2 Kings 3:1 - Meaning and Application

Jehoram, Ahab’s son and Ahaziah’s brother, was now on the throne of Israel. He was a bad man, yet the record gives him two things that were better than most in his family.

First, he removed his father’s idols. He still did much evil, but not in the same extreme way as Ahab and Jezebel, his parents (2 Kings 3:2). He was bad, but not as bad as he might have been, as Solomon says of people who become very wicked (Ecclesiastes 7:17). Perhaps Jehoshaphat, by joining his family to Ahab’s house, had made Ahab’s house somewhat better, even while he harmed his own. Jehoram had seen his father and brother destroyed for Baal worship, and he took warning from God’s judgments. So he put away the image of Baal and decided to worship the God of Israel alone and consult only His prophets.

Still, this reform was weak. It did not save Ahab’s family from destruction, for that judgment came in Jehoram’s own day and fell on him at once (2 Kings 9:24). The reason was that the family’s guilt was now full. Jehoram’s reform was almost nothing. He only removed the image of Baal that his father had made, likely to please Jehoshaphat, who would not have joined him otherwise, just as he would not have joined his brother (1 Kings 22:49). But he did not destroy Baal worship among the people, for Jehu later found it still strong (2 Kings 10:19). It was good to reform his own house, but he should have used his power to reform the whole kingdom.

When he removed Baal’s image, he still kept the worship of the calves, the sinful policy Jeroboam had set up (2 Kings 3:3). He did not turn away from that, because it was one of the state supports that kept the two kingdoms divided. Real repentance is not shown by giving up only the sins that cost us something, while holding on to the sins that benefit us. He also only put the image aside for the time being, without breaking it to pieces as he should have done. He kept it, as if he might need it later, and Jezebel, for reasons of state, was willing to honor Baal in private.

Second, he did what he could to recover what his brother had lost. He had more of the religion of an Israelite than his father, and more of the spirit of a king than his brother. Moab rebelled against Israel right after Ahab died (2 Kings 1:1). We do not read that Ahaziah tried to punish or recover them. He simply gave up Israel’s claim rather than accept the burden, hard work, and danger of war. That weakness was worse because Moab’s tribute was a major part of Israel’s income, 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams (2 Kings 3:4). In those days, kings’ wealth was more often in livestock than in coins, and they thought it fit to know the condition of their flocks and herds themselves, since, as Solomon says, a crown does not last forever from one generation to the next (Proverbs 27:23-24). Taxes were paid more in goods from the land than in money, which eased the people, whether it helped the king or not.

Moab’s revolt was a great loss to Israel, yet Ahaziah sat in lazy comfort. But the opening in the upper room of his house became as deadly to him as any battlefield might have been (2 Kings 1:2), and when that lattice broke, it brought into his throne room a more active man, one who would not let Moab go without at least making one effort to keep it.