Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
2 Kings 6:24-1
1). The Description Of The Siege And Its Consequences (2 Kings 6:24 to 2 Kings 7:1).
Analysis.
a And it came about after this, that Benhadad king of Aram (Syria) gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. And there was a great famine in Samaria, and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver (2 Kings 6:24).
b And as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, there cried a woman to him, saying, “Help, my lord, O king.” And he said, “If YHWH does not help you, from where shall I help you? Out of the threshing-floor, or out of the winepress?” And the king said to her, “What is you problem?” And she answered, “This woman said to me, “Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and ate him, and I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him', and she has hidden her son” (2 Kings 6:26).
c And it came about, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes. And he was passing by on the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within on his flesh. And he said, “God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day” (2 Kings 6:30).
d But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him (2 Kings 6:32 a)..
c And the king sent a man from before him, but before the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, “Do you see how this son of a murderer has sent to take away my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door, and hold the door fast against him. Is not the sound of his master's feet behind him?” (2 Kings 6:32 b).
b And while he was yet talking with them, behold, the messenger came down to him, and he said, “Behold, this evil is of YHWH. Why should I wait for YHWH any longer?” (2 Kings 6:33).
a And Elisha said, “Hear you the word of YHWH. Thus says YHWH, Tomorrow about this time will a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria” '(2 Kings 7:1).
Note that in ‘a' they were on a starvation diet and in the parallel things were back to normal. In ‘b' the dreadful conditions are illustrated, and in the parallel this evil was imputed by the king to YHWH. In ‘c' the king threatens to kill Elisha, and in the parallel Elisha is aware of and refers to the fact. Centrally in ‘d' Elisha was conferring with the elders in his house.
‘And it came about after this, that Benhadad king of Aram (Syria) gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.'
The timing reference is very vague. In fact this was many years after the previous passage, and in the reign of a later king, probably Jehoahaz (compare 2 Kings 13:3). Benhadad was a throne name of the kings of Aram. This was Benhadad III, who succeeded Hazael, who had caused great distress to Israel. By his time Israel had been considerably weakened as a result of the activities of Jehu, and had submitted to Assyria, something which would have angered both Hazael and Benhadad who with their allies had been seeking to fight off Assyria. This therefore was a full scale invasion, and having taken many towns and cities, the Aramaeans had surrounded and besieged Samaria in order to starve it into submission.
‘And there was a great famine in Samaria, and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.'
The result was that as the months passed food began to run out and the stage was reached when the people were starving and would almost eat anything. The eating of an ass's head was forbidden in the Law (Leviticus 11:3 ff.), it was the most inedible part of the ass, and the price was clearly exorbitant. Only the wealthy could afford it. The reference to ‘dove's dung' may be literal, but it has been suggested that it was a popular description of a certain herb similarly described in terms of ‘dung' by the Arabs. Either way the fact that it was sold at such a price indicates the extreme shortage of food. (Rats on the menu would have been a luxury).
‘And as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, there cried a woman to him, saying, “Help, my lord, O king.” '
One day the king was walking on the wall of the city surveying the defensive position, when a woman called out to him for an audience.
‘And he said, “If YHWH does not help you, from where shall I help you? Out of the threshing-floor, or out of the winepress?” '
His first bitter response brings out the depths of his feelings. He had no means of helping her. The threshing-floor and winepress were empty. Her only hope was to look to YHWH. And if He failed to answer, what could anyone else do?
‘And the king said to her, “What is you problem?” And she answered, “This woman said to me, “Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and ate him, and I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him', and she has hidden her son.” '
The king the asked her what her problem was and was horrified to learn that with another woman she had indulged in cannibalism by eating her son, with the understanding that after that they would eat the other woman's son. But now the other woman had gone back on her promise and was withholding her son, and the first woman was asking the king for justice by enforcing the agreement. The very fact that she expected him to do so demonstrates that she knew that this was now a fairly common practise under the exigencies of the siege.
For such cannibalism during sieges compare Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:56; Ezekiel 5:10; Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:10. It is also attested in an Assyrian text from Ashurbanipal, and an Egyptian papyrus.
‘And it came about, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes. And he was passing by on the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within on his flesh.'
The king was aghast and tore his clothes in order to express his strong emotion. As king he had of course been shielded from the kind of starvation that these people were experiencing, but now it was being brought home to him with a vengeance. The tearing of his clothes revealed to all that he was wearing the sackcloth of mourning underneath, because of his distress at the situation of his people, making clear his genuine feeling for their sufferings.
