1 Kings 19:15

And the Lord said unto him, Go, return on thy way [Heb. to thy way, as in Genesis 19:2 ; Genesis 32:2 ; Numbers 24:25 , etc.] to the wilderness of Damacus [The construct case with ה local. Keil refers to Deuteronomy 4:41 ; Joshua 12:1 ; and Ewald 216 b. This cannot mean "through the desert to Damascus," for he could not possibly go any other way, nor yet "to the desert (through which he had just come) to Damascus," for he was then in the heart of the desert. He was to find a hiding place—we find the king of Damascus at war with Ahab, Joshua 20:1-9 .—or possibly a sphere for work,—he would be near Hazael—in the rugged desert which stretches south and east of the Syrian capital. Here, too, the prophet would be at no great distance from his own country. See on 1 Kings 17:3 ]: and When thou comest, anoint [Heb. and thou shalt come and anoint . LXX . καὶ ἥξεις καὶ χρίσεις . The A.V. increases the difficulty. In the Hebrew the time of the anointing is indefinite. This commission has long been a crux interpretum . For neither Hazael, nor Jehu, nor Elisha, so far as we have any record, was ever anointed by Elijah. Elisha was called by him to the prophetic office. Hazael, it is barely possible, may have been anointed secretly, like David ( 1 Samuel 16:2 , 1 Samuel 16:13 ), but all that we gather from Scripture is, that he was called in an indirect way, and certainly not anointed, by Elisha ( 2 Kings 8:12-15 ). Jehu was certainly anointed, but it was neither by Elisha nor Elijah ( 2 Kings 9:1 , 2 Kings 9:6 ), but by one of the sons of the prophets.All we can say, consequently, is that the command was obeyed in the spirit, and no doubt in the best possible time and way. There may have been good reasons, of which we know nothing, why Elijah should devolve the appointment of the two kings upon his successor, and we can readily understand that the word " anoint " was, as in 9:8 , Isaiah 61:1 , never meant to be construed literally. For in the first place, we have no record elsewhere of the anointing of any prophet ; and secondly, it is remarkable that when Elijah might so easily have anointed Elisha, he did nothing of the kind. It is clear, therefore, that he understood the word to mean "appoint." And the root idea of anointing, it must be remembered, was the setting apart for the service of God ( Exodus 29:6 ). Hence it was (Bähr) that vessels ( Exodus 30:26 sqq.), and even stones ( Genesis 28:18 ), were anointed. And when we find that these three persons were set apart sooner or later, and in different ways, to fulfil the high purposes of God, that ought to suffice us. The author of this history clearly found no difficulty in reconciling this account and that of 2 Kings 8:9 . It has also been objected to this charge (Rawlinson) that it is no " explanation or application of the preceding parable." But this is precisely what it appears to have been intended to be. The prophet is here taught by word much the same lesson that had been conveyed by signs, in the preceding vision. 1% doubt there are additional particulars—the vision dealt only with principles, the charge descends to &tans; and prescribes duties—but still the great lesson that souls are to be won, that God's kingdom is to be advanced, not by wrath and vengeance, by fire and sword, but by meekness and gentleness, through the reason and the conscience, is proclaimed. Hazael and Jehu, each was God's instrument to punish; each was like the sweeping siena or the devouring fire, each was an engine of destruction; but by neither of these were the hearts Of men turned to the Lord. It was the sword of Elisha, the sword of his mouth (cf. Isaiah 11:4 ; Isaiah 49:2 ; Revelation 1:16 ; Revelation 2:16 ), should constrain men to hide their faces and humble themselves before God] Hazael [the seer of God . This name, viewed in connection with Elijah's vision of God, is noticeable] to be king over Syria: