On the omniscience of God

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What do you all think about this passage:


2 Kings 8:7-15 KJV — And Elisha came to Damascus; and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and enquire of the LORD by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels' burden, and came and stood before him, and said, Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die. And he settled his countenance stedfastly, until he was ashamed: and the man of God wept. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child. And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria. So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldest surely recover. And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead.

God seems to be saying Benhadad would recover, if allowed to live. He also seemed to know Hazael's heart, that he was looking for an opportunity to usurp the throne. Do you think, though, that God was spurring Hazael to assassinate the king in order to pester the Israeli test more?

Was Elisha telling Hazael to lie to the king, because he knew Hazael would kill him? Or was the wording such that it was truth, as long as Hazael didn't kill him too soon?

This one appears to be a conditional prophecy, but not to get Benhadad to repent, but to spur Hazael to do evil.
It helps a great deal if you read it in modern English....

II Kings 8:7 Elisha went to Damascus, and Ben-Hadad king of Aram was ill. When the king was told, “The man of God has come all the way up here,” 8 he said to Hazael, “Take a gift with you and go to meet the man of God. Consult the Lord through him; ask him, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”​
9 Hazael went to meet Elisha, taking with him as a gift forty camel-loads of all the finest wares of Damascus. He went in and stood before him, and said, “Your son Ben-Hadad king of Aram has sent me to ask, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’​
10 Elisha answered, “Go and say to him, ‘You will certainly recover.’ Nevertheless, the Lord has revealed to me that he will in fact die.” 11 He stared at him with a fixed gaze until Hazael was embarrassed. Then the man of God began to weep.​
12 “Why is my lord weeping?” asked Hazael.​
“Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered. “You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.”​
13 Hazael said, “How could your servant, a mere dog, accomplish such a feat?”​
“The Lord has shown me that you will become king of Aram,” answered Elisha.​
14 Then Hazael left Elisha and returned to his master. When Ben-Hadad asked, “What did Elisha say to you?” Hazael replied, “He told me that you would certainly recover.” 15 But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so that he died. Then Hazael succeeded him as king.​
I see no "spurring" of anyone nor any deceit of any kind except on Hazael's part. The passage seems very straight forward to me.
 

Derf

Well-known member
It helps a great deal if you read it in modern English....

II Kings 8:7 Elisha went to Damascus, and Ben-Hadad king of Aram was ill. When the king was told, “The man of God has come all the way up here,” 8 he said to Hazael, “Take a gift with you and go to meet the man of God. Consult the Lord through him; ask him, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’”​
9 Hazael went to meet Elisha, taking with him as a gift forty camel-loads of all the finest wares of Damascus. He went in and stood before him, and said, “Your son Ben-Hadad king of Aram has sent me to ask, ‘Will I recover from this illness?’​
10 Elisha answered, “Go and say to him, ‘You will certainly recover.’ Nevertheless, the Lord has revealed to me that he will in fact die.” 11 He stared at him with a fixed gaze until Hazael was embarrassed. Then the man of God began to weep.​
12 “Why is my lord weeping?” asked Hazael.​
“Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered. “You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.”​
13 Hazael said, “How could your servant, a mere dog, accomplish such a feat?”​
“The Lord has shown me that you will become king of Aram,” answered Elisha.​
14 Then Hazael left Elisha and returned to his master. When Ben-Hadad asked, “What did Elisha say to you?” Hazael replied, “He told me that you would certainly recover.” 15 But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so that he died. Then Hazael succeeded him as king.​
I see no "spurring" of anyone nor any deceit of any kind except on Hazael's part. The passage seems very straight forward to me.
The Lord revealed what Hazael will do in the future? We don't think of the future that way. Is the Lord merely searching his heart?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
You seem incapable of reading me at all. What could I possibly have written that would lead you to make such a conclusion?

