Anointings and Slayings of Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha
Plus Micaiah, Hazael, and Jehu as Types
Jehu the Wild Rider
This subject is complicated, and one reason is that there are two Jehoshaphats, two Jehorams, and two Ahaziahs. One Jehoshaphat was the king of Judah, and the other Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehu. There was a King Jehoram and a King Ahaziah in b
oth Israel and Judah. The duplication may have been providential to purposely confuse the picture until the due time for understanding the antitype. Very few readers would take the time to carefully examine the account to see which individual was being referred to with each mention. Thus the type would not be seen clearly, let alone the antitype.
Another problem is the sequence of the anointings. In 1 Kings 19:15,16, the order is stated as follows. “And the LORD said unto him [Elijah], Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest,  anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: And  Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and  Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.” Thus the anointing sequence in the type was Hazael to be king over Syria, Jehu to be king over Israel, and Elisha to be prophet in Elijah’s stead.
Elijah was told to do the anointings when he got to Damascus. However, on the way to that destination, he encountered Elisha, and he never directly anointed either Hazael or Jehu because he was translated before he got to Damascus (1 Kings 19:19-21; 2 Kings 2:11). Not until 2 Kings 8:7-15 was Hazael anointed, and Jehu was anointed in 2 Kings 9:1-10. Nevertheless, after Jehu was anointed by a son of the prophets and some of the subsequent bloodbath had taken place, including the death of Jezebel, he said, “This is the word of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel: And the carcass of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel” (2 Kings 9:36,37). In other words, even though Elijah was off the scene, Jehu accredited him with the prophecy regarding Jezebel.
Thus Elijah was instructed to do three anointings, but from the natural standpoint, he did only one anointing, namely, Elisha. That anointing occurred when Elijah was being translated, and his cloak, or mantle of authority, fell to the ground. Elisha picked up the mantle and became the prophet in Elijah’s stead (2 Kings 2:13). With the custodianship of that mantle of authority came the spirit, or power, that had previously operated through Elijah during his earthly ministry. Why was the account worded so that the anointing of Elisha seemed to be out of sequence in the natural picture? The wording made the subject more difficult to understand, for it locked the interpretation until the due time for revealment. When a subject is orderly and distinct, it can be retained with one or two readings, but that is not the case with the anointings. From the natural standpoint, therefore, Elijah could be accredited with the anointings, even though he had been translated. However, there is a double application here: (1) the natural application pertains to what Elijah did and did not perform but was accredited with, and (2) the spiritual application is on a higher plane.
The spiritual application can be harmonized sequentially in 1 Kings 19:15,16. For instance, the first two anointings were to be Hazael as king over Syria and Jehu as king over Israel, which occurred after Elijah’s translation. If we think of the risen Elijah as doing the three anointings, the sequence fits, for Elijah represents the Church. According to Jesus’ words at his First Advent, Elijah represents the Church in both the flesh and the spirit: “Elias truly shall come, and restore all things” (Matt. 17:11). (The word “first” in the King James Version is spurious.) The Elijah of the Gospel Age (the Church in the flesh) has preached, but the world has not received the proclamation, as recorded in Malachi 4:5,6, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” Because the world has not been converted during the Gospel Age when Elijah in the flesh was here, God will smite the earth with a “curse.” Therefore, when Jesus said, “Elias truly shall … restore all things,” he was speaking of the resurrected Elijah.
In the natural application, Elijah did not think of this higher picture. He thought of Damascus and the earthly application and proceeded on that basis. But from the standpoint of the risen Elijah in the spiritual application, he could anoint Hazael to be king of Syria through Elisha. Knowing that Elijah had been given this commandment, Elisha obediently went about to finish the anointing work.
