2 Chronicles Chapter 21

Jehoram’s Evil Reign
A. The sins of Jehoram

1. (2 Chronicles 21:1–5) The murder of his brothers

“Now Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel. And their father gave them great gifts of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fenced cities in Judah: but the kingdom gave he to Jehoram; because he was the firstborn. Now when Jehoram was risen up to the kingdom of his father, he strengthened himself, and slew all his brethren with the sword, and divers also of the princes of Israel. Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.”

a. Then Jehoram his son reigned in his place.
Jehoram inherited the throne from Jehoshaphat, one of the most godly kings of Judah. Scripture presents this transition soberly, emphasizing lineage and continuity, yet immediately setting the stage for moral collapse. One of the gravest failures of Jehoshaphat’s reign was his alliance with the house of Ahab, particularly arranging the marriage of Jehoram to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. “And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab: for the daughter of Ahab was his wife: and he did evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Kings 8:18). What appeared politically advantageous proved spiritually catastrophic. A godly father cannot insulate his son from the consequences of sinful alliances.

b. Their father gave them great gifts…with fenced cities.
Jehoshaphat followed a deliberate policy in distributing his sons throughout Judah, providing wealth and fortified cities while preserving the throne for the firstborn. This mirrors the earlier wisdom of Rehoboam. “And he did wisely, and dispersed of all his children throughout all the countries of Judah and Benjamin, unto every fenced city: and he gave them victual in abundance. And he desired many wives” (2 Chronicles 11:23). The intent was preventative, removing rivalry and centralizing authority. Humanly speaking, Jehoshaphat acted prudently, yet wisdom in policy cannot restrain a heart already inclined toward violence.

i. Poole’s observation regarding the phrase “king of Israel” highlights the covenantal identity of the people rather than the divided monarchy. Though Jehoshaphat ruled Judah, his subjects were Israelites by covenant descent. This reinforces the tragedy, for Jehoram was not merely murdering siblings, but covenant brothers within the people of God.

c. He strengthened himself and killed all his brothers with the sword.
Once Jehoram secured power, he immediately revealed his true character. The phrase “strengthened himself” does not denote moral resolve, but ruthless consolidation. He systematically murdered his own brothers and extended the bloodshed to other princes who might threaten his reign. This act was calculated, deliberate, and absolute. It stands as one of the most chilling examples of dynastic paranoia in Judah’s history.

i. Selman correctly notes that Jehoram’s “strength” consisted of removing every rival claimant through violence. Authority gained by bloodshed rarely produces stability, and Scripture consistently portrays such strength as rebellion against God.

ii. The influence of Athaliah cannot be overstated. “And the daughter of Ahab was his wife” (2 Kings 8:18). Josephus records that these murders were carried out at her urging. Athaliah brought Jezebel’s spirit into the Davidic line, merging political ambition with Baal worship and cruelty.

iii. The alliance between Judah and Israel did not elevate Israel spiritually, but instead corrupted Judah morally. This is a recurring biblical principle. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33). Godly compromise never results in spiritual gain.

2. (2 Chronicles 21:6–7) Why God showed mercy to Jehoram

“And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he did evil in the sight of the LORD. Howbeit the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and as he promised to give a light to him and to his sons for ever.”

a. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel.
This phrase is a moral indictment. The northern kingdom had no righteous kings, from Jeroboam onward. To walk in their ways meant institutional idolatry, rejection of the law of the LORD, and moral corruption at every level. Jehoram consciously abandoned the heritage of David and aligned himself with the apostasy of Ahab’s house.

i. Clarke rightly emphasizes Athaliah’s role as a driving force behind Jehoram’s cruelty and profaneness. Jezebel’s legacy did not die with her, it metastasized through her daughter into Judah itself.

ii. Jehoshaphat’s sin of compromise bore its worst fruit after his death. Scripture warns that delayed consequences are still consequences. “His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins” (Proverbs 5:22).

b. Yet the LORD would not destroy the house of David.
Jehoram’s wickedness merited total judgment. Nevertheless, God restrained His hand, not because of Jehoram’s character, but because of His covenant faithfulness. The Davidic Covenant governed God’s actions. “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant” (Psalm 89:3). Divine mercy here is covenantal, not sentimental.

i. The “lamp” promised to David represents the continuity of the Davidic line, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ. “There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed” (Psalm 132:17). Even in the darkest reigns, God preserved the line through which the Messiah would come.

ii. Though initially given as a promise, Scripture later explicitly identifies God’s word to David as a covenant. “Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure” (2 Samuel 23:5). God’s faithfulness to His covenant does not excuse sin, but it does guarantee redemptive continuity.