I consider any Non-Catholic Christian who believes either that God predestined everything or is in control of all that happens, to be a Calvinist, whether they call themselves that or not. The degree to which they disagree on this or that detail is the degree to which they are either ignorant or stupid and have failed to think through the implications of their doctrines and to understand how they are interconnected.


Might?

Is there anything that you are willing to make an emphatic statement about?
Awe, come'on Clete. You knew. I've been very clear I have been closely Amyraldian most of my life (not Catholic). What about you? Do you agree with any 5 points? 🤔
That different way being a completely meaningless way since the implication here being that there is no preset limit to the number of people included in "whoever will become a believer" as the term "Limited Atonement" specifically means.
Which means I likely am not a Calvinist, right?
No it isn't a disqualifier except maybe in academic circles. Normal people do not sit around hashing this stuff out like we do here on TOL and it makes no sense to start discussing things as though we are lawyers making arguments in a court. In the general population, the dividing line has to do with whether you believe we have a free will or not. If not, then you're going to be one flavor or another of Calvinist in a overwhelming majority of cases.
My first disagreement this set: "Free" and 'bound' are so closely tied together, that one can not be 'freewill' simply because of the gross overstatement of the term, without being a Calvinist. A 'freeway' isn't actually free for much. It is free from lights, but there are all kinds of restrictions, even if you are on the Autobahn. I'm just saying that I don't think I have to be Calvinist just because I am not freewill (persay). Like you said, though, perhaps in but academic circles 🤔
The same goes for doctrines surrounding any form of "fate". If you go around thinking that God has a specific plan for everyone's life and that there was a reason that God had your daughter's dog die the weekend of her birthday and if you sit around wondering what God's reason was for having your neighbor's Grandmother burn to death in a house fire or any other such thing, then you are a Calvinist, whether you know or acknowledge it or not.
Fate and will-of-God aren't the same that I'm aware of. James 4:13-17 talks about not being presumptuous about what we will do, but that God allows it. Romans 8:28 says all things God works for good. Does it only work for good if the thing is good in the first place? I'm not sure either Open Theism nor Calvinism has the corner on the market regarding God working in our lives. It is why the Calvinist says everyone else 'prays like a Calvinist' and Open Theists say 'everyone prays like an Open Theist.' A 'relational God' would be seen as 'more relational' by being more relational. Fate vs. God's intricate interaction with us. The tension is between how much we are 'free' and how much we are bound to God for existence. Would you agree we are discussing such tension and that the conversation is good and necessary for all of us, respective of our appreciation in God our Father and relationship with one another?
Lon, I read less than 10% of what you write and I start to get close to taking you off ignore and then you post a lie like this. This was a flat out lie!
Let's visit it together:
Do you think that this forum is the only place I've presented those quotes from Calvin? It isn't! I've asked literally dozens of Calvinists both on internet forums and in person whether they agree with some or all of a whole list of such quotes and I have yet to find a single person who calls himself a Calvinist who disagreed with any of them at all.
AMR was a staunch Calvinist but did tell me he didn't agree with all Calvin said. It 'looks' like it is not a lie to me, but I'll entertain the idea a few moments. It 'seems' like you are jumping to a conclusion but it also seems like your interaction is somewhat extensive. Enlighten and correct me on the matter.
There are plenty of people who disagree with them but none who self-identifiy as Calvinists. I don't even have to tell them that its a quote from Calvin. I just read the quote without mentioning Calvin or "Institutes" and sometimes I'll paraphrase the quote and intentionally put it in terms that are intended to make it sound radical and I still haven't found a single Calvinist who ever even wanted to "qualify" a single one of them. Arguments about justice and God's righteous character have no impact, comparing God to the arsonist who sets your house on fire and then comes to rescue you but arbitrarly leaves your wife and kids to die in the flames has no impact. They do not care about such consideration and blow all such objections off as "human reasoning".
Okay, what about the quotes you've given in thread prior this last week? I believe they were all direct quotes? I've read Calvin believed in 'real presence' of communion. If a Calvinist agrees with Calvin on that, there are some huge issues.
So, tell us Lon, where have any of the quotes I've presented been "qualified" by Calvin. I've presented the precise referrence where the quations are located in his writings. Please, by all means, show us were Calvin softened his doctrines in these areas!
Here is one to start with:
"From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).