As discussed earlier, Elisha is a double type, representing either the Great Company or the Ancient Worthies depending on the nature of the work. The anointings of Hazael and Jehu will take place in the Gospel Age, but after the translation of Elijah. The risen Elijah will empower, instruct, or lead Elisha to anoint Hazael. For instance, Jesus as the risen Lord will smite the nations when he is King over the world. From earth’s atmosphere, he will be the power behind the performance of the work, and he will initiate the judgments of the Kingdom Age by using instruments below him. Similarly, the risen Elijah class, the glorified Church, will anoint Hazael and Jehu without being down here in the flesh; the anointings will be done during an inbetween period before the inauguration of the Kingdom. After Elijah’s translation and glorification, the sequential consummation at the very end of the age will be the deliverance of the Great Company, the deliverance of the Holy Remnant (natural Israel) out of Jacob’s Trouble, and the deliverance of mankind from the Time of Trouble.
Thus, with Elisha being a double type, the sequence of the anointings in the antitype is correct. The risen Elijah, the glorified Church, will anoint Hazael and Jehu at the end of the Gospel Age through Elisha, who represents the Great Company. The risen Elijah, the glorified Church, will do the third anointing in the Kingdom Age; namely, they will anoint Elisha, who represents the Ancient Worthies, to be prophet in their stead.
Notice that 1 Kings 19:15-17 has two categories: (1) Elijah was instructed to do three anointings, and (2) the effect of the anointings will be three slayings. Stated another way, the anointings will result in the slaying of a class. “And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.” Those who escape the sword of Hazael will be slain by Jehu, and those who escape the sword of Jehu will be slain by Elisha. To understand the antitype, we have to keep the anointings separate from the slayings (the effect of the anointings).
Now we will consider definitions. In the final account, there will be a battle in which the king of Israel enjoins the king of Judah to associate with him in fighting a common enemy, Syria, which occupied a territory called Ramoth-gilead on the east side of the Jordan River. Early in Israel’s history, when Joshua led the Israelites into the Promised Land, Ramoth-gilead was deeded to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh. These 2 1/2 tribes wanted to settle there rather than in Israel proper, and the Lord agreed to that arrangement if the men of those tribes would continue in the battle to rid Israel of its enemies. Then they could return across Jordan and settle in Ramoth-gilead.
But as history developed, there were changes in the occupancy of Ramoth-gilead. In the setting presently being considered, Syria was the occupant. Therefore, the king of Israel reasoned with the king of Judah, “The land of Ramoth-gilead belongs to us.” (More particularly, it had belonged to the northern kingdom.) In any event, the king of Judah, in a patriotic gesture, agreed to join the king of Israel in the confrontation. Thus they entered Ramoth-gilead together, and in the ensuing war, the king of Israel was wounded and returned to Jezreel, his homeland, to recover. Later Jehu raced to Jezreel and killed King Jehoram of Israel. Then Jehu himself occupied the throne of Israel.
The Micaiah picture of 1 Kings 22, which took place in the previous generation, also pertained to a battle for Ramoth-gilead. King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah likewise felt that Ramoth-gilead was theirs, and they intended to recover that land from the king of Syria and restore it to the commonwealth of Israel. Through the instigation of King Jehoshaphat, Micaiah the prophet was called in. All the other 400 prophets of Israel had already testified that the two kings should enter the battle and that they would prosper. Micaiah was the lone dissenter, for his sarcastic manner and/or the inflection of his voice showed that he was not giving his blessing on their going to war to regain Ramoth-gilead. He used the illustration of Jehovah’s being in heaven and inquiring of angels to see who could deceive the kings of Israel and Judah into entering this confrontation. This method of storytelling was often used, especially in the East. For instance, Jesus gave parables on many occasions, some of which were partially real-life stories, and others were fiction but taught a real lesson, spiritually speaking. There are both similarities and dissimilarities in the Micaiah picture with kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat and this later battle with kings Jehoram and Ahaziah, as follows.
1. The king of Judah agreed to join forces with the king of Israel to fight a battle to recover Ramoth-gilead from the king of Syria.
