Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 20:1
And Ben-hadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and [there were] thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it.
Ch. 1Ki 20:1-12. Ben-hadad king of Syria besieges Samaria. His messages to Ahab (Not in Chronicles)
1. In the LXX. Chapters 20. and 21. are transposed, apparently with a view of bringing the history in which Elijah plays a part into closer connexion. Josephus also adopts the same order of events in his history. See Ant. viii. 13. 8 and viii. 14. i.
Ben-hadad the king of Syria ] See above on 1Ki 15:18. The LXX. always translates the first syllable of this name, writing . There is nothing to help us to conclude with certainty whether the Ben-hadad of this verse was the same who made a treaty with Asa king of Judah against Baasha king of Israel. Between the death of Baasha and the beginning of Ahab’s reign was only about 14 years, so that it is not impossible that he may be the same Ben-hadad mentioned before, but perhaps the probability is in favour of his being a son or grandson with the same name.
gathered all his host together ] The LXX. adds here ‘and went up and besieged Samaria,’ and repeats nearly the same words in the next verse.
thirty and two kings with him ] These would be princes from the different provinces of Aram (Syria) over whom Ben-hadad at Damascus would be lord superior. They would probably include princes from among the Hittites and Hamathites, who dwelt near at hand and who would be in alliance or perhaps tributaries.
and horses ] The LXX. gives ‘all his cavalry.’
besieged Samaria ] Josephus says that Ahab did not feel equal to meeting his powerful adversary in the field and so shut up himself, and all that he could collect, in the strongest fortresses in the land, himself continuing in Samaria as the best defended.
and warred (R.V. fought) against it ] The change of rendering is made because the verb is nearly always translated ‘fight’ elsewhere. It is so rendered in 1Ki 20:23; 1Ki 20:25 of this chapter.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ben-hadad, the king of Syria – Probably the son of the Ben-hadad who assisted Asa against Baasha (1Ki 15:18 note).
Thirty and two kings with him – Not allies, but feudatories 1Ki 20:24. Damascus had in the reign of this Ben-hadad become the center of an important monarchy, which may not improbably have extended from the Euphrates to the northern border of Israel. The Assyrian inscriptions show that this country was about the period in question parcelled out into a multitude of petty kingdoms, the chief tribes who possessed it being the Hittites, the Hamathites, and the Syrians of Damascus.
Horses and chariots – The Assyrian inscriptions show us how very important an arm of the service the chariot force was reckoned by the Syrians. A king, who has been identified with this Ben-hadad, brought into the field against Assyria nearly four thousand chariots.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XX
Ben-hadad, king of Syria, and thirty-two kings, besiege
Samaria, 1.
He sends an insulting message to Ahab; and insists on pillaging
the whole city, 2-7.
The elders of Israel counsel the king not to submit to such
shameful conditions, 8.
He sends a refusal to Ben-hadad; who, being enraged, vows
revenge, 9-12.
A prophet comes to Ahab, and promises him victory, and gives him
directions how he should order the battle, 13-19.
The Syrians are discomfited, and Ben-hadad scarcely escapes,
20, 21.
The prophet warns Ahab to be on his guard, for the Syrians would
return next year, 22.
The counsellors of the king of Syria instruct him how he may
successfully invade Israel, 23-25.
He leads an immense army to Aphek, to fight with Ahab, 26, 27.
A man of God encourages Ahab, who attacks the Syrians, and kills
one hundred thousand of them, 28, 29.
They retreat to Aphek, where twenty-seven thousand of them are
slain by a casualty, 30.
Ben-hadad and his courtiers, being closely besieged in Aphek,
and unable to escape, surrender themselves with sackcloth on
their loins, and halters on their heads; the king of Israel
receives them in a friendly manner, and makes a covenant with
Ben-hadad, 31-34.
A prophet, by a symbolical action, shows him the impolicy of his
conduct in permitting Ben-hadad to escape, and predicts his
death and the slaughter of Israel, 35-43.
NOTES ON CHAP. XX
Verse 1. Ben-hadad] Several MSS., and some early printed editions, have Ben-hadar, or the son of Hadar, as the Septuagint. He is supposed to be the same whom Asa stirred up against the king of Israel, 1Kg 15:18; or, as others, his son or grandson.
Thirty and two kings] Tributary chieftains of Syria and the adjacent countries. In former times every town and city had its independent chieftain. Both the Septuagint and Josephus place this war after the history of Naboth.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Ben-hadad; called Adad by Josephus, and Ader by the LXX., and Adores by Justin; such changes of names being usual in their translations into other languages, and by other authors.
Gathered all his host together, to war against Israel; wherein his design was to amplify the conquests which his father had made, 1Ki 15:20, but Gods design was to punish Israel for their apostacy and idolatry. Thirty and two kings; petty kings, such as were in Canaan in Joshuas time, who indeed were no more than governors of cities or small territories. These were either subject or tributary to Ben-hadad, or hired by him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Ben-hadad the king of SyriaThismonarch was the son of that Ben-hadad who, in the reign of Baasha,made a raid on the northern towns of Galilee (1Ki15:20). The thirty-two kings that were confederate with him wereprobably tributary princes. The ancient kings of Syria andPhoelignicia ruled only over a single city, and were independent ofeach other, except when one great city, as Damascus, acquired theascendency, and even then they were allied only in time of war. TheSyrian army encamped at the gates and besieged the town of Samaria.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together,…. This was Benhadad the second, the son of that Benhadad, to whom Asa sent to help him against Baasha, 1Ki 15:18
and there were thirty and two kings with him; these were heads of families, so called, and at most governors of cities under Benhadad; petty princes, such as were in the land of Canaan in Joshua’s time:
and horses and chariots; how many is not said:
and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it; he went up with such an intent, but had not as yet done it in form; what moved him to it cannot be said precisely, whether an ambitious view of enlarging his dominions, or because the king of Israel paid not the tribute his father had imposed upon him, see 1Ki 20:34, however, so it was, through the providence of God, as a scourge to Ahab for his impiety.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The First Victory. – 1Ki 20:1. Benhadad, the son of that Benhadad who had conquered several cities of Galilee in the reign of Baasha (1Ki 15:20), came up with a great army – there were thirty-two kings with him, with horses and chariots – and besieged Samaria. The thirty-two kings with him ( ) were vassals of Benhadad, rulers of different cities and the territory belonging to them, just as in Joshua’s time almost every city of Canaan had its king; they were therefore bound to follow the army of Benhadad with their troops.
1Ki 20:2-7 During the siege Benhadad sent messengers into the city to Ahab with this demand: “Thy silver and thy gold are mine, and the best of thy wives and thy sons are mine;” and Ahab answered with pusillanimity: “According to thy word, my lord king, I and all that is mine are thine.” Benhadad was made still more audacious by this submissiveness, and sent messengers the second time with the following notice (1Ki 20:6): “Yea, if I send my servants to thee to-morrow at this time, and they search thy house and thy servants’ houses, all that is the pleasure of thine eyes they will put into their hands and take.” does not mean “only = certainly” here (Ewald, 356, b.), for there is neither a negative clause nor an oath, but signifies if and introduces the statement, as in 1Ki 20:5; so that it is only in the repetition of the that the emphasis lies, which can be expressed by yea. The words of Ahab in 1Ki 20:9 show unquestionably that Benhadad demanded more the second time than the first. The words of the first demand, “Thy silver and thy gold,” etc., were ambiguous. According to 1Ki 20:5, Benhadad meant that Ahab should give him all this; and Ahab had probably understood him as meaning that he was to give him what he required, in order to purchase peace; but Benhadad had, no doubt, from the very first required an unconditional surrender at discretion. He expresses this very clearly in the second demand, since he announces to Ahab the plunder of his palace and also of the palaces of his nobles. , all thy costly treasures. It was from this second demand that Ahab first perceived what Benhadad’s intention had been; he therefore laid the matter before the elders of the land, i.e., the king’s counsellors, 1Ki 20:7: “Mark and see that this man seeketh evil,” i.e., that he is aiming at our ruin, since he is not contented with the first demand, which I did not refuse him.
1Ki 20:8-9 The elders and all the people, i.e., the citizens of Samaria. advised that his demand should not be granted. , “hearken not (to him), and thou wilt not be willing” ( is stronger than ; yet compare Ewald, 350, a.); whereupon Ahab sent the messengers away with this answer, that he would submit to the first demand, but that the second he could not grant.
1Ki 20:10 Benhadad then attempted to overawe the weak-minded Ahab by strong threats, sending fresh messengers to threaten him with the destruction of the city, and confirming it by a solemn oath: “The gods do so to me – if the dust of Samaria should suffice for the hollow hands of all the people that are in my train.” The meaning of this threat was probably that he would reduce the city to ashes, so that scarcely a handful of dust should be left; for his army was so powerful and numerous, that the rubbish of the city would not suffice for every one to fill his hand.
1Ki 20:11 Ahab answered this loud boasting with the proverb: “Let not him that girdeth himself boast as he that looseneth the girdle,” equivalent to the Latin, ne triumphum canas ante victoriam .
1Ki 20:12 After this reply of Ahab, Benhadad gave command to attack the city, while he was drinking with his kings in the booths. are booths made of branches, twigs, and shrubs, such as are still erected in the East for kings and generals in the place of tents (vid., Rosenmller, A. u. N. Morgenl. iii. pp. 198-9). : take your places against the city, sc. to storm it (for in the sense of arranging the army for battle, see 1Sa 11:11 and Job 1:17); not (lxx), or place the siege train.
1Ki 20:13-14 While the Syrians were preparing for the attack, a prophet came to Ahab and told him that Jehovah would deliver this great multitude (of the enemy) into his hand that day, “that thou mayest know that I am Jehovah,” and that through the retainers of the governors of the provinces ( , who had fled to Samaria), i.e., by a small and weak host. In the appearance of the prophet in Samaria mentioned here and in 1Ki 20:28, 1Ki 20:35. there is no such irreconcilable contradiction to 1Ki 18:4, 1Ki 18:22, and 1Ki 19:10, as Thenius maintains; it simply shows that the persecution of the prophets by Jezebel had somewhat abated, and therefore Elijah’s labour had not remained without fruit. , who shall open the battle? answers to the German anfdeln (to string, unite; Eng. join battle – Tr.); cf. 2Ch 13:3.
1Ki 20:15-16 Ahab then mustered his fighting men: there were 232 servants of the provincial governors; and the rest of the people, all the children of Israel, i.e., the whole of the Israelitish fighting men that were in Samaria ( , 1Ki 20:19), amounted to 7000 men. And at noon, when Benhadad and his thirty-two auxiliary kings were intoxicated at a carousal in the booths ( as in 1Ki 16:9), he ordered his men to advance, with the servants of the provincial governors taking the lead. The 7000 men are not to be regarded as the 7000 mentioned in 1Ki 19:18, who had not bowed their knee before Baal, as Rashi supposes, although the sameness in the numbers is apparently not accidental; but in both cases the number of the covenant people existing in Israel is indicated, though in 1Ki 19:18 and 7000 constitute the of the true Israel, whereas in the verse before us they are merely the fighting men whom the Lord had left to Ahab for the defence of his kingdom.
1Ki 20:17-18 When Benhadad was informed of the advance of these fighting men, in his drunken arrogance he ordered them to be taken alive, whether they came with peaceable or hostile intent.
1Ki 20:19-21 But they – the servants of the governors at the head, and the rest of the army behind – smote every one his man, so that the Aramaeans fled, and Benhadad, pursued by the Israelites, escaped on a horse with some of the cavalry. is in apposition to , “he escaped, and horsemen,” sc. escaped with him, i.e., some of the horsemen of his retinue, whilst the king of Israel, going out of the city, smote horses and chariots of the enemy, who were not prepared for this sally of the besieged, and completely defeated them.
1Ki 20:22 After this victory the prophet came to Ahab again, warning him to be upon his guard, for at the turn of the year, i.e., the next spring (see at 2Sa 11:1), the Syrian king would make war upon him once more.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Ben-hadad’s Insolent Demand. | B. C. 900. |
1 And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. 2 And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Benhadad, 3 Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine. 4 And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have. 5 And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Benhadad, saying, Although I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children; 6 Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away. 7 Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeketh mischief: for he sent unto me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold; and I denied him not. 8 And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Hearken not unto him, nor consent. 9 Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Benhadad, Tell my lord the king, All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first I will do: but this thing I may not do. And the messengers departed, and brought him word again. 10 And Benhadad sent unto him, and said, The gods do so unto me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me. 11 And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.
Here is, I. The threatening descent which Ben-hadad made upon Ahab’s kingdom, and the siege he laid to Samaria, his royal city, v. 1. What the ground of the quarrel was we are not told; covetousness and ambition were the principle, which would never want some pretence or other. David in his time had quite subdued the Syrians and made them tributaries to Israel, but Israel’s apostasy from God makes them formidable again. Asa had tempted the Syrians to invade Israel once (ch. xv. 18-20), and now they did it of their own accord. It is dangerous bringing a foreign force into the country: posterity may pay dearly for it. Ben-hadad had with him thirty-two kings, who were either tributaries to him, and bound in duty to attend him, or confederates with him, and bound in interest to assist him. How little did the title of king look when all these poor petty governors pretended to it!
II. The treaty between these two kings. Surely Israel’s defence had departed from them, or else the Syrians could not have marched so readily, and with so little opposition, to Samaria, the head and heart of the country, a city lately built, and therefore, we may suppose, not well fortified, but likely to fall quickly into the hands of the invaders; both sides are aware of this, and therefore,
1. Ben-hadad’s proud spirit sends Ahab a very insolent demand, 1Ki 20:2; 1Ki 20:3. A parley is sounded, and a trumpeter (we may suppose) is sent into the city, to let Ahab know that he will raise the siege upon condition that Ahab become his vassal (Nay, his villain), and not only pay him a tribute out of what he has, but make over his title to Ben-hadad, and hold all at his will, even his wives and children, the godliest of them. The manner of expression is designed to gall them; “All shall be mine, without exception.”
2. Ahab’s poor spirit sends Ben-hadad a very disgraceful submission. It is general indeed (he cannot mention particulars in his surrender with so much pleasure as Ben-hadad did in his demand), but it is effectual: I am thine, and all that I have, v. 4. See the effect of sin. (1.) If he had not by sin provoked God to depart from him, Ben-hadad could not have made such a demand. Sin brings men into such straits, by putting them out of divine protection. If God may not rule us, our enemies shall. A rebel to God is a slave to all besides. Ahab had prepared his silver and gold for Baal, Hos. ii. 8. Justly therefore is it taken from him; such an alienating amounts to a forfeiture. (2.) If he had not by sin wronged his own conscience, and set that against him, he could not have made such a mean surrender. Guilt dispirits men, and makes them cowards. He knew Baal could not help, and had no reason to think that God would, and therefore was content to buy his life upon any terms. Skin for skin, and all that is dear to him, he will give for it; he will rather live a beggar than not die a prince.
3. Ben-hadad’s proud spirit rises upon his submission, and becomes yet more insolent and imperious, 1Ki 20:5; 1Ki 20:6. Ahab had laid his all at his feet, at his mercy, expecting that one king would use another generously, that this acknowledgment of Ben-hadad’s sovereignty would content him, the honour was sufficient for the present, and he might hereafter make use of it if he saw cause (Satis est prostrasse leoni—It suffices the lion to have laid his victim prostrate); but this will not serve. (1.) Ben-hadad is as covetous as he is proud, and cannot go away unless he have the possession as well as the dominion. He thinks it not enough to call it his, unless he have it in his hands. He will not so much as lend Ahab the use of his own goods above a day longer. (2.) He is as spiteful as he is haughty. Had he come himself to select what he had a mind for, it would have shown some respect to a crowned head; but he will send his servants to insult the prince, and hector over him, to rifle the palace, and strip it of all its ornaments; nay, to give Ahab the more vexation, they shall be ordered, not only to take what they please, but, if they can learn which are the persons or things that Ahab is in a particular manner fond of, to take those: Whatsoever is pleasant in thy eyes they shall take away. We are often crossed in that which we most dote upon; and that proves least safe which is most dear. (3.) He is as unreasonable as he is unjust, and will construe the surrender Ahab made for himself as made for all his subjects too, and will have them also to lie at his mercy: “They shall search, not only thy house, but the houses of thy servants too, and plunder them at discretion.” Blessed be God for peace and property, and that what we have we can call our own.
4. Ahab’s poor spirit begins to rise too, upon this growing insolence; and, if it becomes not bold, yet it becomes desperate, and he will rather hazard his life than give up all thus. (1.) How he takes advice of his privy-council, who encourage him to stand it out. He speaks but poorly (v. 7), appeals to them whether Ben-hadad be not an unreasonable enemy, and do not seek mischief. What else could he expect from one who, without any provocation given him, had invaded his country and besieged his capital city? He owns to them how he had truckled to him before, and will have them advise him what he should do in this strait; and they speak bravely (Hearken not to him, nor consent, v. 8), promising no doubt to stand by him in the refusal. (2.) Yet he expresses himself very modestly in his denial, v. 9. He owns Ben-hadad’s dominion over him: “Tell my lord the king I have no design to affront him, nor to receded from the surrender I have already made; what I offered at first I will stand to, but this thing I may not do; I must not give what is none of my own.” It was a mortification to Ben-hadad that even such an abject spirit as Ahab’s durst deny him; yet it should seem, by his manner of expressing himself, that he durst not have done it if his people had not animated him.
5. Ben-hadad proudly swears the ruin of Samaria. The threatening waves of his wrath, meeting with this check, rage and foam, and make a noise. In his fury, he imprecates the impotent revenge of his gods, if the dust of Samaria serve for handfuls for his army (v. 10), so numerous, so resolute, an army will be bring into the field against Samaria, and so confident is he of their success; it will be done as easily as the taking up of a handful of dust; all shall be carried away, even the ground on which the city stands. Thus confident is his pride, thus cruel is his malice; this prepares him to be ruined, though such a prince and such a people are unworthy of the satisfaction of seeing him ruined.
6. Ahab sends him a decent rebuke to his assurance, dares not defy his menaces, only reminds him of the uncertain turns of war (v. 11): “Let not him that begins a war, and is girding on his sword, his armour, his harness, boast of victory, or think himself sure of it, as if he had put it off, and had come home a conqueror.” This was one of the wisest words that ever Ahab spoke, and is a good item or momento to us all; it is folly to boast beforehand of any day, since we know not what it may bring forth (Prov. xxvii. 1), but especially to boast of a day of battle, which may prove as much against us as we promise ourselves it will be for us. It is impolitic to despise an enemy, and to be too sure of victory is the way to be beaten. Apply it to our spiritual conflicts. Peter fell by his confidence. While we are here we are but girding on the harness, and therefore must never boast as though we had put it off. Happy is the man that feareth always, and is never off his watch.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Kings – Chapter 20
Syrian Challenge, Verses 1-12
At just what period of Ahab’s reign this invasion and siege of Samaria by the Syrians occurred is uncertain. It would appear to have been after the drought, and might account for the pitifully small forces Israel had with which to face the mighty army of Ben-hadad. The king of Damascus, or Syria, was the mightiest of an array of thirty-two kings total from the country of the Syrians. These lesser kings were rulers of smaller cities owing allegiance to the larger, Damascus, over which Behadad ruled. With Samaria under siege, Ben-hadad sent his messengers to Ahab with a proposal by which he would agree to withdraw. Ahab must send the Syrian king his silver, gold, the best of his harem, and the choicest of his children. Ben-hadad said, “They are mine,” meaning that by virtue of his superior forces Ahab could not keep him from taking them. The spineless Ahab returned word at once, agreeing and fawning over his adversary as, “My lord, O king.”
Ahab proved a much easier mark than even the Syrian king expected, so he was emboldened to add to his demands. He sent his messengers again, saying that Ahab would not be allowed to weigh the gold and silver and choose the women and children himself. But Benhadad would send his messengers again to observe what was considered by Ahab the very best and would accept only that. They would search the palace and the houses of the city for themselves on the next day.
Something prompted Ahab to resent this, and he finally called a council of the elders of his country. He told them of the first demand of Ben-hadad and how he had readily agreed to it. But now the Syrian king was demanding to take only the best, determined by an insulting band of spies who would search his things. Ahab suspected him of trying to stir him up to justify something still worse. So the elders advised King Ahab not to agree to this last demand. So the message went back to Benhadad that Ahab would abide by his first agreement, but could not do the latter.
Upon hearing this Ben-hadad sent a mocking challenge to Ahab He swore by his pagan gods that the dust of Samaria’s filthy streets, if it could be converted into armed men, would be insufficient to withstand a handful of Syrian men. Ahab seems to have gained some intestinal fortitude through the exchanges. Now it is he who returns a bold challenge to Ben-hadad, `Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast as he that putteth it off.” This meant, “Don’t count the battle won before it is fought.” Ben-hadad was throwing a big drinking party with his kings in their pavilions (large tents), and was unwilling to interrupt it. He ordered his servants to set the army for an assault on the city.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE DIVIDED KINGDOM
1 Kings 12-22.
IN resuming our study of I Kings, in this 12th chapter we confront a sudden turn in history. The falling of such a man as Solomon is a shock to history itself; a stop so sudden in its impetuous rush, that all society is shaken in consequence, and wonder as to what next? takes possession of the people. The text of Scripture does not always take account of time. How many days elapsed between the emptying of Davids throne by Solomons death, and the accession to the same on the part of Rehoboam, we are not told; but the pivotal points in this adjustment are made plain, and in the study of them one fact shines clearly forth, namely, that God, the true King of Israel, lived and reigned.
Men make their plans and attempt their executions, but history records how the Divine will overrules them all. The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord (Pro 16:33).
Teachers have called attention to the fitness of renaming the fifth Book of the New Testament, and instead of calling it, The Acts of the Apostles, declare it, The Acts of the Holy Ghost. So in this Old Testament history we seem to be studying the acts of the kings of Judah and Israel, but they are necessarily interpreted in the light of the will of the King of kings, the Lord of Glory. Whosoever sitteth upon the throne, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Keeping that fact before us, we find these eleven chapters are as full of spiritual suggestions as they are replete with historic incidents, and in the interest of time as it relates itself to the most important truths, I ask your attention to the great opposing personalities that are herein discovered; to Jeroboam vs. Rehoboam; to Elijah vs. Ahab, and to Micaiah vs. false prophets.
JEROBOAM VS. REHOBOAM
Coming events cast their shadows before! We had not finished the 11th chapter when Jeroboam, the son of Neb at, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomons servant, the son of a widow, was lifting his hand against the king, and Ahijah, the prophet, was kindling his ambitions by telling him that the God of Israel would rend the kingdom out of Solomons hands and give ten tribes to him. The path, therefore, of Rehoboam, Solomons son, was not clear. If he came to the kingdom he must both put down his opponent and placate his people. This dual task requires wisdom, and the subject of the complaint was one with which the counsellors of the old king were alone familiar. When Rehoboam consulted them, they advised moderation in speech and conduct.
That is a hard word for ambitious youth. It is a consent to place a leash on passionate strength. The impetuous prince straightway made appeal to young men and secured from them the counsel his inexperienced spirit craved, namely the counsel of rigor, expressed in. the threat, my little finger shall be thicker than my fathers loins (1Ki 12:10).
Men, particularly inexperienced men, commonly accept the counsels that fit with their own plans and desires, and Rehoboam was no exception.
But even then, history is not made apart from the will and plan of God. The very decision of Rehoboam is a part of the prophecy of Ahijah as much so as the perfidy of Judas was prophecy converted into history. Whether God rules in all things may be a question! That God is familiar with all contingencies before they come to pass is not even debatable, and that He presides over history is a settled truth. If Judas betrayed Jesus that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled, so also Rehoboam refused wise counsel and accepted the false, that the word which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite should stand. Foreknowledge of human conduct does not render God morally responsible in any measure for what men may do, but it does enable Him to administer all history, and in the end to work out His own will.
In the remaining portion of this chapter and running through the 16th of the same book, there are at least three outstanding lessons to be learned by the observant student.
The Menace of mistaken counsels! Modern science is proving that all space is a unity, and transmission of sound by the radio is demonstrating that the speech made in America can actually be heard on every continent of the world; and yet more certain still is it that single events influence and affect history more positively and permanently than a spoken word affects the element of ether.
If it had been the rule of Rehoboam alone, the result of this consultation with the old men first and with the young men later must still have been important, but with limitations, both in time and effect. When it is remembered, however, that all human history, to the end of the age, would take color from the decision reached by this young king, then who can measure the importance of wise counsel?
The cheapest commodity is advice; that is to say, it is everywhere on exhibit and offered for nothing, but in the end it comes at the greatest conceivable cost or proves itself to have been a most invaluable contribution. In other words, counsel makes or mars. The world to this hour is suffering from Rehoboams mistake, not alone in the division of the sons of Abraham, but since that day, every Gentile nation has felt the evil influence of the same.