But then look at Calvin's Genesis 3 commentary:

"Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should be regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will?"

Here it seems Calvin is saying the same thing I've heard Calvinists say: God knows 'when' something evil is happening and can stop it. Why does He not? For Calvin, it is 'according to His will' but not the cause, if I am reading correctly. It'd seem, with only the first quote, one might believe something different than what Calvin believed?
You won't do it because it cannot be done because no such "qualifying" exists. In fact, to my memory, you are the only person I've ever encountered that even made such a claim. I believe you knew it was false when you made it. You aught to be ashamed of yourself.
Should I be ashamed? Please read some of these with me and do enlighten? I 'like' these discussions. I do realize I tax you. Never-the-less, when you are on your game, I enjoy your input and I'll thank you and voice appreciation ahead of time. -As Iron sharpens Iron, Lon
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
What do you all think about this passage:


2 Kings 8:7-15 KJV — And Elisha came to Damascus; and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and enquire of the LORD by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels' burden, and came and stood before him, and said, Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover:
Meaning of the disease, yes?
howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die.
Not by disease but because Hazael was going to kill him if he didn't die of sickness.
And he settled his countenance stedfastly, until he was ashamed: and the man of God wept. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child. And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria. So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldest surely recover. And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead.

God seems to be saying Benhadad would recover, if allowed to live. He also seemed to know Hazael's heart, that he was looking for an opportunity to usurp the throne. Do you think, though, that God was spurring Hazael to assassinate the king in order to pester the Israeli test more?
I don't believe 'spurring' but certainly the evil was loosened and the reason Elisha was crying.
Was Elisha telling Hazael to lie to the king, because he knew Hazael would kill him?
Hazael said "[Elisha] told me that thou shouldest surely recover." - Seems odd from a man about to kill him, to tell him he was going to recover. Maybe so he'd send his nursemaids home? :idunno:
Or was the wording such that it was truth, as long as Hazael didn't kill him too soon?
Oh, you mean because he died so 'couldn't recover?' A couple of points: 1) a truth isn't the same as a prophecy from God, that God would 'surely bring it about.' 2) It was true that Ben-hadad was going to get better. Did killing him 'keep' him from getting better? Perhaps his body was already making him better but Hazael had made plans according to the truth, either way and it should be seen God was correct, that Ben-hadad was to live 'unless' Hazael killed him.
This one appears to be a conditional prophecy, but not to get Benhadad to repent, but to spur Hazael to do evil.
Not a prophecy, but revealed truth in foreknowledge. God knew that Ben-hadad was going to get better and it was this very news that caused Hazael to take matters into his own hands and prevent that from happening.

It does not fulfill the conditions of prophecy 'that God would bring about' nor should it be seen as false information or a thwarting of God's will.

It does support a bit, I believe, your idea of God making us 'DC' in the sense that created events (natural events for lack) would bring Ben-hadad to health. Ben-hadad wasn't asking God to heal him, just if he was going to live 'by natural (created) causes' already in place. As we continue to be good Bereans - Lon
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The Lord revealed what Hazael will do in the future? We don't think of the future that way. Is the Lord merely searching his heart?
Well, God certainly knows his heart and can easily know the kinds of things he'd likely do if he was given the power and authority to do it.

Also, we have to guard against looking at these predicted actions through modern day lenses. A prediction that a king "will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.” sounds very specific and completely outlandishly savage to our ears but that's pretty much what evil kings have done when they've waged war through almost the whole of human history. In other words, would you think this passage to be much of a big deal if Elisha had said, “Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered. “You will wage war against them and kill even their women and children.”? I mean, that's not that difficult a prediction to make, especially if you're a God who can know a man's own mind and heart, right?
 

Lon

Well-known member
The Lord revealed what Hazael will do in the future? We don't think of the future that way. Is the Lord merely searching his heart?
Ah, I see where you were going further on point: That too isn't prophecy, but I do believe, with Clete that it is foreknowledge, with a departure between us on extent of foreknowledge respectively.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Meaning of the disease, yes?

Not by disease but because Hazael was going to kill him if he didn't die of sickness.

I don't believe 'spurring' but certainly the evil was loosened and the reason Elisha was crying.
Elisha had no need to tell Hazael what he would do, knowing also it would spur him to act sooner. The fact that he did seems to indicate it was bringing about God's plan in some way.
Hazael said "[Elisha] told me that thou shouldest surely recover." - Seems odd from a man about to kill him, to tell him he was going to recover. Maybe so he'd send his nursemaids home? :idunno:
Hazael's words to Bennie make sense, as that answered the question he was asked. No sense in alerting the king to your sinister plans. He wouldn't have trouble lying to the king.
Oh, you mean because he died so 'couldn't recover?' A couple of points: 1) a truth isn't the same as a prophecy from God, that God would 'surely bring it about.' 2) It was true that Ben-hadad was going to get better. Did killing him 'keep' him from getting better? Perhaps his body was already making him better but Hazael had made plans according to the truth, either way and it should be seen God was correct, that Ben-hadad was to live 'unless' Hazael killed him.
I think Elisha's statements could be seen as contingent prophecies (or contingent revealed truth in foreknowledge, I can't distinguish), i.e., he would recover if allowed to do so amidst assassination attempts.
Not a prophecy, but revealed truth in foreknowledge.


Reminds me of Isaiah's messages to Hezekiah about his illness. Were they prophecy or "revealed truth in foreknowledge"? Or one of each?
God knew that Ben-hadad was going to get better and it was this very news that caused Hazael to take matters into his own hands and prevent that from happening.
Yes, probably so. Therefore it was "spurring".
It does not fulfill the conditions of prophecy 'that God would bring about' nor should it be seen as false information or a thwarting of God's will.
"It" being Hazael's action to kill the king, or that Bennie would recover, or that Hazael would do wicked things against Israel?

If the delivery of the message from God caused Hazael to move forward with his plans (spurred him on), then it is something "God would bring about", but giving Hazael the intel he needed at that time.


It does support a bit, I believe, your idea of God making us 'DC' in the sense that created events (natural events for lack) would bring Ben-hadad to health.
Well, all the AC/DC talk was yours...
Ben-hadad wasn't asking God to heal him, just if he was going to live 'by natural (created) causes' already in place.
Right. I'm not sure Bennie knew enough to ask for healing from someone else's god, but he recognized the power of a seer to know stuff.
As we continue to be good Bereans - Lon
Indeed.
Derf
 

Lon

Well-known member
Elisha had no need to tell Hazael what he would do, knowing also it would spur him to act sooner. The fact that he did seems to indicate it was bringing about God's plan in some way.
Note with me the progression: Hazael is sent by Ben-hadad to inquire. Hazael, hopeful Ben-hadad will die, is bothered and some of his schemes show on his face. Elisha starts crying. Hazael asks why, and Elisha is forward with information causing him and the Lord grief.
Hazael's words to Bennie make sense, as that answered the question he was asked. No sense in alerting the king to your sinister plans. He wouldn't have trouble lying to the king.

I think Elisha's statements could be seen as contingent prophecies (or contingent revealed truth in foreknowledge, I can't distinguish), i.e., he would recover if allowed to do so amidst assassination attempts.


Reminds me of Isaiah's messages to Hezekiah about his illness. Were they prophecy or "revealed truth in foreknowledge"? Or one of each?
Note that a dictionary has all of this as fitting in the definition of prophecy.
'Divine prophecy' is the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose.


Yes, probably so. Therefore it was "spurring".

