2 Kings 6:24-33 And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.… Unwarned by the failure of previous attempts, Benhadad was soon engaged in a new war on Israel. The fresh invasion was made the occasion of a fresh deliverance, more wonderful than any of the preceding, but not before Samaria had been reduced to the most desperate straits. I. THE HORRORS OF A SIEGE. 1. The city invested. The King of Syria advanced with his army, and struck a direct blow at the capital of the country. Samaria was the key of the situation. In it was the king, the court, the Prophet Elisha, the whole state of royalty. If it could be forced to capitulate, the entire land would be at the mercy of the invader. Benhadad, accordingly, surrounded the city, and, having cut off all supplies, waited till famine compelled it to surrender. The method of siege is common in warfare. Nothing could more awfully illustrate the helplessness of human beings when deprived of the use of the ordinary productions of nature. We depend on God for daily existence, and do not realize it. 2. The fearful famine. With no supplies coming in, the stock of food in Samaria was soon utterly exhausted. We are reminded of the terrible distress in such famous sieges as those of Londonderry in 1689, and Paris in 1870. What in ordinary circumstances would have been deemed unfit for human food, nay, loathed, was eagerly seized upon, and famine prices were gladly paid for it. "An ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver," etc. Hunger is one of the most commanding of appetites. "In every land and in every age the first and most interesting question the majority of men have to practically solve is, 'How are we to get bread?' Man's social, moral, and spiritual welfare turns to an incalculable extent on that question. Throughout all history, sacred and profane, this great want has been swaying and molding as a first power the nations of men. Hence the significance of the petition in the center of the Lord's prayer, 'Give us this day our daily bread.' It may seem at first sight a comparatively small petition, overshadowed and dwarfed by the great, spiritual petitions both before and after it; but he who knew what was in man, knew what a powerful influence the question of daily bread had upon his whole life and welfare; and when we ourselves consider what a power it is in the world, we see something of the reason for placing such a petition in the center of a model of prayer" (F. Ferguson). 3. Natural affection destroyed. The shocking episode narrated in vers. 26-29 illustrates the previous remarks (cf. Deuteronomy 28:53-57). The king was stopped when passing by on the wall by a woman appealing to him for help. With not unnatural bitterness he replied, "If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee?" Was it out of the empty barnfloor, or the dry winepress? He then inquired into her complaint, and heard from her, her revolting tale. A woman had proposed to her that she should give her son for food to them both that day, and she would give her son next day. The complainant had fulfilled her part of the bargain, and now the second woman had hidden her son. One asks - Could human nature, in its direst extremity, ever descend to such revolting deeds? Alas! the instances in history are not few. We have reason to thank God for his goodness in preserving us from such extremity and such temptation. II. GUILT LAID AT THE WRONG DOOR. 1. The token of humiliation. The woman's dreadful story, revealing such depths of horror in the city, stung the king to the heart. His first act was to rend his clothes, and, as the people looked, they saw that secretly he had been wearing sackcloth upon his flesh. The commentators, perhaps, hardly do justice to Jehoram in this act. The next verse shows that his religion did not go very deep; but various circumstances suggest that there was a measure of sincerity in his penitence. He had evidently thus far listened to the counsels of Elisha, and tried to "wait on the Lord" for deliverance, lie does not show badly in his sympathy with the people. The very secrecy of his wearing of sackcloth distinguishes it from the act of an ostentatious formalist. He probably, like his father Ahab, really "humbled" himself for a time, "and went softly" (1 Kings 21:27, 29). If, in his outburst of passion, he uttered a threat of death against Elisha, it appears to have been no sooner spoken than it was repented of, and he hastened after his messenger to counteract it. It is good when God's chastisements lead to humiliation of the soul. We can at least make Jehoram an example in the unostentatiousness of his exercises of penitence (Matthew 6:16-18). 2. The threat and its reception. Carried away by his anger and his feeling of the intolerableness of the situation, the king swore an oath that that very day the head of Elisha should be taken from him. It was a wicked and inexcusable utterance. The reasons of it may be thus assigned: (1) Elisha had apparently urged him to patience and repentance, assuring him that help would come. That hope had been disappointed. (2) He fixed the responsibility of the delay of help on Elisha, as one who had power with God, and had not exercised it. (3) He was angry with God himself, and was moved to wreak his vengeance on God's ministers. Had he properly considered the matter, he would have reflected that Elisha, like himself, could but present his desires to God, and wait God's time; that the prophet had unweariedly been doing this, and was the one hope and savior of the people; and that, if guilt lay at any one's door, it was his own wickedness, and that of his associates, that was bringing these calamities upon the nation. Wicked men, however, are seldom willing, except in a very limited degree, to take home guilt to themselves. They will blame God, their fellows, their spiritual counselors, any one but themselves, for their miseries. It is a very different picture we have of Elisha. He sits composedly in his house, with the elders of Samaria around him, no doubt exhorting them and strengthening them to wait on God. By that prophetic clairvoyance of which we have so many instances, he knew of the king's threat as soon as it was uttered, and bade the elders shut the door against this messenger of "the son of a murderer," and detain him till the king himself came. 3. Why wait longer on the Lord? Jehoram soon arrived, and his first words to Elisha were, Behold, this evil is of the Lord; what should I wait for the Lord any longer?" That he had departed from his threat may be presumed from Elisha answering him as he did. But his words show his radical misconception of religion. To wait on the Lord was not a duty to be done from regard to its own rightness and propriety. It was, he thought, a means to an end. If benefits were to be gained from it, it was to be done; if not, it was to be set aside. Service of God which springs from this principle is not true service. It is disguised self-interest. It has no real spring of love, devotion, or worship. The spirit is kindred with that of the fetish-worshipper, who prays to his gods for rain, and beats them if he does not get it. But why blame Jehoram, as if he were specially impious? Does not the same spirit show itself in multitudes among ourselves? While the sun shines on them they are willing enough to be religious. If adversity comes, there is unbelief, murmuring, impatience, rebellion at the Divine ordering. "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). It is not enough to acknowledge that evil is from the Lord, we must humble ourselves under his hand, submit to him, own the justice of his dealings, and seek to profit by his chastisements. We must not faint, or grow unbelieving, but be assured that, in protracting the hour of deliverance, God is but waiting to make the deliverance more signal and glorious (Hebrews 12:5-11). - J.O. Parallel Verses KJV: And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. |
    |