There is a philosophy, popular at this time, to the effect that it does not make much difference what you tell youth; whether you counsel them concerning the true God in heaven, or tell them that the only God there is is a one-celled animal; whether you lead them to believe that the inspired record of Genesis is true, or scoff their minds into an utter skepticism; whether you impress them with the notion that they are apesbetter developed, or the true creatures of Gods own thought, plan and power. There seems to be an impression that the counsel of youth finds no expression in the character of mature men and womena philosophy as false as the devil who fathers it.
I tell you that the counsels of youth determine everything! America, one hundred years from now, will be reaping the harvest of what is sown in the minds of the young men at this moment. If they are taught the truth, they will bless the world. If they are taught a lie, they will curse it! A correct counsel for the young is of too infinite moment to be banished from society through the specious plea of skeptics who cry Academic freedom. Rehoboam was not a beardless boy when they counselled him falsely. He was forty-one years of age, and yet, with even such maturity of years, he succumbed, and the nations have suffered in consequence. How vastly more deleterious is the effect of false counsel upon the ten and fifteen and twenty year old youth! To teach him falsehoods in the name of academic freedom is to flout all sound philosophy, fly in the face of all mans experience and seek to cover rotting skepticism with a wholesome sounding phrase!
But to pass on to another and kindred point, involving chapter 13:
The immorality of compromise with false ministers. When in the study of the week we came to a careful consideration of this 13th chapter, we felt exactly as though we were listening to an address in the Convention of the Christian Fundamentalists. Here is a true prophet of God with a Divinely given message, and a commission, and on his way. He is overtaken by a false prophet, a new theologian, a man with a social message, and is asked to sit at meat with him and prove himself a good fellow, and is even told that this is the will of the Lord. So the true prophet went back with the false prophet and did eat bread and drink water and the consequence was his repudiation by the false prophet first and a speedy judgment upon his disobedience, executed by his death at the paw of a lion (1Ki 13:11-32). The false prophet mourned him, buried and built a tomb to him, and requested of his own sons that he be let to lie beside him when his days are done.
How modern it all sounds! The greatest single plea presented by the new theologian of the present is that of good fellowship. They want us to sit at the same table with them; they want us to be silent about our differences; they want us to believe in their human and natural philosophies; that they are as true prophets of God as are the men who come with the revealed Word; and if we yield to their persuasions, compromise with them on the great matters in dispute between us. Deep in their own souls they despise us for our failure to stand for what we knew to be the inspired Word, and yet when we are dead, they will build tombs to us, and ask to be buried at our sides!
Meantime, every true minister of the Gospel must determine whether he will yield to such social and philosophic enticements or whether he will take his place with John and in obedience to the revelation made to that prophet, receive him not into your house, neither hid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2Jn 1:10-11).
Moving on to chapters 14 to 16, we find another fundamental truth waiting to be apprehended and emphasized, namely,
The folly of attempting to purchase acceptable prophecy. Here again the Old Testament times are being duplicated in the New Testament day. The son of Jeroboam fell sick. Ahijah the prophet was consulted by the queen mother, who came in disguise, with gifts and flatteries. The old mans vision had failed; his eyes were set by reason of age, he could not see; but age does not dim the vision of the Lord, and He revealed her personality to Ahijah and told him both her plan and purpose. So at the sound of her feet at the door, the old prophet said, Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another? for I am sent to thee with heavy tidings (1Ki 14:6), and he pronounced judgment upon the king and his house and plainly declared that God would raise up another king over Israel who should cut off the whole house of Jeroboam in justice against the kings sin; and the prophecy came to pass, and Jeroboam, who had reigned twenty-two years, slept with his fathers, and Rehoboam, son of Solomon, who reigned in Judah, went also to his grave. Singularly enough, the death of these kings is recorded in the same chapter.
Then follows the long list of the kings on either side, conflicts, divisions, disasters and judgments (chaps. 15; 16). There are plenty of people who would like to purchase acceptable prophecy. There are plenty of women who, like Jeroboams wife, do not want the truth of God. They want smooth words; they want the prophet to say there is no sickness; they want him to affirm there is no death; they want him even to deny the reality of the same. Such people are perfectly willing to pay a price. They go to the healers, with ten loaves and cracknels and a cruse of honey. False philosophy is a profitable business, but it never yet exempted anybody from peril, never saved a single scientist from sin or sickness or death. It never kept a solitary throne upon a stable foundation and it never will.
It is interesting to watch these thrones rock, totter and fall one after another, and to find in every instance a fulfilment of the prophetic word of the Lord. Though heaven and earth shall pass away, not one jot or tittle of all that God has spoken shall fail.
But to turn afresh to our text and study another subject.
ELIJAH VS. AHAB
Read 1 Kings 17-21.
The histories of potentates and prophets run parallel in the Books of the Kings. Their views of life are divergent. Elijah and Ahab have little in common beyond the fact that they are contemporaneous, and dwell in the same empire. Elijahs character so far outshines that of Ahab that we consider the latter only as his conduct is seen in the light of the former. Let us learn again,
A pessimistic pronouncement does not disprove the prophet of God. When Elijah the Tishbite comes upon the scene, his first speech is, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years (1Ki 17:1). No! wonder he was non-acceptable! Unpalatable truths make unpopular preachers. The men who dont want to believe in the prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ, denounce as pessimists those who faithfully quote and believe Gods word upon that subject, and feel that by the very name they have discredited and discountenanced them. But Revelation pays little regard to what men want. It never consults public opinion that it may suit its speech to the same. It gives out the truth, knowing that in the end the knowledge of the truth is the worlds sorest need. If a famine is coming, it is foolish to shut ones ears against its prediction and be overtaken by starvation; and, if Christ is coming, it is foolish to repudiate the prophecy, to be shamed by His sudden appearance.
When will men learn that the prophet of God is not appointed to repeat the nonsensical platitudes of a Coue, or the filched and false aphorisms of a Mary Baker Eddy? The test of the prophets has not changed one whit in thirty centuries. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa 8:20). When a prophet speaketh in the Name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken (Deu 18:22). Only a few years ago the post millenarians of America were telling us that war was forever over; that in the evolution of the race we had developed a better wisdom and adopted a more righteous way, and they held to scorn those who believed that in the last days wars would rend the world; and that famines, and pestilences would follow in the wake of them. But the words of Jeremiah the Prophet are the test of all such opponents of the truth, The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him (Jer 28:9).
The 18th chapter has a further suggestionThe Prophets faith and speech is his sufficient self-defense. In this chapter, Elijah suddenly appears and sends, by the mouth of the Prophet Obadiah, word to Ahab, Elijah is here! He had no fear! He dared to face Ahab, the professed king of Israel, confident in the Potentate of Heaven, Israels true King. In answer to Ahabs question, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? he set up his defense, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy fathers house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord (1Ki 18:17-18), and by faith he proposed a challenge, involving the entire company of Baal prophets, The God that answereth by fire, let Him be God (1Ki 18:24). We know the result; Jehovah revealed Himself as a God that heareth and answereth prayer, and it was made manifest that Baal was no god at all, and the consequence is the slaughter of the false prophets and the justification of Elijah. What other defense does the true prophet need for his person than he has in the King of kings, the Lord of Glory? And what other defense for his message than that he brings the Word of the Lord?
It doesnt concern me that certain of my brethren write, We wont accept the article on the Second Coming of Christ to be found in the Confession of Faith of the Fundamentalists of America. My concern is in another subject. Are these articles justified by the Word, and fortified in the sacred sentences thereof? The Lord is the defense of the true minister, and the Word the one and only justification of his message.
The endangered prophet has the assurance of Divine care and provision. The execution of the false prophets stirred Jezebel to desperate decision. The life of Elijah is threatened. A womans rage holds nothing in reverence. The fury of Jezebel was a thousandfold more dangerous than the anger of Ahab, and from it Elijah fled; before it, Elijah fainted; in the face of it, Elijah requested for himself that he might die (1 Kings 19).
And yet it is impossible to believe that Elijahs fear and discouragement were the fruits of cowardice. Instead they were the natural reactions of an overstrained spirit; doubtless in part, the result of having slain the false prophets in keeping with the customs of the day, when he had no command from the Lord, and also the protest of an overtaxed mind and body.
How grateful readers should be that the whole story is recorded, for with it is also written the story of Gods tenderness and the repeated instances of Gods care. Two visits from an angel, food and drink; a still, small voice; a gracious declaration of the 7,000 fraternal souls. What refreshing for body, mind and spirit! God truly cares for the whole man, and concerns Himself for him who ministers in His Word.
But to conclude our study with the consideration of,
MICAIAH VS. FALSE PROPHETS
and to learn from these three remaining chapters, 20 to 22, three important lessons:
Ahab wages successful war when he has Gods Word for his warrant. In his battle against Benhadad the king of Syria, he had Gods promise against Syria, Behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord (1Ki 20:13). The battle was won when that word was spoken. Ahab is no saint. His life and conduct are not acceptable to Jehovah, but he is king of Israel, the ruler over Gods people, and God cares for His own, and when they are at war with sinners, men who do not so much as name God, Jehovah is likely to be on their side.
Even poor leadership is not likely to doom a good cause. God does not lose His interest in right, when the evil rule. A thousandfold better to fight for a just cause with weak leadership than for an unjust cause, superbly led. The boasted scholarship of modernism fills me with no fear in trying to stand before it. Intellectual superiority, when it sets itself against God, is insanity; and even the great Gladstone of England had no objection to being found in fellowship with the plain people. He was that countrys Commoner indeed, and Americas great Commoner, William Jennings Bryan, was brainy enough to know that battles will finally be won upon the basis of right and wrong, which is only another way of saying, If God be for us, who can be against us? Where God is, there is victory! In the last analysis, the success of an enterprise does not depend upon its human leadership but rests with the Divine favor instead.
But to the 21st chapter and learn another lesson The covetousness of a king may be indulged at the cost of a kingdom. Here we have the record of Naboths vineyard, desired by Ahab and refused by its rightful owner. People may be disposed to condemn Naboth for not selling out when his superior proffered him a fair price, but only such as are ignorant of the Word would so speak. Naboth was more anxious to be loyal to the King of kings than to this petty potentate. He could not forget the Word of the Lord written in Num 36:7, So shall not the inheritance of the Children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the Children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers; and if Ahab had known the Word of the Lord, he would have been reminded of Eze 46:18, Moreover the prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession.
Some men have sought to justify Ahab here by saying this was not covetousness, since he offered Naboth a proper price for it, but the defense is insufficient. The man who so far covets his neighbors possessions as to secure his death in order to appropriate the same is an enemy alike of God and of man, and cannot escape the judgment of the Lord. Hence it is written, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine (1Ki 21:19).
Truly, as Joseph Parker says, When Ahab went down to take possession of that vineyard, a death warrant was awaiting him. Yea, all the world does move under the hand of God and there are righteous results everywhere operative, and justice is a thousand fold more often meted out than men ever imagine.
A defenseless boy may be picked off a train in Florida and a purchasable judge may fine him an amount that he knows the lad does not have, and under the pretense of justice fling him into prison to die at the hands of a flogging brute in the form of a man, and months may pass; no mention of the matter reach the public, and in consequence the criminal chuckles to himself, My deeds are covered! Justice, if it sleep, is not dead, and in an unexpected moment it will arouse itself to speak in thunder tones, quickening the whole nation into a united jury that shall pass sentence and demand judgment. God lives!
Finally, The temporal interests of Gods Kingdom rest between true and false prophets. The last chapter tells the story of Micaiah, Gods true Prophet, and of a company of men who profess to be prophets, but who are possessed by a lying spirit. There were about 400 of these. Majorities do not settle questions of revelation, not even when they are 400 to 1! The more false prophets you have, the less dependable is their counsel. For the first time since Solomons death, the two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, have a prospect of being united. The lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets did promise the project and assure the united forces of a final victory against the enemy.
Alas for the faith of men who follow those who have no sure word of prophecy! Micaiah, the true prophet, may be smitten on the cheek; may be thrust into prison; may be fed with the bread of affliction and the water of shame, but His word will not fail on that account. Throughout the length and breadth of the land, on this beautiful Sunday morning, there are hundreds of true prophets of God whom certain ecclesiastical potentates are seeking to silence. In the Methodist denomination, bishops are refusing them appointments. In the Baptist and Congregational denominations, State Secretaries are setting their faces against them, and are seeking to influence leading church officials to reject them, and cast them out.
