The Expositor's Bible: The Second Book of KingsFarrar, F. W. (Frederic William)
Religion
The Expositor's Bible: The Second Book of Kings
Farrar, F. W. (Frederic William)
Bible. Kings, 2nd -- Commentaries
As the answer of Hazael is usually read and interpreted, we are taught
to regard it as an indignant declaration that he could never be guilty
of such vile deeds. It is regarded as though it were "an abhorrent
repudiation of his future self." The lesson often drawn from it in
sermons is that a man may live to do, and to delight in, crimes which
he once hated and deemed it impossible that he should ever commit.
The lesson is a most true one, and is capable of a thousand
illustrations. It conveys the deeply needed warning that those who,
even in thought, dabble with wrong courses, which they only regard as
venial peccadilloes, may live to commit, without any sense of horror,
the most enormous offences. It is the explanation of the terrible fact
that youths who once seemed innocent and holy-minded may grow up, step
by step, into colossal criminals. "Men," says Scherer, "advance
unconsciously from errors to faults, and from faults to crimes, till
sensibility is destroyed by the habitual spectacle of guilt, and the
most savage atrocities come to be dignified by the name of State
policy."
"Lui-même à son portrait forcé de rendre hommage,
Il frémira d'horreur devant sa propre image."
But true and needful as these lessons are, they are entirely beside the
mark as deduced from the story of Hazael. What he said was not, as in
our Authorised Version, "But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this great thing?" nor by "great thing" does he mean "so deadly a
crime." His words, more accurately rendered in our Revision, are, "But
what is thy servant, which is but a dog, that he should do this great
thing?" or, "But what is the dog, thy servant?" It was a hypocritic
deprecation of the future importance and eminence which Elisha had
prophesied for him. There is not the least sense of horror either in his
words or in his thoughts. He merely means "A mere dog, such as I am, can
never accomplish such great designs." A dog in the East is utterly
despised;[138] and Hazael, with Oriental irony, calls himself a dog,
though he was the Syrian Commander-in-chief--just as a Chinaman, in
speaking of himself, adopts the periphrasis "this little thief."
Elisha did not notice his sham humility, but told him, "The Lord hath
showed me that thou shalt be King over Syria." The date of the event
was B.C. 886.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account