B. The consequences of his sin

1. (2 Chronicles 21:8–11) Jehoram’s sinful compromise and the revolt of Edom and Libnah

“In his days the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Judah, and made themselves a king. Then Jehoram went forth with his princes, and all his chariots with him: and he rose up by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him in, and the captains of the chariots. So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. The same time also did Libnah revolt from under his hand; because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers. Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto.”

a. In his days the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Judah.
Edom had long been subjected to Judah, dating back to the reign of David. “And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David’s servants” (2 Samuel 8:14). This subjugation continued, with interruptions, through Solomon and into the later kings of Judah. Under Jehoram, however, Edom sensed political and spiritual weakness. The revolt was not accidental or sudden, it was opportunistic. When Judah forsook the LORD, the surrounding nations no longer feared Judah’s strength.

i. Libnah’s revolt is particularly striking because it was a Levitical city. “And out of the tribe of Judah, Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, with her suburbs, and Libnah with her suburbs” (Joshua 21:11–13). A Levitical city rebelling against the Davidic king highlights the depth of Jehoram’s apostasy and the moral fracture within the nation.

ii. Meyer’s observation stands firm, obedience to God produces authority, and rebellion against God dissolves it. Scripture consistently teaches that submission to God is the foundation of legitimate rule. “When a man’s ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7). Jehoram forfeited that blessing.

iii. This principle extends beyond national leadership. Authority in the home, in the church, and in government is sustained only when it is exercised under God’s authority. When submission to God is abandoned, disorder inevitably follows. Jehoram’s loss of Edom and Libnah was not merely political failure, it was spiritual judgment.

b. He rose up by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him in.
Jehoram attempted a military response to the revolt, leading a night attack against the Edomite forces. The language suggests a desperate maneuver rather than decisive victory. Scripture records no lasting success from this campaign, and the continuing independence of Edom proves the effort failed to restore Judah’s authority. Military action without divine favor only delays, but never reverses, decline.

c. So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day.
This enduring loss of control stands as a historical marker of Jehoram’s weakness. He believed that alliance with the house of Ahab would strengthen Judah politically and militarily. Instead, it severed Judah’s dependence upon God and resulted in long term territorial loss. “Because thou hast forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken thee” (2 Chronicles 15:2). The text itself explicitly identifies the root cause, because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers.

d. Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah.
This represents a direct reversal of the reforms instituted by Asa and Jehoshaphat. “And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God: for he took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places” (2 Chronicles 14:2–3). Jehoram did not merely tolerate the high places, he actively constructed them, institutionalizing idolatry throughout Judah.

i. Jehoram is the first king of Judah explicitly credited with building high places. This indicates deliberate policy rather than passive neglect. The probable inclusion of Baal worship in Jerusalem itself shows how deeply the influence of Athaliah and the house of Ahab had penetrated the Davidic kingdom.

e. And caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication.
Scripture uses sexual language to describe idolatry because of both its literal and covenantal dimensions. Pagan worship often included sexual immorality as part of ritual practice. More importantly, Israel stood in covenant relationship with the LORD, akin to a marriage bond. “Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD” (Jeremiah 3:20). Jehoram compelled Judah into spiritual adultery, making national apostasy official policy.

2. (2 Chronicles 21:12–15) Elijah’s letter of rebuke to Jehoram

“And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah, but hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father’s house, which were better than thyself: behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: and thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.”

a. And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet.
Though Elijah’s primary ministry targeted the northern kingdom, God extended his prophetic authority to Judah in this extraordinary manner. The letter itself underscores divine certainty. Even if Elijah had already been taken up, the message carried the weight of prophetic judgment, a sentence written in advance and delivered at the appointed time.

i. Poole’s explanation rightly rejects confusion with Elisha. The prophecy was written under divine inspiration, foreseeing Jehoram’s reign and actions. God’s judgment was not reactive, it was foreknown.

ii. Payne’s observation adds gravity, the rebuke came with the force of a voice from the dead, underscoring that Jehoram stood condemned not merely by contemporary opinion, but by the unchanging word of God.

b. Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah.
Jehoram’s guilt was magnified by his heritage. He had godly examples before him and deliberately rejected them. Scripture repeatedly teaches that greater light brings greater accountability. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17).

c. Which were better than thyself.
God Himself testifies that the brothers Jehoram murdered were more righteous and more fit to rule than he was. This divine assessment strips Jehoram of any claim to legitimacy based on strength, birthright, or political maneuvering. Authority divorced from character is condemned by God.

d. Thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels.
The judgment pronounced is severe, personal, and prolonged. Jehoram’s inward corruption would be mirrored by physical decay. Scripture often aligns physical judgment with moral reality. “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23). This was not a sudden death, but a lingering affliction, emphasizing the seriousness of covenant rebellion.

