want of water, suddenly found themselves in presence of an enemy that swarmed the tangled brushwood and thicket

around. Unable to cross the Wady and engage the enemy, who seemed ubiquitous, or to retreat into the wilderness, the

position of the allies seemed, humanly speaking, hopeless.

It was in these circumstances that the grand difference in principle between the king of Israel and pious Jehoshaphat

appeared, as it always does in seasons of trial and decision between the servants of the LORD and those of "strange

gods." Joram could descry nothing but impending ruin, and his only thought concerning Jehovah was that He had

brought the three kings together for their destruction. Jehoshaphat, though often and sadly failing through weakness of

character, was yet true in the inmost direction of his heart. In his distress he instinctively turned to the LORD for

guidance. His inquiry for a "prophet of Jehovah" brought out two facts of infinite comfort: that Elisha, known as the

attendant of Elijah,153 was - no doubt by Divine direction - present in the camp; and that there was one in the following

of the king of Israel - probably one of the superior officers - who knew of it, being evidently in sympathy with that

which the prophet represented, as Obadiah had been in the days of Ahab (1 Kings 18:3).

We read that the three kings went to the tent of Elisha. This not merely from apprehension that he might refuse to come

to them, nor yet from humility; but probably because they may have dreaded the effect upon the host of such words as

formerly Micaiah had spoken in similar circumstances (1 Kings 22:17-28). The reception which this incongruous

company of kings met at the hands of the prophet was certainly not encouraging. On the other hand, an appeal for help

addressed to the prophet of Jehovah by the heathen king of Edom and the son of Ahab seemed to treat the prophetic

office as if it had involved heathen magic and divination, just as Balak of old had sought to emp loy Balaam against

Israel. To an appeal of such a character Elisha could not have listened; it should - as he told the king of Israel - be

addressed to the prophets of Baal. How truly Elisha had judged Joram appears from his answer, when with almost

incredible dullness, he once more urged - presumably as the reason for his coming - that Jehovah, the God of the

prophet, and the old enemy of the house of Ahab, had brought these kings together for their destruction. With such an

one it was impossible to argue, and the prophet turned from him to the king of Judah, for whose sake alone he would

consent to continue the interview, or would seek the guidance and help of the LORD.

It has been assumed by a certain school of critics that when Elisha next called for a minstrel, it was to rouse in himself

the prophetic faculty, or else that such was the common mode of producing prophetic inspiration. But for the latter

assertion there is not a tittle of evidence,  154 while, as regards the former, alike Biblical (1 Samuel 16:16) and heathen

testimony155 go to prove that the purpose for which music was employed was to soothe, not to excite the mind.

It was not otherwise in the present instance. From the agitation of his interview with Joram Elisha was restored by the

minstrel to quietness, and thus prepared for receiving the Divine communication. This was twofold: it gave promise of

deliverance from the present straits and of complete victory over Moab. The people were directed to make the Wady

full of pits - and then, without sound of wind, or sight of rain, would the Wady be filled with water, and the host set

free from their present straits. But this was only preparatory. A complete victory would be granted to them, and in their

victorious progress they would destroy all fenced cities and absolutely lay waste the enemy's country. It is not ours to

vindicate the work of warfare here indicated, although not prescribed (v. 19).  156

It seems to be opposed to the express Divine direction in Deuteronomy 20:19, 20. In judging of it some considerations

must, however, be kept in view. First and foremost we have to remember the spirit of the times. Nor is the time so far

distant when a mode of warfare not very unlike this was common in an enemy's country. As a matter of fact, this mode

of laying waste a hostile country seems to have been general at that time among all nations. Accordingly it is frequently

represented on the Assyrian monuments,157 and referred to in classical writings.158

It may be of interest here to recall two points which might otherwise be overlooked. It will be remembered that the

inscription on the "Moabite stone" makes the following special reference to this mode of warfare: "In my days he said,

[Let us go,] and I will see my desire on him and his house. And Israel (said), I will destroy with an everlasting

destruction." Thus the Moabite stone to a certain extent bears testimony to the very words which Elisha had used.

Again, it may be doubted whether, if Israel had not adopted this mode of warfare, the retreat of the allied army from

Kir-haraseth would not have been followed by a most formidable Moabite invasion into Palestine. As it was, the repair

of the havoc wrought in his country must have engaged all the energies of Mesha. And to this work of necessary

restoration and recuperation the closing part of the Moabite inscription bears testimony.