"It" being Hazael's action to kill the king, or that Bennie would recover, or that Hazael would do wicked things against Israel?

If the delivery of the message from God caused Hazael to move forward with his plans (spurred him on), then it is something "God would bring about", but giving Hazael the intel he needed at that time.
There are many that would agree with you from all over Christianity, but I'm not seeing God as actively 'spurring.'
Well, all the AC/DC talk was yours...
Agree, but I was, by analogy trying to understand how you (perhaps other Open Theists) understood our autonomy. I've always thought of the cord, but with rechargeable batteries, perhaps the analogy can be augmented to encapsulate all of Christianity. It may not serve as analogy, but I think it works to a point.
Right. I'm not sure Bennie knew enough to ask for healing from someone else's god, but he recognized the power of a seer to know stuff.

Indeed.
Derf
🆙
 

Derf

Well-known member
Well, God certainly knows his heart and can easily know the kinds of things he'd likely do if he was given the power and authority to do it.

Also, we have to guard against looking at these predicted actions through modern day lenses. A prediction that a king "will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.” sounds very specific and completely outlandishly savage to our ears but that's pretty much what evil kings have done when they've waged war through almost the whole of human history. In other words, would you think this passage to be much of a big deal if Elisha had said, “Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,” he answered. “You will wage war against them and kill even their women and children.”? I mean, that's not that difficult a prediction to make, especially if you're a God who can know a man's own mind and heart, right?
Yes, I agree with all that. Likely Hazael already was scheming to take over the throne. And at least we could also say whether God had plans for anyone to stop Hazael (no, He didn't). God also was going to allow Syria to invade Israel (northern 10 tribes) because their king was so bad. So it seems that God was somewhat behind the usurpation of the throne of Syria. Why was Elisha in Damascus anyway?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Why was Elisha in Damascus anyway?
(1 Kings 19:15, 17 NKJV) Then the LORD said to him (Elijah prior to Elisha): “Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria.” ... (17) “It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill.”
 

Derf

Well-known member
Note with me the progression: Hazael is sent by Ben-hadad to inquire. Hazael, hopeful Ben-hadad will die, is bothered and some of his schemes show on his face. Elisha starts crying. Hazael asks why, and Elisha is forward with information causing him and the Lord grief.

Note that a dictionary has all of this as fitting in the definition of prophecy.
'Divine prophecy' is the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose.
But not only "divine will and purpose".
This from American Heritage Dictionary
2. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
However, I think there are reasons to believe God is bringing grief to the northern 10 tribes through the Syrians.

There are many that would agree with you from all over Christianity, but I'm not seeing God as actively 'spurring.'

Agree, but I was, by analogy trying to understand how you (perhaps other Open Theists) understood our autonomy. I've always thought of the cord, but with rechargeable batteries, perhaps the analogy can be augmented to encapsulate all of Christianity. It may not serve as analogy, but I think it works to a point.

🆙

(1 Kings 19:15, 17 NKJV) Then the LORD said to him (Elijah prior to Elisha): “Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria.” ... (17) “It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill.”

Add this one:
[1Ki 20:42 KJV] 42 And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou (Ahab) hast let go out of [thy] hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction (Benhadad), therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.

So we see that Benhadad had been appointed by God to utter destruction, and apparently his people as well, but Ahab let him go free, so, because of this (and probably because of other things), Ahab's people were destined for destruction.

So we see that God had appointed Jehu to reign in Ahab's place, and Hazael to reign in Benhadad's place. So don't you think there might have been a spurring of Hazael to move against his king?

And, it seems like God let Benhadad fall into Ahab's power in order to destroy Benhadad. But because Ahab didn't do it, God needed to use another vehicle to destroy Benhadad. Hazael wasn't told to kill him, but he took it upon himself to do so. He was definitely "spurred" on toward killing Benhadad. But he also named his son after him, which he probably did to keep the people on his side.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
But not only "divine will and purpose".
This from American Heritage Dictionary
2. A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
However, I think there are reasons to believe God is bringing grief to the northern 10 tribes through the Syrians.





