Commentary - 2 Kings 6:24-31

Bird's-eye view

This harrowing account from 2 Kings is far more than a historical anecdote about the brutalities of ancient warfare. It is a graphic, real-time display of the covenant curses of God being poured out upon His unfaithful people. The siege of Samaria by the Arameans is merely the historical instrument; the true besieger is Yahweh Himself, bringing to bear the very judgments He promised in Deuteronomy 28. The passage systematically strips away every layer of human self-sufficiency, reducing the capital city of the northern kingdom to starvation, economic collapse, and the ultimate horror of cannibalism. The king of Israel, the civil authority meant to be God's minister for good, is revealed as utterly impotent. His response to the crisis is a textbook case of the unrepentant heart: a flash of despairing piety, followed immediately by murderous, misdirected rage against God's faithful prophet, Elisha. This is what it looks like when a nation under God's judgment refuses to repent and instead decides to shoot the messenger.

The story serves as a stark illustration of the depths of depravity to which men will sink when they forsake God and are left to the consequences. The covenant is not a list of suggestions; it is a binding reality with blessings for obedience and curses for rebellion. What we witness here is the raw, unfiltered reality of the curse. It is a terrifying picture, and it is meant to be. It is meant to drive us to the one who became a curse for us, breaking the ultimate siege of sin and death and delivering us from a famine far worse than the one described here.

Outline

Context In 2 Kings

This passage occurs within the Elisha cycle, a series of narratives demonstrating Yahweh's power through His prophet in the midst of Israel's pervasive apostasy. Just prior to this, in the first part of chapter 6, Elisha has been demonstrating God's supernatural protection over Israel, revealing the Aramean army's movements to the king and miraculously striking an entire Aramean raiding party with blindness. He even showed mercy to these enemies, feeding them and sending them home. This makes the sudden turn of events here all the more striking. Despite God's manifest power and mercy shown through Elisha, the king and the nation have clearly not returned to Him in faithfulness. Therefore, God ratchets up the pressure. The conflict with Aram, which God had previously neutralized through His prophet, is now unleashed as a full-blown instrument of judgment. This siege is not a sign of God's absence, but of His active, judicial presence against a rebellious people.

Key Issues

The Economics of the Curse

One of the most striking features of this text is the economic report in verse 25. A donkey's head sold for eighty shekels of silver, and a small amount of "dove's dung" for five. A donkey was an unclean animal, and its head was the least desirable part. The "dove's dung" was likely a colloquial name for a cheap type of grain or bean, but the name itself signifies worthlessness. The prices are astronomical. This is hyperinflation driven by absolute scarcity. But it is more than just an economic crisis; it is a theological statement. God had promised Israel that if they obeyed, their "threshing floors and wine presses will be full" (Deut. 28:8). Conversely, if they disobeyed, He would send "cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do" (Deut. 28:20). The curse of God has tangible, economic consequences. When a society abandons God's law, it does not drift into a secular utopia; it spirals into chaos, and that chaos will always show up in the marketplace. The absurd price of garbage is a clear sign that God has brought the formal sanctions of His covenant down upon the people of Samaria.

Verse by Verse Commentary

24 Now it happened afterwards, that Ben-hadad king of Aram gathered all his military camp and went up and besieged Samaria.

The narrative resumes with a blunt statement of the historical reality. Ben-hadad, the enemy king, marshals his entire force to lay siege to Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom. In the ancient world, a siege was a slow, grinding method of warfare designed to starve a fortified city into submission. The enemy surrounds the city, cutting off all supply lines, and simply waits. This action by Ben-hadad is the secondary cause, the human instrument. The primary cause, as the subsequent verses make clear, is the judgment of God.

25 Now there was a great famine in Samaria. And behold, they besieged it, until a donkey’s head was sold for eighty shekels of silver, and a fourth of a kab of dove’s dung for five shekels of silver.

The direct result of the siege is a "great famine." The author wants us to see the extremity of the situation. The market prices are given as evidence. A donkey's head, a ritually unclean and nearly worthless piece of meat, is sold for a fortune. Eighty shekels was an exorbitant sum, perhaps years of wages for a common laborer. Even more, a tiny portion of something called "dove's dung" costs five shekels. Whatever this substance was, its name communicates its utter worthlessness. This is a picture of total societal breakdown. The economy is in shambles because the foundation of all true prosperity, which is God's blessing, has been removed. This is a direct echo of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:52, where God warns that an enemy will besiege them in all their gates "until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down."