Suffering is the true prophets experience, but better a Micaiah in prison with scant bread and unslaked thirst, than a deceived king marching forth to a battle that shall leave him dead on the field. The after-history of the prophet we do not know. God for His own reasons left that in obscurity. What matters it? If, as a free man he breathed his last as Moses did, on Nebos heights; if as a martyr he yielded up his spirit as did Stephen in Jerusalem; if as Paul he perished in prison, what matters it? An angel came to claim Moses body; Heaven opened to receive Stephens spirit; and Paul quit the earth with a triumphant shout! The kingdom is suffering; its king and subjects are still evil in the sight of the Lord; Baal, the false god of worship is an insult to the most High, but the prophets spirit is safe!
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
THE DEFEAT OF THE SYRIANS
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
1Ki. 20:1. BenhadadSon of the king of the same name mentioned (chap. 1Ki. 15:20). Thirty and two kings with himVassals or viceroys who ruled single cities or districts (comp. Jos. 12:7). With him not confederated as equals, but connected as dependent and tributary.
1Ki. 20:4. According to thy saying, I am thone, &c.Not an ironical taunt, according to thy saying it is so; for Ahab had not spirit enough to resent Benhadads insolent domination: it was timorous submission.
1Ki. 20:10. If the dust of Samaria shall suffice, &c.Braggart menacing. Its purport is: Thou refusest me thy treasures, but with so great an army will I cover Samaria that, if every soldier wished to carry away a handful, its sand would not suffice. Josephus incorrectly interprets the words thus: He could with his army cast up a dyke higher than his walls were, if every one of his people contributed only a handful of earth.
1Ki. 20:11. Boast himself, &c.Answered Beuhadad with a good and apt proverb. The Latins say: Ne triumphum canas ante victoriamthe victory must be won before it is celebrated (Keil).
1Ki. 20:14. The young men of the princesThe Thenius interprets as pages unaccustomed to fight; Ewald, as young lads of very tender agerather, the armour bearers of the princes, a small and unequal band (see 1Ki. 20:15). Order the battle?Open it, or make attack.
1Ki. 20:17. There are men come outScornful; not an army, not warriors, but only a few men! Benhadad ordered their capture, thinking it easy, and being content to drink on, contemptuous and self-indulgent.
1Ki. 20:20. On an horse with the horsemeni.e., with horsemen surrounding him.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 20:1-21
THE VICE OF DRUNKENNESS
A TIME came that tested the value of Baal as the guardian deity of Israel. The Syrian king invaded the country, attended by a gay retinue of regal courtiers and an immense army. Samaria was speedily invested, and threatened with complete destruction. There is no appeal to Baal now: he is impotent to help in time of trouble. Nor is the help of Jehovah sought in this extremity. Israel is at the mercy of the foe; and the godless, unbelieving Ahab, with cowardly supineness, surrenders himself to his fate. But the Lord has still a regard for His deluded people, and sends a prophet to assure them of deliverance. Formidable as the army of Benhadad appeared, there was an element of weakness in it which might readily bring about its defeat. The wine cup passed round freely, and the Syrian king and his military staff became intoxicated (1Ki. 20:12-16). This paragraph, therefore, while recording the fact of supernatural interference on behalf of Israel, also illustrates the evils that may arise from the vice of drunkenness. Observe
I. That the vice of drunkenness inflates the mind with the most arrogant pretensions (1Ki. 20:1-9). Benhadad proudly demanded possession of all the treasures of Ahab and of his peoplemoney, wives, and childrenand threatened to search the palace and dwelling of the city for whatever was worth taking away. The insolence of this is almost beyond precedent. Such treatment is the worst that could be expected for a city taken by main force; and even an unscrupulous Eastern conqueror could hardly demand it of a garrison that had yielded without fighting. The whole conduct of Benhadad is another example of how the consciousness of irresistible power is apt to breed a spirit of arrogance, especially when under the influence of intemperance. When drinks in, wits out. The drunkard blusters and boasts what he has done, and what he will do; and though not backed by an immense force like that which surrounded Benhadad, he threatens terrible destruction to every opponent. But alas! it is only the froth of a pot-valiant swagger: when the fumes of the liquor are gone, so is the courage.
II. That the vice of drunkenness is closely associated with the vice of blasphemy (1Ki. 20:10). Benhadad swore by his gods, as the blasphemous Jezebel had done by hers (chap. 1Ki. 19:2). The meaning of Benhadads oath has been differently understood. In its general sense it is undoubtedly a boast that the number of Benhadads troops is such as to make resistance vain and foolish. We may parallel it with the saying of the Trachinian at Thermopyl, that the Persian arrows would darken the light of the sun. Probably the exact meaning isWhen your town is reduced to ruins, as it will be if you resist, the entire heap will not suffice to furnish a handful of dust to each soldier of my army, so many are they. Thus there was a threat in the message as well as a boast (Speakers Comm. Such blasphemous presumption does not go unpunished. Thus Julian, the apostate, going against the Persians, swore at his return to sacrifice the blood of the Christians. So the Constable of France vowed the destruction of Geneva: but God forbad it. The drunkard swears oaths of which he is ashamed in his sober moments. Intemperance and blasphemy are twin vices.
III. That the vice of drunkenness excites to deeds of recklessness (1Ki. 20:12). The Syrian king was so enraged with the final message of Ahab, given in the terms of a proverb (1Ki. 20:11), and which was the only evidence of anything like a courageous spirit shown by Ahab during the whole transaction, that he gave orders for the battle to begin forthwith, little dreaming what would be the result to his own army. A step taken in a moment of intemperate recklessness is difficult to recall, and may involve ruinous consequences.
IV. That the vice of drunkenness renders the inebriate unable to discern the hand of God in public events (1Ki. 20:13-15). It seemed that Israel was doomed; in a few hours Samaria would be a heap of ruins, and Ahab and his treasures in the hands of the warlike Syrian. But a power was at work, unnoticed by the Syrians, too long despised by Ahab and ignored by his people. God interposed, once more sent His prophet to explain the method of rescue, and once more to call the apostate Ahab back to his allegiance. It was an evidence of the feeble condition of Samaria at the time when 7,000 people comprised all its inhabitants, and out of these was formed the little army that was to be led by the 230 young men of the princes. It was a paltry, insignificant force to oppose against the swarming host of the Syrians. But Jehovah was working His purpose through that tiny band of soldiers; and such was the blind infatuation of the intoxicated king that he saw it not. Drunkenness blears both the natural and the mental eye, and darkens and impairs the moral sense.
V. That the vice of drunkenness incapacitates at a critical moment (1Ki. 20:16-18). The Syrians observe the sally of the young men from the city, and inform Benhadad; but such was his sovereign, almost sottish, indifference to any force that Samaria could send forth, that without troubling himself about the matter, he simply gave orders to take them alive. This was easier said than done. It was the crisis of the campaign, when the utmost vigilance and activity should have been shown; but the drunken king could not see it until it was too late. It is a great blunder to despise an enemy; and to be intoxicated gives the enemy a double advantage. Drunkards are besotted and disabled; as a snuff of a candle in a socket drowned in the tallow yieldeth little or no light, but only a stench.
VI. That the vice of drunkenness subjects its victims to humiliating defeat (1Ki. 20:19-21). The enemy that had been treated so contemptuously proved to be more powerful than was supposed. The 230 young men smote right and left, and laid prostrate all who opposed them; and the Syrians, seeing the 7,000 coming out of the city to join in the fight, were seized with a sudden panic and fled, Benhadad escaping on horseback, leaving his army to be massacred by the victorious Israelites. So that it now might be said to Benhadad what Zebul once said to Gaal: Where is now thy mouth which just now boasted such great things? (1Ki. 20:10) Is not this the people that thou hast despised? Go out, I pray now, and fight with them (Jdg. 9:38). Any undertaking begun and carried on in drunkenness is sure to end in confusion and misery. Intemperate boasting is often the prelude of defeat. Wisely did the Romans say: Sing not the triumphal song before the victory.
LESSONS:
1. Drunkenness is a prolific source of national vice.
2. It is offensive to God and injurious to man.
3. It is certain to be severely punished.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1Ki. 20:1-21. The pride and insolence of power.I. Making extravagant demands (1Ki. 20:1-6). II. Using blasphemous threats (1Ki. 20:10). III. Provoking the weak to cautious and courageous opposition (1Ki. 20:7-9; 1Ki. 20:11; 1Ki. 20:13-15). IV. Giving way to sensual indulgence (1Ki. 20:12; 1Ki. 20:16). V. Contemptuously indifferent in moments of danger (1Ki. 20:17-18). VI. Brought to an ignominious downfall (1Ki. 20:19-21).
Who can look for other than war when he sees Ahab and Jezebel on the throne, Israel in the groves and temples of Baalim? The ambition of Benhadad was not so much guilty of this war as the idolatry of that wicked nation. How can they expect peace from earth who do wilfully fight against Heaven? Rather will the God of hosts arm the brute, the senseless creatures, against Israel, than He will suffer their defiance unavenged. Ahab and Benhadad are well matched: an idolatrous Israel with a paganish Idumean. Well may God plague each other who means vengeance to them both!Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 20:2. The sacred historians study brevity so greatly, that their narrative is often, at the first look, abnormal and strange. But in view of this brevity, it is always lawful, as it is most reasonable, to supplement their narrative by supposing circumstances of small moment, which would remove the strangeness, to have happened, but not to have been recorded. Here the excessive demand of the Syrian king, coming close upon the first announcement of the siege, and placed at the very commencement of the negociations for peace, strikes us as something very unusual. But if we suppose a considerable time to have passed in the siege, and the city to be reduced to an extremity, and ambassadors to have been sent by Ahab to ask terms of peace short of absolute surrender, then we can quite understand that Benhadad might make such a demand in reply. He would expect and intend his demand to be rejected, since the voluntary surrender of his seraglio by an oriental monarch would be regarded as so disgraceful that no prince of any spirit could for a moment entertain the idea. The rejection of his demand would have left him free to plunder the town, which was evidently what he desired and purposed.Speakers Comm.
1Ki. 20:1-4. In these two kings we see what a thing the human heart is, how insolent and timorous by turns (Jer. 17:9). It is insolent when man, grown prosperous, powerful, and rich, places his confidence in his success, and haughtily despises his neighbour. But it is timid when man falls into difficulty, and neither sees nor knows any help, just as was the despairing, womanly heart of king Ahab, who took it for granted that everything was lost when he saw the hosts of his enemies.Wurt. Summ.
1Ki. 20:1-3. Benhadad thought that because he had the power to rob and appropriate, he also had the right to do so. But God gives power and might to kings, not to distort the right, but to protect it. The power of that one who, confiding in his own strength, treads the right under his feet, will sooner or later miserably decline.Lange.
1Ki. 20:3-4. Benhadad knows his own strength, and offers insolent conditions. It is a fearful thing to be in the mercy of an enemy: in case of hostility might will carve for itself. Ahab now, after the division of Judah, was but half a king: Benhadad had two-and-thirty kings to attend him. What equality was in this opposition? Ahab, therefore, as a reed in a tempest, stoops to the violent charge of so potent an enemy. It is not for the overpowered to capitulate; weakness may not argue, but yield. Tyranny is but drawn on by submission; and, where it finds fear and dejection, insulteth.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 20:4. Abject submission.
1. Unbecoming the dignity of a king.
2. A revelation of a cowardly spirit.
3. Subjects to increased insults and degradation.
Those who no longer have a Lord in Heaven whom they fear, and before whom they bow, cringe and fawn before all men who can harm or serve them. If Ahab had said to the King of kings what he sent as a response to the royal robber and boaster: I am Thine, and all that I have, he would then have had the trust and assurance: He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High, &c. (Psa. 91:1-3). He who bows before God is sure to be humble before men; but he does not cringe to them nor throw himself away. To submit to the superior power and force that demands gold and silver is no disgrace; but to surrender wife and child is contrary to honour, duty, and conscience.
1Ki. 20:5-6. Haughty and insolent men grow all the more overbearing and ungovernable, and the more one submits to them, and crawls before them, and gratifies their desires, the more exorbitant they become in their demands. It is the curse that rests upon avarice, that the more the appetite after money and property is gratified, the more it grows, not diminishes (Pro. 16:8).Lange.