2. The king of Israel was slain with a bow and arrow.
These similarities seemed to indicate that the Micaiah picture and the Ramoth-gilead battle with Jehoram and Ahaziah were the same event, the latter just being more detailed. But now we are beginning to think that the time settings are different.
1. In the Micaiah picture, Ahab died in Ramoth-gilead, not in Israel. In the later picture, Jehoram was wounded in Ramoth-gilead, but he returned to Israel, where he was subsequently slain by Jehu.
2. In the Micaiah picture, when Ahab and Jehoshaphat (the king of Judah) entered the battle in Ramoth-gilead, Jehoshaphat was not killed. Not only did he return home, but for the greater part, his deeds were looked upon favorably by the Lord. However, in the later picture, King Ahaziah of Judah died, and he was viewed as an evil king by the Lord. Thus in the final picture at the end of the age, both the king of “Israel” and the king of “Judah” will die.
Several points are of interest here. What threw us off at first is that the similarities between the two pictures are very marked. In the type with Ahab and Jehoshaphat, Micaiah was called to come and give counsel and advice with regard to the battle at Ramoth-gilead. He predicted an unfavorable outcome for the king of Israel, whereas the false prophets testified that he would be victorious. Micaiah gave an allegory about an angel who came before the throne of God in heaven and offered to be a lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets. Immediately we think of the froglike lying spirits that will come out of the mouths of the beast, the dragon, and the false prophet to deceive the nations and bring them to the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:13,14,16). This similarity seemed to confirm that the Micaiah picture and the war at Ramothgilead with Jehoram and Ahaziah are the same. But that is not the case.
We will not pursue the natural, historical standpoint because the picture is very complicated. However, we will try to give a clue from the scriptural standpoint.
Elijah’s experience included the 1,260 days (representing 1,260 years from AD 539 to 1799) of famine followed by a contest at Mount Carmel to reveal the true God, the principle being, “The God that answereth by fire, let him be God” (1 Kings 18:24). For most of the day, the prophets of Baal moaned and groaned and prayed and slashed themselves, trying to implore Baal to consume their sacrifice on the altar. In contrast, after Elijah gave a relatively short and simple prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed his offering. There the contest was between Elijah (one prophet) and the 450 prophets of Baal. In the Micaiah picture, the odds were similar: about 400 false prophets and Micaiah (one prophet). Therefore, the Micaiah type seems to fit the French Revolution time setting, which involved lying spirits.
Two definitions are important. The Pastor ingeniously suggested that the king of Israel represented Catholicism because the northern kingdom, with ten tribes, was more numerous than Judah, which had only two tribes. Thus in some pictures, the king of Israel pictures Papacy, and the king of Judah represents Protestantism.
As a result of the French Revolution, Catholicism received a deadly blow. To the contrary, the Bible societies were all of Protestant origin. Catholics tried to get on the bandwagon when they saw the direction of the wind, but Papacy’s wound and humiliation at the hands of Napoleon were so severe that even the papal states were lost 70 years later. Thus, as a result of the wound inflicted at the French Revolution, the beast died during the Victor Emmanuel dynasty.
Later, however, the beast revived. Hence Papacy will die twice, and the second death will be permanent. In other words, the beast arose from the first death—it came out of, or was resurrected from, the bottomless pit—but it will not arise from the second death (Rev. 17:8). In its eighth and final condition, the beast will go into perdition, or everlasting destruction (Rev. 17:10,11). The two deaths of Papacy correspond to the deaths of two kings of Israel. And there is another point. Before the Micaiah picture—in the preceding chapter, 1 Kings 21)— is the account of Naboth’s vineyard. Queen Jezebel manipulated events to illegally get possession of Naboth’s vineyard for King Ahab. To do this, she arranged Naboth’s death by writing a letter in the king’s name. This forged document was sent out, inviting elders and nobles to proclaim a fast to honor Naboth. Meanwhile, two false witnesses were set up. As a result, Naboth was slain, and his vineyard was taken by Ahab.
