And he wrought evil in the sight of Jehovah, but not like his father, and like his mother; and he took away the column of Baal that his father had made.
Jehoram became king of Israel after his brother Ahaziah, and the record stops to weigh him. He did evil, but not on the scale of his father and mother, because he pulled down his father's pillar of Baal. So the whole chapter turns on one question — how much is a half-reform worth before God?
The change was real, and it had a cause. One writer traces it back to Elijah's witness, then looks ahead to what God was about to do through Elisha.
Here Jehovah's servant is sought out and pleaded with, but Jehoram was "not like his father." He had his own evil ways, yes. But Elijah's testimony had borne fruit, and here was the proof — "for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made" (2 Kings 3:2). God had a purpose in it. He was bringing Elisha onto the scene of his ministry, and giving a remarkable witness to a power of grace far beyond the sin of the nation.
The statue went, but the system behind it stayed. Two things survived Jehoram's clean-up.
Jehoram, the son of Ahab, in one sense had shown himself less irreligious than his father. He had removed the idol of Baal set up by his father, but he did not destroy Baal's prophets. Elisha's reply in verse 13 points that way. On the outside he gave up this hateful worship. But it bothered him very little to let its spirit stay. What he did not give up at all was the national religion set up by Jeroboam the son of Nebat. That religion hid gross idolatry behind the name of the true God.
The verse gives the verdict first and the concession second. The concession does not cancel the verdict. One writer ties the verdict to what Jehoram kept.
When Ahaziah, one of Ahab's sons, died, his brother Jehoram came to the throne of Israel. He was not as bad as his father and mother, "for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made. Nevertheless he clung to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin" (2 Kings 3:2-3). Because he followed the sins of Jeroboam, the Lord says of Jehoram, "he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD."
Reform is not the same as faith. Jehoram's whole life reads as a man hovering between two positions and landing on neither.
In spiritual matters he seems to have been one of those undecided, in-between men who puzzle most observers. Such men never seem to know themselves where they stand, or where they belong. He put away the Baal statue made by his father Ahab, but never became a real believer in Jehovah. The inspired record of his life leaves one impression: in all matters of faith he was both skeptical and superstitious. God knew him and his ways perfectly, and He had this written of him: "He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD."
War later tested what this reform was made of. One writer weighs Jehoram's show of religion against what came out under pressure.
Jehoram was not the worst of Israel's kings. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, but not like his father and mother (2 Kings 3:2). There was even a show of religion with him. He used the LORD's Name, and wore sackcloth under his clothes. But his heart was never right towards God. So the fiery trial of war only served to bring out the terrible evil of his heart.
Why can a man destroy an idol and be no closer to God? One writer points to what reform cannot reach.
It is always like this when the flesh has a part in reform. The flesh cannot cure its own abandoning of God, which has marked it from the beginning. If it could, it would no longer be the flesh. The natural man may well root out an idol, whether it be wine or any other vice. We see it happen every day. But he only replaces it with the idolatry of self, and throws that self into sharper relief — his own self-righteousness, and his lack of conscience towards God.
The reign is dated to Jehoshaphat's eighteenth year, while 2 Kings 1:17 dates it differently. Knapp explains the two figures:
There is no discrepancy between "the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat" here and "the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat" in 2 Kings 1:17. Jehoshaphat made his son joint-king a number of years before his death, which readily accounts for the seeming contradictions in the passages noted above.
- Half removed. The pillar of Baal came down. Its prophets stayed, and so did Jeroboam's national religion — the act done, its spirit left alive.
- Half explained. The religion he kept wore the true God's name over gross idolatry. So an improved king was still an idolatrous king.
- Half exposed. War and famine tested the reform, and the heart underneath it was never right towards God.
- Half counted. God's own record of him reads "he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD" — a statue removed did not make him a believer.
- Wholly outmatched. Into this half-hearted reign God sent Elisha, showing a power of grace far beyond the sin of the nation.
Only, he clave to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin he did not depart therefrom.
Jehoram took Israel's throne after his brother. Scripture gives him a mixed verdict. He tore down one of his father's idols. He held on to another that was older and better disguised. The verse turns on that "nevertheless" — why does a king who removes Baal still count as one who did evil?
The phrase "the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat" points back generations, to Israel's first king. He feared that shared worship at Jerusalem would pull his people back to the house of David.
The moral fall of the new king — Jeroboam — did not take long. He judged by human wisdom and forgot the fear of the Lord. So he made two golden calves. His aim was to break the strong links of a shared worship, so that they would no longer tie his subjects to Judah and Jerusalem. He had to set up a new priesthood. He devised everything to do with worship out of his own heart. Israel's sin became an established rule, and the phrase, "Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin," became the sad title of their first king.
Jehoram's reform went only so far. The pillar of Baal came down, but he kept the idolatry that looked respectable.
Jehoram, the son of Ahab, in one sense showed himself less irreligious than his father. He had removed the idol of Baal that his father set up. But he did not destroy its prophets, as you can gather from Elisha's reply in verse 13. On the surface he gave up this detestable worship. But it troubled him very little to let its spirit remain. What he did not give up at all was the national religion that Jeroboam the son of Nebat set up. It masked a gross form of idolatry under the appearance of the religion of the true God.
Verse 2 compares him favourably with his parents. Verse 3 takes the comparison back. What he clung to, not what he removed, decided how God summed up his reign.
He was not as bad as his father and mother… Because he followed the sins of Jeroboam, the Lord says of Jehoram, "he did what was evil in the sight of the LORD."
"He did not depart from it" was not blind habit. Every king of Israel had a real reason to keep Jeroboam's system alive.
These kings of Israel followed the same path one after another. They had very strong and obvious reasons for acting this way. In human terms, their authority and their hold on the kingdom were tied to a religion. That religion cut them off from Judah's worship, with its temple and Jerusalem at the centre. To return to the worship of the Lord, they would have had to give up their rule. They would have had to submit to the family of David and give up their own royal privileges. Their thoughts had no connection with the thoughts of God. If they had stayed faithful to the Lord, He would surely have shown them how to keep His worship even without the temple.
Jehoram is not an isolated case. The same wording follows king after king, and the record shows where it led.
What Jeroboam introduced went on dishonouring the Lord until He removed Israel from the land. Eighteen kings sat on Israel's throne after Jeroboam. Of almost every one the record says that he followed, or did not depart from, the ways of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin.
Jehoshaphat of Judah made an alliance with this king. Removing Baal made Jehoram look like an acceptable partner.
Perhaps he fooled himself. Jehoram had taken away the pillar of Baal, so an alliance with him seemed allowed. In fact, this alliance was worse than the first one. It led to an alliance with Edom, which poor Jehoshaphat would hardly have suspected.
One sin dropped, another kept. Writers call this pattern false repentance.
Many think they repent when what troubles them is not the offence but the penalty. Others forsake their sin, but still keep their love for it in their hearts, like the snake that casts off its coat but keeps its sting.
- Root. Jeroboam invented a worship "out of his own heart" to keep his people from Jerusalem. The phrase "who made Israel to sin" became his permanent title.
- Removed. Jehoram did put away Baal. The record says he was not as bad as his father and mother.
- Retained. He kept the calf religion. It hid gross idolatry behind the look of worshipping the true God. The respectable idol was the one he would not surrender.
- Reason. Letting it go meant losing the throne. Going back to the temple worship meant submitting again to the house of David.
- Result. The verdict rested on what he kept, not on what he removed: "evil in the sight of the LORD." The same sin ran on through eighteen kings, until God removed Israel from the land.