Reference

2 Kings 14:25

He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath–hepher.
23

In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years.

24

And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

25

He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath–hepher.

26

For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel.

27

And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

Why This Verse Was Tagged

Literal Fulfillment
Keyword Match
90% relevance

This verse contains specific terms directly associated with this theme.

Agency Representation
Keyword Match
90% relevance

This verse contains specific terms directly associated with this theme.

Counter-Arguments

The strongest case that this verse does not belong in this theme.

Literal Fulfillment

While the verse describes a literal restoration, the "word of the Lord" spoken by Jonah is not explicitly recorded as a detailed prophecy in the book of Jonah, making its "literal fulfillment" an interpretation rather than a direct comparison to a known prophetic text.

Agency Representation

The verse explicitly states that the restoration was "according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah." This phrasing directly attributes the word to God and Jonah as the conduit, which is entirely consistent with agency representation. There is no inherent conflict or alternative interpretation suggested by the text itself that would argue against this understanding of agency. The "strongest argument against" would need to demonstrate that the te