26-27 As the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried out to him, saying, “Save, my lord, O king!” He said, “If Yahweh does not save you, from where shall I save you? From the threshing floor, or from the wine press?”

The king is inspecting the defenses on the city wall when a desperate woman cries out to him. Her plea is simple: "Save!" This is the proper role of the king, to bring salvation or deliverance to his people. But his response is one of cynical despair. He says, in effect, "If God won't help you, how can I?" He is theologically correct in one sense; true salvation comes from Yahweh alone. But his tone is not one of pious submission; it is one of blame-shifting. He points to the empty threshing floors and wine presses, the very symbols of God's covenant blessing, which are now symbols of His curse. The king sees the problem, he even identifies the divine source of the problem, but he takes no responsibility. He is a leader who has abdicated his duty to lead the people in repentance.

28-29 And the king said to her, “What is the matter with you?” And she said, “This woman said to me, ‘Give your son that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ So we boiled my son and ate him; and I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him’; but she has hidden her son.”

The king asks for the specifics, and the story that unfolds is the absolute nadir of human degradation. The woman recounts a pact of cannibalism made with her neighbor. The agreement was horrific enough, but the dispute is over a breach of contract. The woman telling the story honored the deal; she gave up her son, who was then boiled and eaten. But when it was the other woman's turn, she reneged and hid her son. This is not just a story of starvation. It is a story of the complete collapse of natural affection, law, and basic humanity. And it is the most terrifyingly specific fulfillment of the covenant curse in Deuteronomy 28:56-57, which describes a tender woman who will become so evil during a siege that she will secretly eat her own children. Israel's sin has brought them to this precise point.

30 Now it happened that when the king heard the words of the woman, he tore his clothes, now he was passing by on the wall, and the people looked, and behold, he had sackcloth beneath on his body.

The king's immediate reaction to this horror is to tear his royal robes, a public sign of grief and anguish. The narrator then adds a detail: as he passed by, the people could see that underneath his robes, he was already wearing sackcloth against his skin. Sackcloth was the traditional garment of mourning and repentance. So, on the surface, this looks like a pious king, privately grieving over the state of his nation. He has the external trappings of repentance. But the next verse will reveal the true state of his heart.

31 Then he said, “May God do so to me and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat remains on him today.”

The king's grief curdles instantly into murderous rage. He makes a solemn oath, calling a curse upon himself, and vows to execute Elisha that very day. This reveals everything. His sackcloth was a sham. His repentance was fake. In the face of God's explicit, covenantal judgment, a judgment so severe it has led to mothers eating their children, the king's conclusion is not "We must repent." It is "We must kill God's prophet." Why Elisha? Because Elisha is Yahweh's representative. The king is furious with God for the famine, but he cannot get his hands on God. So he does the next best thing and targets God's spokesman. This is the ultimate act of a hardened, rebellious heart. He blames the doctor for the disease. It is a classic case of shooting the messenger because you hate the message.

Application

This passage should serve as a terrifying warning against trifling with God. The covenant curses are not ancient history; the principle remains that rebellion against God leads to destruction. When a society, a family, or an individual turns from God's law, they are not stepping into freedom, but into a siege. The supply lines of grace are cut off, and a spiritual famine begins. This famine leads to spiritual cannibalism, where people begin to devour one another through bitterness, gossip, exploitation, and hatred.

We must also examine our own reactions when we are under God's fatherly discipline. When things go wrong, when we face hardship, what is our first response? Is it to tear our clothes and put on the sackcloth of true repentance? Or is it to wear the sackcloth for show, while our hearts are secretly looking for a scapegoat to blame? It is easy to blame the pastor, the government, your spouse, or anyone else. The king of Israel blamed Elisha. This is the way of Cain. The way of Christ is to say, "I have sinned."

Finally, this story of ultimate human helplessness should drive us to the cross. The king on the wall could not save. Our governments cannot save. Our own efforts cannot save. We are all in the besieged city of Samaria, starving and without hope, under the just condemnation of God. But God sent a true King, the Lord Jesus, who did not stay on the wall but came down into our filth and death. He is the Bread of Life, given for the life of the world. He breaks the siege of sin and death, not by killing a prophet, but by becoming the final sacrifice Himself, absorbing the full fury of the covenant curse so that we might receive the full abundance of the covenant blessing.