Jezebel, who lived quite a long time, is pictured in the Book of Revelation as a type (Rev. 2:20).
Inferentially, King Ahab, her husband, represents civil power, which cooperated with Catholicism to get possession of the true vineyard. Catholicism’s usurpation of this vineyard is shown in Daniel 7:8, “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” This little horn, which grew out of the Roman beast and waxed great, crushed and despoiled God’s saints for 1,260 years. Accordingly, the Roman Catholic Church took over Naboth’s vineyard. Catholicism has the name of Christianity, and in the Dark Ages, it was ostensibly the religion of Christ before the world with the pope being his representative. Those who were not identified with Catholicism were regarded as schismatics and heretics. Thus the Lord’s vineyard was occupied by the false element; the wheat field became a tare field (Matt. 13:26,27).
Now we will return to a discussion of Hazael. We had suggested that in 2 Kings 8 and 9, the king of Israel represents Papacy and particularly the primacy of its power as centered in Europe. Ahaziah, the king of Judah, symbolizes Protestantism, as first represented by the Church of England and Ireland. Subsequently the Church of England came to America, where it is called the Protestant Episcopal Church. In the final picture, therefore, England and the United States are related to Protestantism on one end of the spectrum, and Europe is related to Catholicism on the other end of the spectrum.
In the type, Hazael represents a nonreligious power that is not related in a nominal sense to the Lord. Syria was an alien power, whereas Israel and Judah were a common people, that is, Israel in the broad sense of the term. To show the opposing forces in a convenient illustration, Syria would represent a country like Russia.
We believe that the anointings of Hazael and Jehu are still future. This alien invading power will despoil, or destroy, the professions of nominal Christians in the Balkan states. The Balkan states, including Yugoslavia and other countries in Eastern Europe that were behind the Iron Curtain until recently, are a buffer zone between Europe proper and Russia. They are sandwiched in between the West and the East. Both Protestant and Catholic churches are in this buffer zone. The suggestion is that the professions of the nominal Christian element in this area will be destroyed before Russia invades Europe proper. In other words, a sequence is shown.
Therefore, as suggested in a past talk, what is being slain in this picture by these three elements—Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha—represents a pretended class of Christians (nominal professed Christians), which the Pastor likened to tares. The tares will be burnt; that is, they will be destroyed as tares but not necessarily as individuals (Matt. 13:30). With the radicalism of this destroying element, there will, of course, be some bloodshed, but the picture is primarily of the tares ceasing to call themselves Christians and discontinuing their former practices. This is one reason why both the anointing and the slaying of Hazael are mentioned first. Then Jehu will slay those who remain behind in the homeland, in Europe proper.
In the picture of Ramoth-gilead, which pertains to the Balkan states plus Eastern Europe, not only was King Jehoram wounded in the war, but also there were Israelite casualties. Hence Hazael did a slaying work. Those who escaped that slaying (tares in the antitype) will be dealt with by Jehu in Israel (Europe) proper. In the war for Ramoth-gilead, the king of Israel invaded what he felt belonged to him. Thus in the antitype, there will be an invasion from Europe proper into the Balkan states to recover (or deliver) what is felt to be a Christian heritage and world. For example, the pope thinks Russia should be Catholic because of the role the Russian Orthodox Church played in the past. Thus the feeling behind the invasion from Europe into the Balkan states will be, “This belongs to us, and it should be Christianized.”
Already we see that Russia is trying to suppress the liberties of Latvians, Lithuanians, etc., and there is a condition of flux. Therefore, if a radical element gets into power in Russia, the situation will be quite different. Remember that Hazael assassinated the king of Syria and occupied the throne in his stead, just as Jehu assassinated Jehoram, the king of Israel, and became king himself. Thus a change of power will take place in Russia, as pictured by Hazael of Syria, and there will also be a change of power in Europe, as pictured by Jehu of Israel. In certain pictures in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, Babylon represents an anti-Christian power, for example, Sheshach in Jeremiah 25:26. The Chaldeans, a fierce people and an alien power, are shown visiting judgments on Jerusalem (a representation of Christendom). The point is that, depending on context, Babylon sometimes pictures Christendom and sometimes the radical element. And in certain books of the Bible, the king of Syria takes the place of the radical king-of-Babylon element.