1Ki. 20:7; 1Ki. 20:9. Overstrained subjection turns desperate. If conditions be imposed worse than death, there needs no long disputation of the remedy. The elders of Israel, whose share was proportional in this danger, hearten Ahab to a denial; which yet comes out so fearfully, as that it appears rather extorted by the peremptory indignation of the people, than proceeding out of any generosity of his spirit. Neither doth he say, I will not; but, I may not.Bp. Hall.
Ahab and his people.
1. Ahab feels himself helpless and perplexed. Adversity teaches us how to pray, but Ahab had turned from the living God, who is a helper in every time of trouble, to a dumb idol that cannot help. He had forgotten how to pray. He had sought to help himself by cowardly submission, and now he seeks help of men. In every distress we should turn first to the Lord (Psa. 118:8-9; Psa. 108:13). II. The elders and the people reproach Ahab. Instead of his giving instructions to them with the words of Joe. 3:15, like a king, they gave commands to him. He is no real king, realizing the position which has been given to him by God, whom the people control, instead of allowing themselves to be controlled by him. Tyrants are of this class. At first they do not consult the people, and do not scruple to appropriate their most sacred possessions, take away their faith, and burden their consciences. Ahab did not consult his people about the introduction of the worship of Baal and the persecution of the prophets; but now, when he does not know how to counsel or help himself, he applies to the wish of the nationthe aid of the people is now very acceptable.Lange.
1Ki. 20:10-11. The proud Syrian, who would have taken it in foul scorn to be denied, though he had sent for all the heads of Israel, snuffs up the wind like the wild ass in the wilderness, and brags, and threats, and swears. O vain boaster! in whom I know not whether pride or folly be more eminent. Victory is to be achieved, not to be sworn; future events are no matter of an oath; thy gods, if they had been, might have been called as witnesses of thy intentions, not of that success whereof thou wouldst be the author without them. Thy gods can do nothing to thee, nothing for thee, nothing for themselves! All thine Aramites shall not carry away one corn of sand out of Israel, except it be upon the soles of their feet in their shameful flight; it is well if they can carry back those skins which they brought thither. There is no cause to fear that man that trusts in himself. Man may cast the dice of war, but the disposition of them is of the Lord.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 20:11. The Christian warrior. Very generally the young and inexperienced, when about to enter on any new enterprize, commence with feelings of more or less self-confidence. The young convert is often more confident than the old Christian, and thinks that he shall attain higher eminence in piety than others who are older in Christian experience. It is well to aim high, but we must not be too confident in our own strength, lest, like Peter, we suffer a grievous fall, or like others, sink down under great disappointment. In this verse we shall notice the contrast between the young Christians anticipations, and the old Christians experience.
I. The Christian soldier commencing his career.
1. The oath of allegiance and servitude. When a young man determines to enter the army, he accepts the bounty, is examined, sworn-in to serve his sovereign and country, clothed in regimentals, and joins the army for actual service. So, when God in His mercy converts a soul, He is drawn by the cords of love and the bands of a man. He feels his vast obligations; first gives himself up in solemn covenant to God, and then to His people. Then, in the Lords house, in the presence of God, of angels, and men, takes the sacramental cup and swears allegiance to Christ. We know no act so solemn as this but the act of dying. It is a public dedication of the soul to God and to His service from henceforth.
2. The service he enters upon. As a soldier soon commences actual service to protect his country and defend its laws, so a soldier of Christ immediately enters on the Christian duties. He must oppose sin, fight against Satan, and withstand all the unhallowed influence of an ungodly world, and, as far as in him lies, promote the extension of the kingdom of Christ. The standard around which he is to rally is The Cross, and he must die rather than strike his colours. His encouragement is that he shall come off more than a conqueror.
3. The armour he wears. Ancient soldiers wore armour (1Sa. 17:5-6; 1Sa. 17:54.) The Christian soldier has a complete suit from the armoury of God (Eph. 6:13-15): The girdle of truth, or Christian sincerity; The breastplate of righteousness, being blest with imputed and imparted righteousness; The shoes of the Gospel, having gospel truths as the foundation of his religion; The shield of faith, an indispensable thing, for without confidence in Christ he would always fail; The helmet of salvation, ever keeping his salvation in view and aiming after it; The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, which must be well handled both for offensive and defensive warfare, and always used with much prayer and with great determination and courage.
4. The ardent feelings he evinces. The soldier prepares himself with high expectations, and a determination not to desert his post or betray his cause. And so the young Christian soldier espouses the cause of Christ with ardent feelings, holy determination, and high anticipations of final success. He knows that an almighty arm is on his side, that grace is promised, and final victory insured. He has much reason to rejoice, but none for self-confidence, for the conflict will often be severe; he will frequently be discouraged, and perhaps occasionally wounded, though not finally defeated. Let him not boast except in the Lord and in His strength.
5. The manner in which he should conduct himself. It should be with prayer, watchfulness, and perseverance (Eph. 6:18). A Christian cannot feel too much his entire dependence upon God for all he needs. He is commanded to watch and pray. Whatever be the strength of the foes, their mode of attack, the severity of the conflict, he must never lay down his arms; the decisive victory is often won when the conflict is most severe, and the soul most discouraged. Then it is that the power of the Great Captain is seen.
II. The Christian veteran at the close of his career.
1. His retrospect. As the old soldier loves to recount his past career, so the old Christian, on the bed of death, can look back on his past experience with adoring gratitude, as he thinks of the beginning of his Christian life, the enemies he has had to face, the hard battles he has been in, the wounds he has received, the victories he has won, the honours he has gained; but even then, and though about to put off his armour, he feels that he has nothing to boast of, but much to be thankful for. He has lower thoughts of himself than ever, and higher thoughts of Christ, feeling that all his failings were from himself, and that the praise of all his victories belongs to the captain of his salvation.
2. His glorious end. The putting off his armour, which is at death, not before. When he has by grace conquered the last enemy, then his warfare is accomplished, and his honourable career ended; then he exchanges the sword for the palm, the helmet for the crown, the armour for the victors robe, and conflict for triumph.
3. His eternal triumph. No sooner is the last conflict over, and the victory won, than he enters heaven in triumph beyond all description or conception. What more could he wish for? He now thinks nothing of the warfare in the greatness of his joy.
LEARN:
1. That if you would enjoy this glory you must become a soldier of Christ.
2. That if you would be victorious you must put on the whole Christian armour, and look to God for grace.
3. That in order to stimulate you in the conflict, you should think of the victory promised and the glory that follows.Pulpit Sketches.
1Ki. 20:13-15. Who can wonder enough at this unweariable mercy of God? After the fire and rain fetched miraculously from heaven, Ahab had promised much, performed nothing; yet again will God bless and solicit him with victory. One of those prophets whom he persecuted to death shall comfort his dejection with the news of his deliverance and triumph. Had this great work been wrought without premonition, either chance, or Baal, or the golden calves had carried away the thanks. Beforehand, therefore, shall Ahab know both the author and the means of his victory: God for the author; the two hundred and thirty young men of the princes for the means. What are these for the vanguard, and seven thousand Israelites for the main battle, against the troops of three and thirty kings, and as many centuries of Syrians as Israel had single soldiers? An equality of numbers had taken away the wonder of the event; but now the God of hosts will be confessed in this issue, not the valour of men. How indifferent is it with thee, O Lord, to save by many or by few, to destroy many or few! A world is no more to thee than a man; how easy is it for thee to enable us to be more than conquerors over principalities and powers!Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 20:13. Formerly Ahab wished no instruction from the prophets; now, in his danger and distress, he admits them and listens to them. In days of prosperity the world does not care for any advice from faithful servants of the Divine Word; it looks down upon them and despises them; but in the hour of sorrow and mourning it grants them access, and is glad to avail itself of their consolation. Before a great troop which has been abandoned of God, you have no cause to fear if God has said to you, I will help thee (Isa. 41:13).Starke.
1Ki. 20:16. Benhadad must have sorely repented his drunkenness, as it resulted in the loss of his army, his horses, and chariots. How often still is drunkenness the original cause of great sorrow and distress (Eph. 5:18; Isa. 5:22; Pro. 23:29-30)!
There was nothing in Benhadads pavilion but drink and surfeit and jollity, as if wine should make way for blood. Security is the certain usher of destruction. We never have so much cause to fear, as when we fear nothing. This handful of Israel dares look out, upon the prophets assurance, to the vast host of Benhadad. It is enough for that proud pagan to sit still and command amongst his cups. O the vain and ignorant presumptions of wretched men, that will be reckoning without, against their Maker!Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 20:18. Great men often think, when they have been disturbed in their carnal rest and security, that they only need to speak the word of command in order to be relieved from everything disagreeable and wearisome; but they must learn that they cannot rid themselves, by a command, of what God has sent for their humiliation.
1Ki. 20:19-21. The way of the godless shall perish (Psa. 1:6). Their way is covetousness and pillage (1Ki. 20:3-6), haughtiness, insolence, and assurance (1Ki. 20:10-18), service of their belly, wantonness (1Ki. 20:16). This way shall perish; they are as chaff which the wind driveth away, utterly consumed with terrors (1Ki. 20:20-21; Psa. 73:19).Lange.
How easy is it for Him who made the heart to fill it with terror and consternation, even where no fearis! Those whom God hath destined to slaughter He will smite; neither needs He any other enemy or executioner than what He finds in their own bosom. We are not the master of our own courage or fears: both are put into us by that overruling power that created us. Stay now, oh stay! thou great king of Syria, and take with thee those forgotten handfuls of the dust of Israel. Thy gods will do so to thee, and more also, if thy followers return without their vowed burden! Learn now of the despised king of Israel, from henceforth, not to sound the triumph before the battle, not to boast thyself in the girding on of thine harness as in the putting off.Bp. Hall.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
II. THE GREAT MILITARY CRISIS 20:143
The account of Elijahs ministry during the reign of Ahab is interrupted by chapter 20 probably because the author is attempting to give a chronological treatment of that kings reign.[454] The policy of harassment had characterized Benhadads dealing with Israel in the days of Baasha (cf. 1Ki. 15:18). Now the Aramean king was bent on total conquest of Israel. This crisis for Ahab and Israel unfolds in two stages: (1) the Aramean siege of Samaria (1Ki. 20:1-22); and (2) the battle of Aphek (1Ki. 20:23-43).
[454] In some Septuagint manuscripts chapter 20 follows chapter 21 and thus comes at the conclusion of the Elijah material. Some scholars feel this may be the more original order.
A. THE ARAMEAN SIEGE OF SAMARIA 20:122
Act One of the great military crisis has two distinct scenes: (1) the demands of Benhadad (1Ki. 20:1-12); and (2) the deliverance of the city (1Ki. 20:13-22).
1. THE DEMANDS OF BENHADAD (1Ki. 20:1-12)
TRANSLATION
(1) Now Benhadad king of Aram gathered all his host, and thirty-two kings were with him, and horses and chariots. And he went up and besieged Samaria, and made war against it. (2) And he sent messengers unto Ahab king of Israel to the city, and said to him, Thus says Benhadad: (3) Your silver and your gold belongs to me, along with the goodliest of your wives and children. (4) And the king of Israel answered and said, According to your saying, my lord, O king; I am yours, and all which I have. (5) Then the messengers returned and said, Thus says Benhadad: Although I sent unto you, saying, Your silver, your gold, your wives and your sons you shall give me, yet tomorrow about this time I will send my servants unto you, and they shall search your house and the houses of your servants; and it shall be that all that is desirable in your eyes, they shall put in their hands and take away. (7) And the king of Israel called to all the elders of the land and said, Note, I pray you, that this man is seeking evil; for he sent unto me for my wives and my children and for my silver and my gold, and I denied him not. (8) And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Do not hearken and do not consent. (9) And he said to the messengers of Benhadad, Say to my lord the king, All which you sent unto your servant in the beginning, I will do; but this thing I am not able to do. And the messengers went and brought him word again. (10) And Benhadad sent unto him and said, Thus may the gods do to me and even more, if the dust of Samaria suffice for handfuls for all the people who follow me. (11) And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him: Let not him boast who puts it on, like the one who removes it. (12) And it came to pass when he heard this word, he was drinking, he and the kings in the booths. And he said unto his servants, Station yourselves. So they stationed themselves about the city.
COMMENTS
With thirty-two vassal kings[455] Benhadad went up and besieged Samaria with the clear objective of humbling and plundering his southern neighbor (1Ki. 20:1). There is no indication that Ahab had in any way provoked this attack. Possibly Benhadads sudden invasion was prompted by Omris conquest of Moab and consequent control of the Trans Jordanian trade route, the famous Kings Highway.[456]
[455] The title king was sometimes given to heads of extremely tiny principalities, (cf. Jos. 12:9-24).