‘Then he said, “God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day.”
As a result he swore that the head of Elisha would be forfeit that day. This may have been because Elisha had encouraged standing firm in the face of the threat on the grounds that YHWH would at some point intervene, or his reasoning may have been that as the chief prophet of YHWH, Whom he saw as responsible for this situation, Elisha should have been able to do something about it (as reputedly he had done in the past). In his view as the situation continued it was therefore primarily Elisha's fault. This would bring out how dependent Israel felt at that time on the prophets. They above all were seen as the people who could change situations by their prophecies. In other words the king and people had a superstitious belief that what caused and changed situations was the actual activity of prophets, who could make things happen or not as they would. They did not stop to consider that in Israel these prophets pointed out that these things happened because of YHWH's anger at the sinfulness of the king and people, and that therefore the situation was the fault of the king and people themselves.
‘But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him, and the king sent a man from before him, but before the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, “Do you see how this son of a murderer has sent to take away my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door, and hold the door fast against him. Is not the sound of his master's feet behind him?” '
Elisha, meanwhile, equally concerned about the situation of the famine was discussing matters with the elders of the people who had come to his house in view of the seriousness of the national situation. But even while he was talking with them he was made aware by YHWH of the king's intentions (possibly partly through a message sent by a friend at court), and of the fact that an important messenger was coming from the king, a man who had the authority to arrest him and bring him to the king, with a view to his beheading (or even execute him on the spot). Elisha therefore turned to the elders and pointed out that this was only to be expected of a man whose father had revelled in blood (although ‘son of a murderer' need only indicate one who was capable of murder), and gave orders that his door should be barred and bolted against the messenger, as the king himself would be following shortly to countermand the execution order.
Some see the reference to the echo of his master's feet as not necessarily signifying that the king was himself coming after his messenger, (but see 2 Kings 7:17). In that case it may have been indicating that the messenger was the king's genuine representative to such an extent that the king was, as it were, ‘in his shoes'. But 2 Kings 7:17 may suggest that the king, having despatched him, did actually follow his messenger. Thus some see it as signifying that the king, having despatched his official to execute Elisha on the spot, then had second thoughts, with the result that he was following him in order to counteract the order. That would explain why he expected the elders to bar the door against the king's representative, which might otherwise not have been a wise policy. It was one thing to exclude him while clarification was obtained, quite another to exclude him altogether. 2 Kings 7:17 may, however, simply signify that the king had, as it were, come down in his messenger, and as the house was Elijah's, any exclusion would be laid at his door.
‘And while he was yet talking with them, behold, the messenger came down to him, and he said, “Behold, this evil is of YHWH. Why should I wait for YHWH any longer?” '
Meanwhile, while Elisha was yet speaking, the king's messenger arrived in order to convey the king's words, and declared, “Behold, this evil is of YHWH. Why should I wait for YHWH any longer?” ' In other words he was blaming YHWH directly for the evil that had come on them (compare Amos 3:6), which was of course, in one sense, partly true. Indeed that may have been his partly justified interpretation of Elisha's preaching, which had presumably indicated that deliverance could only follow repentance. But sinners never see themselves as really deserving of God's chastisement, and he may therefore have felt that wearing sackcloth was a sufficient indication of repentance, and have been wondering why, in view of it, YHWH had not intervened. He did not see that really this evil had sprung from the behaviour of himself and the people. His further words may be a threat to rid himself of Elisha and turn to other gods for help, on the grounds that, having performed such rites as they thought were necessary without receiving a response, perhaps it was time to look to Baal. He had failed to understand that in fact the only ‘rite' that YHWH really demanded was repentance and submission to His covenant (compare Isaiah 1:11), and that without that all ritualistic efforts to placate God were in vain..
‘And Elisha said, “Hear you the word of YHWH. Thus says YHWH, Tomorrow about this time will a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria.” '
Elisha's reply was basically that it was YHWH's sure prophetic word, a word that must therefore necessarily come to fruition, that within a day the siege would be relieved, and the shortages would be over. By this time next day, he assured the king, the markets in the space in front of the city gates would be selling flour and barley at normal prices. (With the Aramaean army still encamped around the city, it must have appeared very unlikely).