IORAM. – King of Israel (853–842 B.C.), son of Achab, succeeded his brother Ochozia, who died after reigning for a few months, and was the last king of the dynasty of Amri (Omri). In religious matters he followed the Ieroboam I (v.), but unlike his father Achab, who had openly opposed the worship of Jahweh and given free rein to idolatry, I. partially restored Yahwism, destroying the stele (maṣṣābḥāh) of Baal that his father had erected (II Reg. 3, 2–3, cf. I Reg. 16, 32): a success to be attributed to the activity of the prophets Elia and Eliseo. Iosaphat (v.), king of Judah, and had him at his side in the expedition against Mesa, king of the Moabites, which was the most notable event of his reign.
Of this campaign, in addition to the detailed biblical account (II Reg. 3, 4–27), there is corroboration in the celebrated stele of Mesa, discovered at Dībān in 1868 and preserved in the Louvre Museum in Paris (for the text cf. H. Gressmann, Altorient. Texte, Leipzig 1926, p. 440 ff.; M.-J. Lagrange, in Rev. bibl., 10 [1901], pp. 523–25). The Moabites had been subjugated by King Amri (886–875 B.C.), who occupied the region of Medaba and imposed tribute (stele, lines 5–8). Control over Moab was strengthened under King Achab; and although already in the final years of this king the Moabites had attempted to shake off the yoke, the actual revolt (according to the clear information of I Reg. 1, 1; 3, 5) took place after Achab’s death, during the short-lived reign of Ochozia. I., who succeeded his brother after a few months, found himself having to confront it as soon as he had ascended the throne. He therefore set out together with the king of Judah, Iosaphat, and the king of Edom, still subject to Judah, to attack the Moabites from the south. The long and exhausting march through the desert very nearly ended in disaster because of the lack of water; but, after several pits had been dug at the command of the prophet Eliseo, they miraculously filled with water, and the army was able to proceed. The three allies victoriously withstood a first attack by the Moabites, penetrated deeply into enemy territory, and laid siege to the capital, Qīr-Ḥāreseth (modern
Kerak), or “city of terracotta” (Vulg.: “muri fictiles”). The siege was rigorous: King Mesa made desperate attempts to break it; but, unable to force a passage, he thought to propitiate the god Chamos by sacrificing to him his firstborn son and heir upon the city wall. After this event, “a great wrath broke out against the Israelites, who withdrew from him and returned to their own land” (II Reg. 3, 27). From these words it may be inferred that the undertaking, begun so successfully, ended in failure for the Israelites. It was not that Jahweh inflicted punishment on the Israelites because of the cruel sacrifice offered by Mesa to his idol, still less that the “wrath” was unleashed by the idol invoked. They were defeated by the Moabites, whom the sight of the terrible sacrifice had imbued with the courage of despair (G. Ricciotti, [V. BIBLICA.], I, p. 408). The success is magnified by King Mesa in his inscription, in which, however, the unpleasant part is passed over in silence; this is supplied by II Reg. 3, 18–25.
A large part of Eliseo’s prophetic activity belongs to the years of I. (II Reg. 2–9). Under the same king occurred the terrible siege of Samaria by the Syrians commanded by Benadad II: the famine was appalling and gave rise to terrifying scenes (cf. II Reg. 6, 24–33). But one night, suddenly, in accordance with Eliseo’s prediction, the Syrians lifted the siege and fled. On the whole, relations with the Aramaean kings were characterized by alternating friendship and hostility. After Hazel had usurped the throne of Damascus and killed Benadad, I. attempted to recapture the city of Ramoth in Galaad; but during the operations he was wounded and withdrew to Iezrael to recover (II Reg. 9, 14 ff.). There, Iehu (v.), he was killed (II Reg. 9, 21). The dynasty of Amri had ruled in Israel for approximately 45 years (886–842).
Under his reign, the Edomites, who had been subjugated by King David (cf. II Sam. 13-14), rebelled against the sovereignty of Judah, undoubtedly encouraged by the example of the Moabites, who shortly before had revolted against the Israelite king of the same name, Ioram (v.). In the unsuccessful attempt to quell the revolt, I. barely escaped the enemy encirclement; thus, from that time, the Idumeans permanently secured their autonomy under their own king (II Reg. 8, 20-22). The Philistines and the Arab tribes as well, which had submitted to Iosaphat, rebelled against I. and plundered the country; indeed, they raided as far as Jerusalem, sacked the royal palace, and deported the members of the royal family themselves (II Par. 21, 16 ff.). It was a true catastrophe, a just punishment from heaven for the degenerate king of Judah. I. died at the age of forty, after a long and shameful illness foretold Elia (v.), and did not even receive the honour of burial in the royal tombs (II Par. 21, 12-20).