A lot of information is being presented, but the point is that Jehu’s change of heart took place when he was a captain of the forces of King Jehoram, who invaded Ramoth-gilead to try to liberate and restore the land to Israel. Jehu was anointed in that situation, so he came from Ramoth-gilead and replaced Jehoram. In the antitype, the Jehu element will come from the Balkans into Europe and displace the Papacy and Catholicism entirely. As we proceed in the verse-by-verse consideration of 2 Kings 9 and 10, we will see how amazingly complete the Jehu picture is.
We think all this information has been providentially hidden because of the multiplicity of detail, the confusion of the characters with duplicate names, and the repetition with Ramothgilead.
We believe that the suggested equation is reasonable from a scriptural standpoint. Elisha was the last of the three to be anointed and do a slaying work. In the higher spiritualized picture of this whole drama, Elisha represents the Ancient Worthies in the Kingdom Age. As “princes” in all the earth, they will be teachers of mankind from a natural, or human, standpoint because the Church will be divine beings like Jesus (Psa. 45:16). The Law will go forth from Zion, the spiritual phase of the Kingdom, but the word of the Lord, the instruction,
will be down here, going forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3). Many nominal Christians are in the grave, having died all down the Gospel Age. When resurrected, they will still be nominal Christians with confused thinking. (As a tree falls, so shall it lie—Eccl. 11:3.) Therefore, when they come forth from the grave, they will need to be “slain” as far as their former beliefs are concerned. Elisha, the Ancient Worthies, will provide the necessary instruction. The final result is that there will be no more false, pseudo, or imitation Christians; no tares will be left at all.
The slaying work of Hazael in 2 Kings 8 will take place in the antitypical Ramoth-gilead, whereas the slaying work of Jehu in 2 Kings 9 and 10 will occur in Europe proper. The end of chapter 10 tells that later Hazael will go down and cause problems “in all the coasts of Israel,” so that Israel will be cut short, or shrunken. “In those days the LORD began to cut Israel short: and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel” (2 Kings 10:32). We believe this verse refers to Jacob’s Trouble, although details are not given.
The lying spirits of Revelation 16:13,14 apply to this picture, in which the Western world will invade the Eastern world to try to get the land of Ramoth-gilead. The invasion will eventually lead to the destruction of both. The fact that Hazael will do the first slaying suggests time. The despoliation of the Christian churches will begin in Eastern Europe and then go into Europe proper. Still later it will go into the United States. Hence the slaying will be progressive. Fi Br. rst, King Jehoram of Israel was slain in Jezreel by Jehu with a bow and arrow. King Ahaziah of Judah made a temporary escape but was slain by Jehu a little later in Megiddo in northern Israel. The details of the account show time progression with regard to the fall of mystic Babylon. The fall will be sudden in each area but progressive, starting in the east and going westward and then on into America. The same situation will occur in this country; that is, a radical element will take over.
Jehu replaced Jehoram as the king of Israel. Initially, the ten tribes, the ten horns, supported Jehoram in the battle in Ramoth-gilead. But when Jehu returned to Israel, he inherited the ten horns and despoiled both Jehoram (Papacy) and Jezebel (Catholicism), and then he continued the destruction right on down the line. Therefore, we believe that the more-detailed Jehu picture is the final one with regard to Christendom.
The suggestions we are making are quite comprehensive, and they appear reasonable to us.
However, we are not dogmatic about them. We believe the details will clarify as time goes on.
1990-1991 Study Br. Frank Shallieu