3. (2 Chronicles 21:16–17) Further troubles of the reign of Jehoram

“Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians: And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.”

a. Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians.
The text explicitly states that this invasion was not merely geopolitical, but divinely initiated. The LORD Himself stirred up these hostile nations against Jehoram. This confirms that the troubles of Jehoram’s reign were not random misfortunes, but covenant judgments. God used long standing enemies of Judah as instruments of discipline. The Philistines had plagued Israel since the days of the Judges, and the Arabians were frequent raiders from the south. Their unity against Judah highlights how thoroughly Jehoram had forfeited divine protection.

b. And they came up into Judah, and brake into it.
This invasion was successful and humiliating. The phrase “brake into it” suggests a forceful breach, likely overwhelming Judah’s defenses. Jehoram’s reign, which began with internal bloodshed, now suffered external devastation. The same king who murdered his brothers to secure power could not protect his own borders. Political authority without God’s favor is hollow.

c. And carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house.
Jehoram’s wealth, security, and royal prestige were stripped away. Earlier, Jehoshaphat had distributed wealth wisely to his sons. Now Jehoram’s own household was plundered. Scripture consistently teaches that unjust gain and corrupt leadership invite loss rather than preservation. “He that trusteth in his riches shall fall” (Proverbs 11:28).

d. And his sons also, and his wives.
This judgment cut to the deepest level of personal loss. The royal family was carried away, likely into captivity or death. The man who slaughtered his brothers now experienced the removal of his own household. Divine justice here is measured and fitting.

i. Payne’s observation is precise. Jehoram’s sin set the pattern for his punishment. The violence he inflicted returned upon his own house. “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Hosea 8:7).

e. So that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.
Only one son remained, preserving the Davidic line solely by God’s covenant faithfulness. Jehoram’s attempt to secure dynastic control through murder ended with near extinction of his own lineage. God preserved the line, but stripped Jehoram of every illusion of control.

4. (2 Chronicles 21:18–20) Jehoram’s gruesome end

“And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.”

a. And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease.
The judgment promised through Elijah was now fulfilled precisely. The disease is described as incurable, prolonged, and agonizing. Jehoram’s inward moral corruption was mirrored in physical decay. Scripture frequently links inward sin with outward judgment, not symbolically, but judicially.

i. Clarke’s description emphasizes the severity and shame of the affliction. This was not a quiet or dignified death, but one marked by suffering and humiliation.

ii. Trapp’s remark is sobering. Two years of intense suffering allowed time for reflection and repentance. Scripture gives no indication that Jehoram humbled himself. The judgment thus stands as both corrective and condemnatory.

iii. Selman’s note reminds us that the exact chronology may be debated, yet the outcome is unquestionable. The death was painful, disgraceful, and divinely ordained.

b. So he died of sore diseases.
Jehoram’s end stands in sharp contrast to godly kings who “slept with their fathers.” His death is described in terms of torment rather than rest. The text offers no praise, no legacy, no honor.

c. And his people made no burning for him.
Royal funerals traditionally included ceremonial burnings of spices as a mark of honor. “And they buried him in the city of David, and burnt spices and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art: and made a very great burning for him” (2 Chronicles 16:14). Jehoram was denied this honor. His people did not mourn him, revealing how thoroughly he had alienated the nation.

d. And departed without being desired.
This is one of the most damning summaries of any king in Scripture. His death was not lamented. No one grieved his passing. A life spent corrupting and oppressing produced no affection, no loyalty, and no honor at the end.

i. Trapp’s words capture the moral reality, his life was wicked, and his death was welcomed.

ii. Clarke rightly notes that no annalist celebrated his reign. His memory was not preserved because it was not worth preserving.

iii. Morgan’s reflection exposes a timeless truth. Evil leaders may gather followers, but never genuine love. Only goodness inspires lasting loyalty. Jehoram commanded fear and compliance, but never respect.

e. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.
Jehoram was buried in Jerusalem, but excluded from the royal tombs. This final indignity underscores his disqualification as a true son of David in character, though not in lineage. Covenant preserved the throne, but righteousness alone earns honor.