pretended answer of Elisha that he would live (recover), and the next day suffocated him with a cloth dipped in water. מכבּר, from כּבר, to plait or twist, literally, anything twisted; not, however, a net for gnats or flies (Joseph., J. D. Mich., etc.), but a twisted thick cloth, which when dipped in water became so thick, that when it was spread over the face of the sick man it was sufficient to suffocate him.
Verses 16-17
Reign of Joram of Judah (cf. 2 Chron 21:2-20). - Joram became king in the fifth year of Joram of Israel, while Jehoshaphat his father was (still) king, the latter handing over the government to him two years before his death (see at 2Ki 1:17), and reigned eight years, namely, two years to the death of Jehoshaphat and six years afterwards.[1]
The Chethîb שׁנה שׁמנה is not to be altered, since the rule that the numbers two to ten take the noun in the plural is not without exception (cf. Ewald, §287, i.).
Verses 18-19
Joram had married a daughter of Ahab, namely Athaliah (2Ki 8:26), and walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, transplanting the worship of Baal into his kingdom. Immediately after the death of Jehoshaphat he murdered his brothers, apparently with no other object than to obtain possession of the treasures which his father had left them (2Ch 21:2-4). This wickedness of Joram would have been followed by the destruction of Judah, had not the Lord preserved a shoot to the royal house for David’s sake. For ניר לו לתת see 1Ki 11:36. The following word לבניו serves as an explanation of ניר לו, “a light with regard to his sons,” i.e., by the fact that he kept sons (descendants) upon the throne.
Verses 20-22
Nevertheless the divine chastisement was not omitted. The ungodliness of Joram was punished partly by the revolt of the Edomites and of the city of Libnah from his rule, and partly by a horrible sickness of which he died (2Ch 21:12-15). Edom, which had hitherto had only a
- ↑ The words יהוּדה מלך ויהושׁפט have been improperly omitted by the Arabic and Syriac, and by Luther, Dathe, and De Wette from their translations; whilst Schulz, Maurer, Thenius, and others pronounce it a gloss. The genuineness of the words is attested by the lxx (the Edit. Complut. being alone in omitting them) and by the Chaldee: and the rejection of them is just as arbitrary as the interpolation of מת, which is proposed by Kimchi and Ewald (“when Jehoshaphat was dead”). Compare J. Meyer, annotatt. ad Seder Olam, p. 916f.
