2 Kings 13:19

2Ki 13:19 And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed [it]: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria [but] thrice.

Ver. 19. Thou shalt smite Israel but thrice.] And this for a punishment of the king’s slackness and slothfulness in pursuing the execution of God’s vengeance on the enemies, which the prophet might foresee.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because he seemed content to have victory against the enemies of God for twice or thrice, and had not a zeal to overcome them continually, and to destroy them utterly.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

(19) The man of God was wroth with him.—Because his present want of zeal augured a like deficiency in prosecuting the war hereafter. The natural irritability of the sick man may also have had something to do with it. Thenius well remarks on the manifestly historical character of the entire scene. It may be added that, to appreciate it fully, we must remember that βελομαυτεία, or soothsaying by means of arrows, was a practice of unknown antiquity in the Semitic world. Shooting an arrow, and observing where and how it fell, was one method of trying to fathom the secrets of that Power which overrules events and foreknows the future. The proceedings of David and Jonathan, recorded in 1Sa_20:35, seq., appear to have been an instance of this sort of divination, which in principle is quite analogous to casting lots, a practice so familiar to readers of the Bible. The second process—that described in 2Ki_13:18—seems equally to have depended upon chance, according to modern ideas. The prophet left it to the spontaneous impulse of the king to determine the number of strokes; because he believed that the result, whatever it was, would betoken the purpose of Jehovah. “The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord” (Pro_16:33). Elisha’s anger was the natural anger of the man and the patriot, disappointed at the result of a divination from which he had hoped greater things. In conclusion, it cannot be too often or too forcibly urged upon students of the true religion that the essential differences which isolate it from all imperfect or retrograde systems are to be found not so much in matters of outward organisation, form, and ritual, such as priesthoods and sacrifices, prophets and modes of divination, which were pretty much the same everywhere in Semitic antiquity; but in the inward spirit and substance of its teaching, in the vital truths which it handed on through successive ages, and, above all, in its steady progress from lower to higher conceptions of the Divine character and purposes, and of the right relations of man to God and his fellow-creatures.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19. the man of God was wroth] We must think of sorrow as well as anger. We can see through all Elisha’s life, that the welfare of his country was very dear to him. Hence his desire that the king should accept God’s announcement of victory with eagerness, and his grief that he did not.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And it came to pass, as they were burying a man,.... That is, as they were going to bury him; for as yet they were not come to the place they designed to bury him at, as appears by what follows:

that, behold, they spied a band of men; one of the bands of the Moabites, which came to rob and plunder, and which was about the place where they intended to bury the man; or they supposed would be there by that time they got to it, or at least before they could bury him, and therefore being frightened stopped:

and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha; that being nearest, they opened it, or rather rolled away the stone from it, and threw the body in great haste:

and when the man was let down, and touched the bone's of Elisha; or "went and touched" (r); that is, as Kimchi interprets it, being cast in, he rolled till he came to the body of the prophet, and touched it:

he revived, and stood upon his feet; which might serve to confirm the faith of Joash in the predictions of the prophet concerning his victories; is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal life, and an emblem of our being quickened through the death of Christ. The Jews say (s) this man was Shallum the son of Tikvah, and husband of Huldah the prophetess, and was a good man, much given to alms, for which he was rewarded; and they further say, he went to his own house, and lived many years, and begat children, and particularly Hananeel, mentioned in Jer 32:7, which is not likely; though others say (t) he was a wicked man, Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, Kg1 22:24 and therefore not suffered to continue in the prophet's grave; but the former is more probable; and, according to Josephus (u), it was the band of robbers that left this man, whom they had murdered, in the grave of Elisha. This grave seems to have been in the field, where the Jews of old, and in later times, buried, as in the field of Hebron, the potter's field, &c. so the Greeks, as Pausanias relates (w), and the Romans also (x), buried by the wayside.

(r) "abit et tetigit", Pagninus, Montanus. (s) Pirke Eliezer, c. 33. (t) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol, 47. 1. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 11. 2. (u) Antiqu. l. 9. c. 8. sect. 6. (w) Corinthiac. sive, l. 2. p. 97. (x) Vid. Kirchman. Funer. Roman. l. 2. c. 22.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The unfaithfulness of man limits the goodness of God. Though Joash did the prophet’s bidding, it was without any zeal or fervour; and probably without any earnest belief in the efficacy of what he was doing. Compare Mar 6:5-6. God had been willing to give the Israelites complete victory over Syria 2Ki 13:17; but Joash by his non-acceptance of the divine promise in its fulness had checked the outflow of mercy; and the result was that the original promise could not be fulfilled.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Angry. Septuagint, "grieved." (Haydock) --- Or seven is omitted in Hebrew and Septuagint. This text proves that God knows what would take place conditionally. (Tirinus) --- If, &c. By this it appears, that God had revealed to the prophet that the king should overcome the Syrians, as many times as he should then strike on the ground; but, as he had not, at the same time, revealed to him how often the king would strike, the prophet was concerned to see that he struck but thrice. (Challoner) --- Joas was assured that he should consume the Syrians. But this was to be understood, provided he performed this part, (Menochius; Tirinus) and that destruction was not said to be entire. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Quest. Wherein was Jehoash’s fault, or why was the prophet angry with him?

Answ. The prophet himself did not yet know how many victories Jehoash should obtain against the Syrians, but God had signified to him that he should learn that by the number of the king’s strokes. And he was angry with him, not simply because he smote only thrice, but because by his unbelief and idolatry he provoked God so to overrule his heart and hand that he should smite but thrice, which was a token that God would assist him no further; although his smiting but thrice might proceed either from his unbelief or negligence. For by the former sign, and the prophet’s comment upon it, he might clearly perceive that this also was intended as a sign of his success against the Syrians, and therefore he ought to have done it frequently and vehemently.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times — And therefore his smiting but three times symbolized that lack of determination and perseverance whereby he would fail to overthrow, effectually, the Syrian power.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the man of God. (comp. 2Ki_4:7, 25 6:6, 9 8:4, etc.) was wroth with him. Elisha was angered at the lukewarmness of Joash, and his lack of faith and zeal. He himself, from his higher standpoint, saw the greatness of the opportunity, the abundance of favor which God was ready to grant, and the way in which God"s favor was stinted and narrowed by Joash"s want of receptiveness. Had the king been equal to the occasion, a full end might at once have been made of Syria, and Israel might have been enabled to brace herself for the still more perilous struggle with Assyria, in which she ultimately succumbed. And said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it. It has been suggested that Joash associated the number throe with the notion of completeness, and "thought that what was done thrice was done perfectly" (Bahr); but in this case the prophet would scarcely have been angered. It is far more consonant with the entire narrative to suppose that he stopped from mere weariness, and want of strong faith and zeal. If he had been earnestly desirous of victory, and had had faith in the symbolical action as divinely directed, he would have kept on smiting till the prophet told him it was enough, or at any rate would have smitten the ground five or six times instead of three. The idea that he abstained from modesty or from prudence, "lest too extravagant demands might deprive him of all" (Von Gerlach), finds no support in the text of the narrative. He abstained (as Keil says) because "he was wanting in the proper zeal for obtaining the full promises of God." Had it been otherwise, the complete success obtained by Jeroboam II (2Ki_4:25-28) might have been anticipated by the space of fifteen or twenty years. Whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice (comp. ver. 25, which declares that this prophecy was exactly accomplished).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And [he] said, “[If only] you had struck [the arrows at the ground] five or six times. [I.e.,] you should have.

Then. Had you done so, you would have struck Arom five or six times, for as a symbol of victory, I placed your hands on the bow.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.