Add this one:
[1Ki 20:42 KJV] 42 And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou (Ahab) hast let go out of [thy] hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction (Benhadad), therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.

So we see that Benhadad had been appointed by God to utter destruction, and apparently his people as well, but Ahab let him go free, so, because of this (and probably because of other things), Ahab's people were destined for destruction.

So we see that God had appointed Jehu to reign in Ahab's place, and Hazael to reign in Benhadad's place. So don't you think there might have been a spurring of Hazael to move against his king?
Especially Elijah being told to anoint Hazael as king 0.o Elisha's tears aren't over Hazael killing Ben-hadad, but the other atrocities he'd do as king 🤔 *There are oddities in these accounts that could use a good deal more thought.
And, it seems like God let Benhadad fall into Ahab's power in order to destroy Benhadad. But because Ahab didn't do it, God needed to use another vehicle to destroy Benhadad. Hazael wasn't told to kill him, but he took it upon himself to do so. He was definitelyh "spurred" on toward killing Benhadad.
It is why I have not pushed back too hard. Judgement of God is often a difficult subject: Tears, for me, would be about opposite of spurred but certainly Hazael was resolute and I have no problem with God's message causing Hazael to be more resolute.
But he also named his son after him, which he probably did to keep the people on his side.
🤔 * Good study.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Especially Elijah being told to anoint Hazael as king 0.o Elisha's tears aren't over Hazael killing Ben-hadad, but the other atrocities he'd do as king 🤔
Agreed.
*There are oddities in these accounts that could use a good deal more thought.
Elijah was the one sent to anoint Hazael, but also to anoint Jehu. We aren't told he anointed either. Elisha had an unnamed "child of the prophets" anoint Jehu, and it seems he was going to do the same to Hazael, I guess, but it is never explicitly stated that Hazael was anointed. Perhaps because he didn't wait long enough. That made him an illegitimate king in God's eyes (I think), despite him being God's choice for Benhadad's successor.
It is why I have not pushed back too hard. Judgement of God is often a difficult subject: Tears, for me, would be about opposite of spurred but certainly Hazael was resolute and I have no problem with God's message causing Hazael to be more resolute.
I don't know that the tears spurred him, but the knowledge of the king's eventual recovery probably did. Jehu righteously carried out what God told him to do, but he faltered when it came to the golden calf idols. Maybe Hazael started out the same, but before Elisha could anoint him, he had already shown the direction he was heading. This makes the episode a good one to consider for this thread. Unfortunately, it has to include a lot of speculation as well.

I wonder why Elijah never fulfilled the commands to him to anoint Jehu and Hazael? Do you think his health was failing when God took him?
🤔 * Good study.
It's certainly an interesting story. I remember reading the books of 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles fairly early in my Christian life, and I thought they were quite interesting, despite all my Christian friends saying they were boring. There's a lot of info that takes some pondering to figure out, that's for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Got Questions helped quite a bit "Ben-hadad" means 'son of the storm' and is applied as a title rather than specific name (like 'Pharaoh' in Egypt). Hazael killed Ben-hadad 2 if the information is correct, seems to be.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Got Questions helped quite a bit "Ben-hadad" means 'son of the storm' and is applied as a title rather than specific name (like 'Pharaoh' in Egypt). Hazael killed Ben-hadad 2 if the information is correct, seems to be.
Interesting.

"Pharaoh" is supposedly a Hebrew word for "palace". So maybe more like "Caesar". But since "Benhadad" denotes separated kings, not necessarily related to each other, it seems less like a dynasty and more like a reference to the power of the god, like "Amen-hotep" or the prestige/goodness of the namesake, like some of the popes. Still, if the son of Hazael, and Hazael was definitely NOT related to Benhadad, it is strange that his son would call himself that, or that he would name his son that, unless he was trying to make people think he was a rightful king when he wasn't really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Top