[456] Morgenstern, AS, 267f.
Aramean messengers were sent to Ahab with the demands of Benhadad (1Ki. 20:2). They probably delivered their message to Ahabs representatives at the gates of the city. Benhadads demands were excessive and were designed to humiliate Ahab and perhaps force him into all-out war. The Aramean demanded Ahabs silver and gold, which is to be expected; but in addition he wanted Ahabs harem and the goodliest of his children as hostages[457] (1Ki. 20:3). The surrender of a harem was tantamount to surrender of the throne (cf. 2Sa. 16:21-22) and was certainly a surrender of all manhood and self-respect. Faced with an overwhelming Aramean host, Ahab deemed it advisable to make every concession, to cast himself, as it were, on the mercy of Benhadad (1Ki. 20:4). He may have hoped that a soft answer would turn away the wrath of his adversary. It is not entirely clear that Ahab ever meant to surrender his wives and his children to the Aramean. He assumed that a verbal acknowledgment of the claims of Benhadad would be sufficient to placate the foe.
[457] Gray (OTL, p. 422) feels that the claim of Benhadad to the possessions and family of Ahab would seem to indicate the vassal status of the latter.
Since Ahab had yielded so easily and so swiftly to his initial ultimatum (1Ki. 20:5), Benhadad made yet further demands. The initial proposal was vague and general and allowed for Ahab to select what he would deliver over to the Aramean; the second proposal was definite and immediate and provided that Benhadads servants would pass through the palaces of Samaria seizing whatever appeared to be valuable to Ahab[458] (1Ki. 20:6). Realizing that his previous conciliatory submission had only stirred the Aramean braggart to make greater demands, Ahab called the elders of the land together to seek advice. It now appeared, Ahab pointed out to the council, that Benhadad would be satisfied with nothing less than total capitulation[459] (1Ki. 20:7). The elders of the nation and the people as well were unanimous in urging Ahab to resist these latest demands (1Ki. 20:8).
[458] Josephus (Ant. VIII, 14.1) assumes that at first Ahab interpreted Benhadads demand to apply to the royal household exclusively, and that after the second message he realized it applied to all the people. Modern commentators think Ahab interpreted the first message as simply a grandiloquent demand for surrender and tribute; but in the second, Ahab saw that Benhadad intended his terms literally.
[459] The accepted practice of war was that a city should be sacked only if its defenders refused peaceful surrender on the basis of tribute in money and/or labor. Ahab had already indicated his willingness to surrender and yet Benhadad was not satisfied. Ahab could only conclude that Benhadad was deliberately goading him to continue what he believed to be a hopeless defense so that he might sack the city.
Ahab sent word back to Benhadad that whereas he had been willing to comply with the initial demands, he could not permit enemy soldiers to pillage his palaces. This message the Aramean messengers carried back to their king (1Ki. 20:9). Infuriated, Benhadad fired back a blustering and boasting reply. He vowed that he would make Samaria a heap of dust, and boasted that his troops were so numerous that this dust would be insufficient to fill the hands of each of his soldiers (1Ki. 20:10). Ahab responded with a pithy and incisive proverb which consists of only four words in the Hebrew: It is not the one who girds on his harness who should boast, but he that survives to remove it (1Ki. 20:11). When this curt but appropriate reply was reported to Benhadad, the king and his vassals were drinking in the campaign huts which they had erected. In furious rage the king issued the commandone word in the Hebrewto commence the siege (1Ki. 20:12).
2. THE DELIVERANCE OF THE CITY (1Ki. 20:13-22)
TRANSLATION
(13) Now behold a prophet drew near unto Ahab king of Israel and said, Thus said the LORD: Have you seen all this great multitude? Behold I am about to give it into your hand today, that you may know that I am the LORD. (14) And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus says the LORD: By the young men of the cities of the provinces. And he said, Who shall order the battle? And he said, You. (15) And he counted the young men of the cities of the provinces, and they were 232, and after them he numbered all the people, all the sons of Israel were seven thousand. (16) And they went out at noon. Now Benhadad was drinking to the point of drunkenness in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty-two kings who were helping him. (17) And the young men of the cities of the provinces went out first; and Benhadad had sent out, and they had told him, saying, Men have come out from Samaria. (18) And he said, Whether they have come out for peace or for war, seize them alive. (19) So these men went out from the city, the young men of the cities of the provinces, and the army which was behind them. (20) And they smote every man his man; and the Arameans fled, and Israel pursued them, and Benhadad king of Aram escaped upon a horse with the horsemen. (21) And the king of Israel went out and smote the horses and the chariots, and he smote the Arameans with a great smiting. (22) Then a prophet drew near unto the king of Israel, and said to him, Go, strengthen yourself, and note and see what you have to do; for at the return of the year the king of Aram will come up against you.
COMMENTS
It is useless to speculate as to the identity of the prophet sent by God with a message of encouragement to Ahab.[460] The promise is that Benhadad and his host would be delivered into the hand of Ahab that very day. Whatever other reasons God might have had for intervention on behalf of Israel, the supreme purpose of this divine help was so that Ahab might know assuredly that Yahweh was God (1Ki. 20:13). On Carmel Yahweh had appeared as a God of fire, wrath and judgment; now He was about to reveal Himself as God of redemption. On Carmel the Lord had shown Himself to be superior to the idols of Phoenicia; now He would demonstrate His power over the gods of Aram.
[460] Josephus identifies the prophet as Micaiah ben Imlah. But if so, how would one account for 1Ki. 22:8?
Ahab welcomed this word from the Lord, but he was puzzled by it, and so inquired further of the prophet. Who would secure the promised victory and which side would commence the hostilities? In the name of Yahweh the prophet related the strategy. It is the young men or servants of the district governors who would gain the victory. Apparently these officials and their aids had fled to Samaria upon the approach of Benhadad. Just who these young men were is not clear, and suggestions range from the view that they were pages to the view that they were an elite body of troops.[461] Probably God selected an agency which was purposely weak and feeble in order that the victory might be seen to be of God. This band of young men, whoever they may have been, was to commence the attack against the Arameans (1Ki. 20:14).
[461] The traditional view is that they were the sons of vassal princes left as hostages as an assurance that they would not rebel. Modern commentators prefer the view that the princes were governors of various districts of Israel. The young men were cadets who were recruited by these princes and sent to the capital for special training. Gray (OTL, p. 424) pictures the young men as shock troops or commandos.
Ahab numbered his troops and found them to be very small by the standards of antiquity: the young men belonging to the district governors numbered 232, and the rest of the army but seven thousand (1Ki. 20:15). At noon when normally peoples of the Near East take a lengthy respite from all activity, the tiny force of Ahab marched forth from Samaria. Benhadad and his vassals were carousing and giving little thought to their military endeavors[462] (1Ki. 20:16). Of course the Arameans had posted observers, and these observers immediately reported the troop movements out of the gate of Samaria (1Ki. 20:17). The king gave the orders that the Israelites were to be taken alive, no doubt so that he might torture them and mock them before they were executed (1Ki. 20:18). It may be that the 232 young men were used as a decoy to lull the Aramean troops into a false sense of security. When the Arameans came forward to take these young men into custody, the seven thousand troops poured forth from the city to engage the enemy (1Ki. 20:19). When several Arameans fell in battle, panic seized the rest, and they fled for their lives with Israel in hot pursuit. Benhadad himself fled by horse in the company of some of his cavalry[463] (1Ki. 20:20). Thus did Israel defeat the Aramean host with a great slaughter which included the cavalry and chariotry (1Ki. 20:21).
[462] Gray (OTL, p. 423) has followed the suggestion of Yadin that the Hebrew word translated pavilions (1Ki. 20:16) should be rendered as a proper noun, Succoth. According to this view, Benhadad was directing the campaign from a headquarters several miles removed from Samaria.
[463] Among the western allies at the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.) Damascus contributed by far the largest contingent of mounted cavalry.
Shortly after the victory over the Arameans, the unnamed prophet came to Ahab again, this time with a warning. The danger was not over. At the turn of the year, i.e., in the spring of the following year, when oriental kings normally launched their military campaigns,[464] Benhadad would return. Therefore Ahab should take every military precaution by strengthening both his army and the fortifications of his capital (1Ki. 20:22).
[464] Compare 2Sa. 11:1, at the return of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle. Also 2Ch. 36:10. Large-scale offensive warfare was not conducted during the rainy season.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) Ben-hadad.This is the inherited title of the Syrian kings. (See Amo. 1:4; Jer. 49:27.) From the allusion in 1Ki. 20:34 it appears that this Ben-hadad was the son of a king who had been victorious against Omripossibly pushing still further the advantage gained in the time of Baasha. It is evident that he assumed, perhaps by inheritance, a sovereignty over Israel.
Thirty and two kings.All the notices of Syria show it as divided into small kingdoms, confederated from time to time under some leading power. In the days of David this leading power was that of Hadadezer of Zobah (2Sa. 8:3-13; 2Sa. 10:19), although Hamath was apparently independent. Now Damascus, under the dynasty of Hadad, assumes a most formidable predominance. Ahab cannot stand before it, but shuts himself up, probably after defeat, within the strong walls of Samaria.
(24) And he sent.This message and the answer of Ahab (My lord, O king) are the assertion and acceptance of Syrian sovereignty over Israel: all the possessions and the family of the vassal are acknowledged to be the property of his superior lord. Ahab surrenders, but not at discretion. Ben-hadad refuses all qualified submission.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
BEN-HADAD’S WARS AGAINST AHAB, 1Ki 20:1-34.
1. Ben-hadad the king of Syria He reigned at Damascus, and was probably son of the king of the same name whom Asa hired with the treasures of the temple to smite the cities of Israel, and trouble king Baasha. 1Ki 15:18-20.
Thirty and two kings Not confederate kings of neighbouring independent nations, but vassal kings, or lords of single cities and their surrounding country, which were tributary to Ben-hadad. 1Ki 20:24 shows the power and authority Ben-hadad wielded over them.
Horses and chariots Many of the latter had probably been obtained from Egypt in the days of Solomon. 1Ki 10:29.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Initial War With Benhadad ( 1Ki 20:1-21 ).
This war would appear to have been occasioned by a refusal by Ahab to pay the tribute due under a vassalage treaty. Because of this Benhadad came with his allies to enforce the treaty, at which point Ahab submitted. But when Benhadad then tried to extract considerably more than was due, and to humiliate Ahab, Ahab resisted, and was promised by YHWH that victory would be his so that he would recognise YHWH for Whom He was. And the result was that he achieved a great victory.
Analysis.
a
b And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel, into the city, and said to him, “Thus says Ben-hadad, Your silver and your gold is mine, your wives also and your children, even the finest, are mine” (1Ki 20:2-3)
c And the king of Israel answered and said, “It is in accordance with your saying, my lord, O king. I am yours, and all that I have” (1Ki 20:4).
d And the messengers came again, and said, “Thus speaks Ben-hadad, saying, I sent indeed to you, saying, You shall deliver me your silver, and your gold, and your wives, and your children, but I will send my servants to you tomorrow about this time, and they will search your house, and the houses of your servants, and it shall be, that whatever is pleasant in your eyes, they will put it in their hand, and take it away” (1Ki 20:5-6).
e Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, “Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeks mischief, for he sent to me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold, and I did not refuse him.” And all the elders and all the people said to him, “Do not listen, or give consent” (1Ki 20:7-8).
f For which reason he said to the messengers of Ben-hadad, “Tell my lord the king, All that you sent for to your servant the first time I will do, but this thing I may not do.” And the messengers departed, and brought him word again (1Ki 20:9).
g And Ben-hadad sent to him, and said, “The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria will suffice for handfuls for all the people who follow me” (1Ki 20:10).
h And the king of Israel answered and said, “Tell him, Let not him that who girds on his armour boast himself as he who puts it off” (1Ki 20:11).
g And it came about, when Ben-hadad heard this message, as he was drinking, he and the kings, in the pavilions, that he said to his servants, “Set yourselves in array.” And they set themselves in array against the city (1Ki 20:12).
f And, behold, a prophet came near to Ahab king of Israel, and said, “Thus says YHWH, Have you seen all this great host? behold, I will deliver it into your hand this day, and you will know that I am YHWH” (1Ki 20:13).
e And Ahab said, “By whom?” And he said, “Thus says YHWH, By the young men of the princes of the provinces.” Then he said, “Who will begin the battle?” And he answered, “You”. Then he mustered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two, and after them he mustered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand (1Ki 20:14-15).
d And they went out at noon. But Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings who helped him. And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben-hadad sent out, and they told him, saying, “There are men come out from Samaria” (1Ki 20:16-17).
c And he said, “Whether they are come out for peace, take them alive, or whether they are come out for war, take them alive” (1Ki 20:18).
b So these went out of the city, the young men of the princes of the provinces, and the army which followed them, and they slew every one his man, and the Aramaeans (Syrians) fled, and Israel pursued them, and Ben-hadad the king of Aram (Syria) escaped on a horse with horsemen (1Ki 20:19-20).
And the king of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and slew the Aramaeans (Syrians) with a great slaughter (1Ki 20:21).
Note that in ‘a’ Benhadad gathered together his host and his horses and chariots, and in the parallel they are all smitten by the king of Israel. In ‘b’ Benhadad made his demands on Ahab including his children (bn), even the finest, and in the parallel the pick of the ‘children’ (n‘r) go out to him and defeat him utterly. In ‘c’ the king of Israel says that all that he has is Benhadad’s and in the parallel Benhadad looks forward to seizing what the king has sent out. In ‘d’ Benhadad renews his demands and claims not only his silver, gold, wives and children, but also the right to search through all Ahab’s possessions and take what he wanted, and in the parallel report comes to him that young men (n‘r – young men , children) were coming out of Samaria. In ‘e’ Ahab is advised not to listen to the demands of Benhadad, and in the parallel he instead musters his retaliatory forces at the command of YHWH Who pinpoints the ‘young men (children)’for the purpose. In ‘f’ Ahab refuses the demands of Benhadad, and in the parallel YHWH assures him not to be afraid because he will give him victory over Benhadad’s response to his refusal. In ‘g’ Benhadad promises to grind Samaria to dust, and in the parallel he sets his men in array for that purpose. Central in ‘h’ is the injunction from Ahab to Benhadad not to count himself as having won until he has actually done so. It was a reminder to the readers and hearers that when YHWH was involved nothing was certain except that His will would be done
1Ki 20:1
‘ And Ben-hadad the king of Aram (Syria) gathered all his host together, and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses and chariots, and he went up and besieged Samaria, and fought against it.’
The crisis now facing Ahab was a severe one. Benhadad of Aram had gathered his forces together and with thirty two ‘kings’, and horses and chariots, was besieging Samaria. This was seemingly because Ahab had previously become Benhadad’s vassal, but had withheld tribute. It was Benhadad who now controlled the trade routes, and had grown rich and powerful.
It is quite clear from this that Benhadad, king of Aram, reigning in Damascus, was the new power in the area. From small beginnings when Rezon had made it his base at the end of Solomon’s reign (1Ki 11:23-25), Damascus had gradually begun to establish itself, and to organise the Aramaean tribes, and taking advantage of the continual squabbles between Israel and Judah, had grown ever more and more powerful, even assisting Asa against Israel in return for adequate reward (1Ki 15:17-22), when the Aramaeans had raided Israel’s northern borderlands.
Seemingly by the time of this incident he had gone further, and had reduced Ahab to vassalship. But it would appear from what follows that Ahab had withheld tribute, and Benhadad now therefore called on thirty two ‘kings’ (some local petty kings but mainly tribal chieftains) to aid him in punishing his rebellious vassal, Ahab. The threat of Assyria, which would in the future unite the two kingdoms with others in a common cause, had not yet appeared over the horizon, although we know from Assyria’s assessment of Omri that they had certainly been taking an interest in the area. This incident must have taken place some time before the coming Battle of Qarqar in c.853 BC when the kings of the area united in common cause to fight off the Assyrians under Shalmaneser III, and Ahab contributed ‘two thousand chariots and ten thousand men’. He would die in the following year.
The prophetic author’s interest, however, is not in the history of the period, but in the fact that after His revelation of Himself at Mount Carmel YHWH was making clear that if only Ahab would turn back to YHWH with all his heart, YHWH would be able to deliver him from all his enemies.
1Ki 20:2-3
‘ And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel, into the city, and said to him, “Thus says Ben-hadad, Your silver and your gold is mine, your wives also and your children, even the finest, are mine” ’
With Samaria under siege Benhadad sent messengers to Ahab to point out that he was Benhadad’s vassal. It was his intention to receive a large amount of silver and gold, and to take Ahab’s wives and children as hostages to Damascus, hostages for his good behaviour. (Ahab could get many more wives, and he would know that his children would be well treated as long as he kept to the terms of the treaty. Benhadad would probably not have wanted to offend Tyre by taking Jezebel).
1Ki 20:4
‘ And the king of Israel answered and said, “It is in accordance with your saying, my lord, O king. I am yours, and all that I have.” ’
Ahab, recognising that he had little alternative, yielded to Benhadad’s demands. He was prepared to swear fealty, pay his ransom, and hand over the hostages, in return for Benhadad’s withdrawal.
1Ki 20:5-6
‘ And the messengers came again, and said, “Thus speaks Ben-hadad, saying, I sent indeed to you, saying, You shall deliver me your silver, and your gold, and your wives, and your children, but I will send my servants to you tomorrow about this time, and they will search your house, and the houses of your servants, and it shall be, that whatever is pleasant in your eyes, they will put it in their hand, and take it away.” ’
But Benhadad was not satisfied with that. He wanted to demonstrate his complete superiority over Ahab by humiliating him and walking in and taking whatever could be found of value in Samaria, on top of what had originally been demanded. As Ahab recognised, it was a deliberate insult.
1Ki 20:7
‘ Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, “Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeks mischief, for he sent to me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold, and I did not refuse him.”
Ahab then called together his council, the leading men of the land who had taken shelter in the capital city. He pointed out the humiliating nature of the demand that was now being made, which was on top of the original demand to which he had acceded and sought their advice.
1Ki 20:8
‘ And all the elders and all the people said to him, “Do not listen, or give consent.” ’
Moved to anger by the demands, and probably feeling safe in Samaria which was built to withstand a long siege, the elders and all the people urged Ahab to resist.
1Ki 20:9
‘ For which reason he said to the messengers of Ben-hadad, “Tell my lord the king, All that you sent for to your servant the first time I will do, but this thing I may not do.” And the messengers departed, and brought him word again.’
That was the reason why Ahab sent the messengers back, repeating the original terms, by which he was willing to abide, but pointing out that he could not accede to the new demands. At this the messengers returned to Benhadad.
1Ki 20:10
‘ And Ben-hadad sent to him, and said, “The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria will suffice for handfuls for all the people who follow me.” ’
Benhadad’s reply was that he would grind Samaria into such a small pile of dust that there would hardly be sufficient to give a handful to all those who followed him. Alternately he may have had in mind the thought that his followers were so numerous that what Samaria could contribute after he had finished with them would be an insufficiency.
1Ki 20:11
‘ And the king of Israel answered and said, “Tell him, Let not him that who girds on his armour boast himself as he who puts it off.” ’
Ahab, who was no coward, and whose adrenalin was now flowing, sent his own reply back and suggested to Benhadad that the time for boasting was after he had won the battle, not before. The words are emphasised by the author (central in the chiasmus) as a reminder that man should beware of boasting when YHWH was around.
1Ki 20:12
‘ And it came about, when Ben-hadad heard this message, as he was drinking, he and the kings, in the pavilions, that he said to his servants, “Set yourselves in array.” And they set themselves in array against the city.’
The message reached Benhadad as he was drinking in his splendid tent with his loyal kings and chieftains, and infuriated he sent out immediate orders that preparations should instantly go forward for reducing the besieged city. The time for talking was at an end.
1Ki 20:13
‘ And, behold, a prophet came near to Ahab king of Israel, and said, “Thus says YHWH, Have you seen all this great host? behold, I will deliver it into your hand this day, and you will know that I am YHWH.” ’
Meanwhile unknown to Benhadad a new power was entering into the equation, for a prophet came from YHWH to Ahab and assured him that the great host that he saw before him would be delivered into his hand that very day so that Ahab would be able to appreciate that YHWH truly was YHWH, the great Deliverer of Israel from Egypt. After the exhibition at Mount Carmel YHWH was giving Ahab another chance.
1Ki 20:14
‘ And Ahab said, “By whom?” And he said, “Thus says YHWH, By the young men of the princes of the provinces.” Then he said, “Who will begin the battle?” And he answered, “You.” ’
Ahab had been sufficiently impressed by what had happened at Mount Carmel to listen, and he then asked the prophet by whom this deliverance was to take place. Who were those to be involved? The reply brings out YHWH’s sense of humour. Benhadad had demanded Ahab’s children, had he? Well, he could have them. The deliverance would by ‘the young men’ (the word can also mean children) of the princes of the provinces, those not defiled by contact with the court and the Baalism of Samaria.
Ahab then asked whether he should wait for Benhadad to attack, or whether he should attack first, to which the prophet replied that he should attack first.
1Ki 20:15
‘ Then he mustered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two, and after them he mustered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand.’
So Ahab mustered the young men of the princes of the provinces, of which there were two hundred and thirty two, and then he mustered all the available fighting men in Samaria. These numbered ‘seven thousand’ (seven military units). In view of the mention of ‘seven thousand’ chosen servants of YHWH in 1Ki 19:18, where the idea was of YHWH’s divinely perfect ‘reserved chosen ones’, we are probably intended to see this as indicating YHWH’s divinely perfect fighting force.
1Ki 20:16
‘ And they went out at noon. But Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings who helped him.’
Meanwhile Benhadad, confident that Ahab was trapped in the city and could do little or nothing, was getting himself and all his accompanying kings blind drunk. The thought of a full scale attack from within the city was outside his comprehension. Thus when the initial foray of ‘Ahab’s children’ came out of the city at noon he treated it as a joke, something to be dismissed out of hand.
1Ki 20:17
‘ And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first, and Ben-hadad sent out, and they told him, saying, “There are men come out from Samaria.”
The initial foray was by the young men of the provinces, and when Benhadad sent out in order to discover what the commotion was about, he was informed that men had come out of Samaria.
1Ki 20:18
‘ And he said, “Whether they are come out for peace, take them alive, or whether they are come out for war, take them alive.” ’
He probably dismissed the idea with a wave of his hand. His commanders in the field could deal with that. And he was so confident that he gave the command that, regardless of whether they had come out to make terms, or whether their aim was more belligerent, the men be taken alive. He did not realise that by this he was merely hampering his forces, who would seek to carry out his wishes. It is much more difficult to take men alive than dead, and his officers would know what the consequences would be for them if too many of their opponents died after they had received that command. Benhadad would not be lenient.
1Ki 20:19-20
‘ So these went out of the city, the young men of the princes of the provinces, and the army which followed them, and they slew every one his man, and the Aramaeans (Syrians) fled, and Israel pursued them, and Ben-hadad the king of Aram (Syria) escaped on a horse with horsemen.’
Meanwhile the young men came forward determined to prove their worth and to show Ahab that he had chosen wisely, and, with all eyes concentrated on them, they were followed by the seven large units who had also been mustered, but were probably virtually unnoticed. It is possible at this stage that recognising in the young men the usual offer of a ‘trial by combat’ in which chosen men of each side would first fight in order to see whose side the gods were on, Benhadad’s captains sent out the equivalent number of young men to do battle. We can compare how Goliath had similarly challenged the hosts of Israel to provide a champion (1 Samuel 17), and how Joab’s young men had met Abner’s before the battle began (2Sa 2:14-16). It was a method of the day.
But the young men of Ahab prevailed, each slaying his man. And in that superstitious age such a portent was devastating to the morale of the opposing army, especially one which was as loosely affiliated as the Aramaeans (1Ki 20:24). With this portent, and with their kings and chieftains drunk in their tent, and with seven organised units of Israelites suddenly appearing and bearing down on them the different tribal sections turned and fled (as the Philistines had on the death of Goliath – 1Sa 17:51). If the gods were against you, what was the point in fighting?
Meanwhile Benhadad, now aroused from his drunken stupor, recognised the danger and, caught up in the general panic, seized a horse and fled with his cavalry. Cavalry were a relatively new idea in Palestine at the time, and from the Assyrian descriptions of the battle of Qarqar we know that the Aramaeans had twelve hundred of them.
1Ki 20:21
‘ And the king of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and slew the Aramaeans (Syrians) with a great slaughter.’
Seeing the success of his men, Ahab then gathered together all in Samaria who were remotely capable and went out to take advantage of the situation, smiting the horses and chariots, which would not have been anticipating a battle and would have been unprepared, and slaughtering great numbers of fleeing Aramaeans. YHWH had triumphed on behalf of Israel once again. It was a rout.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
War With Benhadad King Of Aram ( 1Ki 20:1-43 ).
