.
Joel saw the days preceding the Second Coming. He attempted to warn as well as prophesy concerning those events. Because Moroni quoted a part of the book of Joel to Joseph Smith and said it was “not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be” (Joseph Smith—History 1:41), we should carefully study the message and learn of the things we need to do before the great and terrible day of the Lord.
Read Doctrine and Covenants 43:17–30 and answer the following questions:
1. When is the great day of the Lord?
2. What is our obligation to the nations?
3. What should our message be to the world?
4. What will some of the signs in the heavens be prior to the Lord’s coming?
5. Knowing that the prophecies of Joel are “about to be fulfilled” what application do you see in Joel’s writing for you? In other words, how can the book of Joel benefit you today?
