2 Kings 6 Study Notes

6:21-23 Several authorities argue that killing prisoners was not a common practice (but see 1Kg 11:16). Elisha’s prohibition against killing the Arameans carried the implicit message that God had given this victory. There is no contradiction between this episode and the one just following (see note at 6:24-7:20). Since God’s lessons fell on hardened hearts, it was inevitable that war would be resumed. The miraculous capture and release of the Aramean army did produce a brief period of peace between the weakened Israelites and the dominant Arameans. But in terms of God’s larger purpose of witnessing through miraculous works, they were ineffective for both the Israelites and the Arameans. God’s great works can be effective, but the impact of God’s truth is determined more by the attitude of hearts than by the wonderment of miracles.

6:24-7:20 This account of the siege of Samaria demonstrated the failure of the king. In broad terms, he failed because of sin; but in this context he failed because of his rejection of the message of God’s miraculous works. The account shows the king’s interaction with the misery of the people and his personal failure. This failure came in a context in which God had provided past victories and lessons that could have led to peace and prosperity.

6:24-25 Since neither the Israelites nor the Arameans were changed by the demonstrations of God’s power, war eventually returned. Ideally, the circumstances of God’s people should never have reached such a sorry state; the biblical plan was that a righteous king would defeat the enemies and save his people from such misery (Ps 20:1-2,6-7). In this time of spiritual failure, war had come with a devastating siege of Samaria and starvation among the people. The siege was so pressing that ceremonially unclean and detestable substances were being sold for exorbitant prices. This contrasted with the concept that the king was responsible to provide for his people’s needs (Ps 72:12-13).

6:26-27 The people had the right to call to the king for help (Ps 72:12-13), but an unfaithful king could only make excuses and blame God.

6:28-29 The king’s interview with one of the two women involved in cannibalism illustrated a depth of sin that had been prophesied much earlier (Lv 26:29).

6:30 The king was probably sincere in wearing sackcloth under his robes. He could honestly say that he felt the people’s pain, and he skillfully displayed the evidences of his grief. He reacted to the woman’s pain with great emotion.

6:31 The king was right to feel moral revulsion at this situation, but lack of moral wisdom led him to blame God and to pronounce an oath against God’s prophet, Elisha. But this disaster was actually caused by the sin of the king and the people.

6:32 That the elders of the idolatrous city held Elisha in high respect is proven by the fact that they were in his house . . . sitting with him.

6:33 The strongest demonstration of the king’s misdirected moral sensitivity came when the messenger asked why he should any longer trust a God who brought such disasters on his people. This recalled the scene when Ahab, the great destroyer of Israel, accused Elijah of being the destroyer (1Kg 18:17-18). The moral rebel often sees only what will justify his excuses. Furthermore, in blaming God, the king who should have represented the people to God instead became a blasphemer against God.