2 Chronicles 21:1 - Meaning and Application

Here we see, first, that Jehoshaphat was a very careful, but too indulgent, father toward Jehoram. He had many sons, named in 2 Chronicles 21:2, and 2 Chronicles 21:13 says they were better than Jehoram. They had more wisdom and virtue, and they lived up to the training he gave them, unlike him. They were very promising, and any one of them seemed more fit for the crown than Jehoram. Yet because Jehoram was the firstborn (2 Chronicles 21:3), his father secured the kingdom for him and gave gifts to his brothers so they would be satisfied and cause no trouble, as Abraham did when he made Isaac his heir and sent his other children away with gifts.

In this, Jehoshaphat was very kind and fair to his son, and that should have made Jehoram respect him and follow his example. But it is not new for children who are most spoiled by their parents to be the least dutiful to them. Whether Jehoshaphat acted wisely for the good of his people, I cannot say. Jehoram’s birthright gave him a double share of his father’s estate (Deuteronomy 21:17), but if he was plainly unfit to rule, and likely to undo all his father had done, it may have been better to set him aside and choose the next best son, especially one not drawn toward idolatry. Power is a sacred trust, and it can be used to do great good or great harm. So the one most fit should have it, and the safety of the people must come first.

Second, Jehoram was a cruel brother to his father’s sons. As soon as he settled on the throne, he killed all his brothers with the sword, either by false charges under the cover of law or by outright murder. Some wicked hand, in one way or another, had them all put to death, likely because he thought he could not be safe while they were alive. People who mean evil are often, without reason, suspicious of others. The wicked fear where no fear is, or they pretend to fear danger to hide their malice. Jehoram likely hated his brothers for the same reason Cain hated Abel and killed him, because their godly life condemned his ungodly life and won the people’s respect that he had lost.

Along with them he killed several of the princes of Israel, meaning the leading men who sided with his brothers or were likely to avenge their deaths. The princes of Judah, who had taught the people to know the Lord (2 Chronicles 17:7), are here called princes of Israel, as in 2 Chronicles 19:8, because they were true Israelites, honest and upright men. The sword that the good father had placed in their hands this wicked son turned against their own bodies. Woe to the man who builds a kingdom in blood (Habakkuk 2:12). Such a foundation will not hold up the structure for long.

Third, Jehoram was a very wicked king who corrupted his kingdom and ruined the reform that his good father and grandfather had worked for. He walked in the way of Ahab’s house (2 Chronicles 21:6), set up high places, which the people were already too ready to make, and did all he could to restore idolatry (2 Chronicles 21:11). As for the people of Jerusalem, where he held court, he easily led them into spiritual unfaithfulness. He caused them to commit adultery in a spiritual sense, drawing them to eat food offered to idols (Revelation 2:20). The people in the countryside were harder to win over, but those who could not be corrupted by sweet words were forced by violence to join his hateful idol worship. He used the power given to him for the destruction of the church, instead of for its good.

Fourth, when he left God and his worship, his subjects turned away from their loyalty to him. Some of the provinces under his rule did this. The Edomites rebelled (2 Chronicles 21:8), and though he attacked them (2 Chronicles 21:9), he could not bring them back under his control (2 Chronicles 21:10). Even one of his own cities rebelled. Libnah revolted (2 Chronicles 21:10) and became independent, just as it had once had its own king (Joshua 12:15). The reason is given here, not only to show why God allowed it, but also why they acted as they did. They rejected his rule because he had abandoned the Lord, the God of his fathers, and had become an idol worshiper. They could not stay under his authority without danger of being drawn away from God and their duty too. When he held to God, they held to him. When he cast God aside, they cast him aside. Whether this fully justifies their revolt or not, it does justify God’s providence in ordering events this way.

Fifth, even so, God was faithful to his covenant with David’s house, and so he would not destroy the royal family, though it had become deeply corrupted and degenerate (2 Chronicles 21:7). This was already seen in 2 Kings 8:19-22. The covenant said that David’s descendants would be punished for their sins, but the covenant itself would never be broken (Psalm 89:30 and following).