There is no indication at what point in Ahab’s reign these events occurred, but a situation is indicated where the power of the Aramaeans had now grown so great that they had made Ahab into a vassal king who paid tribute to Aram (Syria). This must have been some time into the reign of Ahab, for it is unlikely that it was true of the great Omri (except possibly in the early stages of civil war), but the history has all been ignored by the prophetic author as irrelevant simply because no prophets were involved. In his view Ahab at that stage was simply suffering the consequences of his disobedience and his trust in Baal, and as far as the author was concerned that had been brought out more effectively in the passage about the great drought. But at some stage Benhadad the king of Aram then sought to publicly humiliate Ahab, which resulted in determined resistance, and resulted in his own defeat. And this was seen as important because it was patently YHWH Who had fought for Israel in accordance with the word of a prophet (1Ki 20:13).
On returning a second time in order to gain his revenge Benhadad would once again be utterly defeated, and once again we are informed that it was because YHWH fought for Israel at the word of a ‘man of God’ (1Ki 20:28). The consequence was that a new treaty was made with Benhadad as the vassal. This treaty was, however, criticised by a prophet because the purpose of YHWH had been that Benhadad be put to death because of his sinfulness, and Ahab was finally informed that by his failure to do that he had forfeited his future security.
The passage thus splits up into three subsections, namely:
The initial war with Benhadad, where the promise is given, ‘Have you seen all this great host? Behold I will deliver it into your hand this day, and you will know that I am YHWH’ (1Ki 20:1-21).
The second war with Benhadad where the promise is given, ‘I will deliver all this great host into your hand, and you will know that I am YHWH’ (1Ki 20:22-34).
The condemnation of Ahab by the prophet of YHWH, where he declares, ‘Thus says YHWH, because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life will go for his life, and your people for his people’ (1Ki 20:35-43).
It will be noted that the main purpose in all this was so that Ahab might be brought to know that YHWH was truly YHWH, ‘the One Who will be what He will be’. It may well therefore have occurred after the incident on Mount Carmel as God sought to reinforce the impact that that had had on Ahab.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reign Of Ahab King Of Israel c. 872-851 BC ( 1Ki 16:29 to 1Ki 22:40 ).
The reigns of the previous seven kings of Judah and Israel have been covered in a short space (1Ki 15:1 to 1Ki 16:28). The reign of Ahab will now take up almost the whole of the remainder of 1 Kings (from 1Ki 16:29 to 1Ki 22:40). This, however, was not due to the importance of Ahab politically, but occurs because he was in continual conflict with the prophets of YHWH. It was these conflicts which were considered important by the prophetic writer. His initial prolonged encounter was with Elijah the prophet (chapters 17-19, 21), he had dealings with an unnamed prophet (chapter 20) and he had dealings with Jehoshaphat, a righteous king of Judah, who caused him to have dealings with Micaiah, a third prophet. He was thus of note because of YHWH’s dealings with him, and especially because his wife Jezebel, sought to establish Baalism in the face of the efforts of Elijah and the other prophets to maintain the truth of pure Yahwism. It is describing a conflict for the soul of Israel.
The whole section can be summarised as follows:
a 1). Initial summary of the reign of Ahab (1Ki 16:29-34).
b 2). WARNING OF FAMINE. Elijah Warns Of The Coming Famine Which Duly Occurs. The First Flight Of Elijah (1Ki 17:1 to 1Ki 18:2 a).
A. Elijah flees and is fed by ravens indicating YHWH’s control of the living creation in the midst of famine (1Ki 17:2-7).
B. Elijah is sustained by the miraculous provision of meal and oil indicating YHWH’s control over the inanimate creation in the midst of famine (1Ki 17:8-16). |
C. Elijah raises the dead son of the widow to life indicating YHWH’s control over life and death in the midst of famine and death (1Ki 17:17-24).
c 3). AHAB’S FIRST REPENTANCE. The Contest on Mount Carmel between the prophets of Baal and Elijah indicating YHWH’s power over storm and lightning (purportedly Baal’s forte) (1Ki 18:2-40). This leads to Ahab’s first change of heart (although not repentance).
d 4). Elijah flees from Jezebel and meets God at Horeb leading on to the command to anoint of Hazael, Jehu and Elisha as symbols of YHWH’s judgment and mercy on Israel through war, assassination and ministry (1Ki 19:1-21).
d 5). Two wars with Benhadad of Aram (Syria) before each of which a prophet of YHWH promises that YHWH will give him victory, and which results in YHWH’s final declaration of judgment on Ahab through a third prophet for failing to execute the captured king who had been ‘devoted to YHWH’ (1Ki 20:1-43).
c 6). AHAB’S SECOND REPENTANCE Naboth is falsely accused and murdered in order that Ahab might take possession of his vineyard, an incident that brings home how YHWH’s covenant is being torn to shreds and results in Elijah’s sentence of judgment on Ahab’s house, which is delayed (but only delayed) because of his repentance (1Ki 21:1-28).
b 7). WARNING OF DEATH. Micaiah warns Ahab of his coming death. War over Ramoth-gilead results in Ahab’s death as warned by Micaiah the prophet of YHWH and the humiliation of his blood by contact with scavenger dogs and common prostitutes (1Ki 22:1-38).
a 8). Ahab’s Obituary (1Ki 22:39-40).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Benhadad’s first Defeat
v. 1. And Benhadad, v. 2. And he sent messengers to Ahab, king of Israel, into the city and said unto him, Thus saith Benhadad, v. 3. Thy silver and thy gold is mine, v. 4. And the king of Israel, v. 5. And the messengers came again and said, Thus speaketh Benhadad, saying, Although I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver and thy gold and thy wives and thy children, v. 6. yet I will send my servants unto thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thine house and the houses of thy servants, v. 7. Then the king of Israel, v. 8. And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Hearken not unto him nor consent, v. 9. Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Benhadad, Tell my lord the king, All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first I will do, v. 10. And Benhadad sent unto him and said, v. 11. And the king of Israel, v. 12. And it came to pass, when Benhadad heard this message as he was drinking, he and the kings in the pavilions, v. 13. And, behold, there came a prophet unto Ahab, king of Israel, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou seen all this great multitude? v. 14. And Ahab said, By whom? v. 15. Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two, v. 16. And they went out at noon, v. 17. And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Benhadad sent out, and they told him, saying, There are men come out of Samaria; v. 18. And he said, v. 19. So these young men of the princes of the provinces, v. 20. And they, v. 21. And the king of Israel went out and smote the horses and chariots,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE INVASIONS OF ISRAEL BY THE SYRIANS AND THEIR RESULTS.The insertion of this chapter, which contains an account of two invasions of Israel by the hosts of Syria, and of the utter defeat of the latter, and which therefore constitutes a break in the history of Elijah, which has occupied the historian up to the end of 1Ki 19:1-21; and which is resumed with 1Ki 21:1-29.the insertion of this twentieth chapter in this place is apparently due to the compiler of these records, who seems to have adopted this arrangement as the more chronological. It is not absolutely certain, however, that we owe this disposition of his materials to the original compiler, as the Vatican LXX; which sometimes appears to represent an older and purer text, places 1Ki 20:1-43. after 1Ki 21:1-29; thereby concluding the history of Elijahso far as it was comprehended in the reign of Ahabbefore entering on the subject of the Syrian wars. It is not improbable, consequently, that this latter was the original order; and it is quite certain that the account of Elijah’s ministry, of which 1Ki 21:1-29. forms a part, is of a piece with 1Ki 19:1-21; and by the same hand, and is by a different hand from the author, or authors, of chaps, 20. and 22. 1Ki 22:1 also supplies a reason why that chapter should follow 1Ki 20:1-43. There seems, moreover to be a close connexion between 1Ki 22:1-53. and the denunciation of 1Ki 20:42. But the present arrangement evidently dates from very early times.
1Ki 20:1
And Ben-hadad [See on 1Ki 11:14 and 1Ki 15:18. The LXX. uniformly spells the name Ader (). The form is found in 1Ki 11:17, and and are frequently interchanged; cf. Gen 25:15, Gen 36:39 with 1Ch 1:30, 1Ch 1:46. We learn from 1Ch 1:34 that this prince was the son of a Syrian king who had conquered some of the cities of Israel, but we cannot nevertheless be certain that he was the son of that Ben-hadad (1Ki 15:18) who invaded Israel in the reign of Baasha (Ewald), See on 1Ch 1:34.] the king of Syria gathered all his host [See note on 1Ki 10:2, where we have same word] together: and there were thirty and two kings with him [Evidently these were vassals, not allied powers. The number alone proves that they must have been petty princes or chieftains of Hittite tribes, ruling over very limited districts’ and all acknowledging the suzerainty of the king of Damascus, all paying tribute (1Ki 10:25) and furnishing a contingent in time of war “The Assyrian inscriptions show that this country was, about the period in question, parcelled out into a number of petty kingdoms,” etc.], and horses, and chariots [Heb. horse and chariot; cf. verse 21 and 1Ki 1:5; 1Ki 10:26; 1Ki 16:9, etc. Both are collective nouns. We see here the fruit and retribution of Solomon’s irreligious policy. “A king who has been probably identified with this Ben-hadad brought into the field against Assyria nearly 4000 chariots” (Rawlinson)]: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. [The object of this expedition was clearly to humble and to plunder the kingdom of Samaria. It would almost appear, from the animus of the Syrian king and the studied offensiveness of his messages, as if Ahab or Israel must have given him dire offence. But Ben-hadad was clearly a vain and overbearing and tyrannical prince, and the only crime of Israel may have been that it was independent of him, or had refused to do him homage.]
1Ki 20:2
And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into [Heb. to. It is not clear that they entered the city. They may have delivered their message to the king, or to his representatives at the gates or to the people on the walls (2Ki 18:18, 2Ki 18:27)] the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Ben-hadad,
1Ki 20:3
Thy silver and thy gold is mine [Heb. mine it is]; thy wives also and thy children [Nothing reveals Ben-hadad’s object more clearly than the mention of Ahab’s wives. When we consider how jealously the seraglio of an Eastern prince is guarded, and how the surrender of the harem is a virtual surrender of the throne (2Sa 16:21, 2Sa 16:22; note on 1Ki 2:22), and certainly a surrender of all manhood and self-respect, we see that his aim was to wound Ahab in his tenderest point, to humble him to the lowest depths of degradation, and possibly to force a quarrel upon him], even the goodliest [The LXX. omits this. Bhr says the word can only apply to the sons, and that it must mean the most eminent young men of the citynot Ahab’s childrenwhom Ben-hadad demanded as hostages. But against this is
(1) Ahab’s answer, “All that I have,” etc.;
(2) the fact that Ben-hadad obviously meant insult and plunder; and
(3) the language of verse 7, where see note], are mine. [Heb. mine are they. Rawlinson would explain this excessive demand of the Syrian king by the assumption that when it was made the siege had already lasted a long time, and that the people were now reduced to the greatest straits, circumstances which the historian, with the characteristic brevity of the sacred writers, omits to mention. But really no such supposition is needed. The overwhelming force which Ben-hadad had at his back would, in his eyes, justify any demands. And the prima facie view of verse 2 is that the messengers were sent on the first approach of the army, or rather at the beginning of the siege.]
1Ki 20:4
And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have. [Much has been written about Ahab’s pusillanimous acquiescence in these disgraceful terms, etc. But it is not absolutely clear that he ever meant to surrender either wives or children to the invader. All that is certain is that he judged it wise, in the presence of the enormous force arrayed against him, to make every possible concession, to adopt the most subservient tone, and to cringe at the feet of Ben-hadad. But all the time he may have hoped that his soft answer would turn away wrath. It is very far from certain that had Ben-hadad sent to demand the wives and children which Ahab here seems willing to yield to him they would have been sent. When Ben-hadad threatens (1Ki 20:6) a measure which involved much less indignity than the surrender of the entire seraglio to his lusts, Ahab stands at bay. Allowance must be made for the exaggerations of Eastern courtesy. The writer was entertained in 1861 by Jacob esh Shellabi, then sheykh of the Samaritans, who repeatedly used words very similar to these. “This house is yours,” he would say; never meaning, however, that he should be taken at his word.]
1Ki 20:5
And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Ben-hadad, saying, Although [Heb. . According to some of the grammarians, this is merely the Hebrew equivalent of the recitantis. But the of the next verse suggests that there must be a connexion between the two, and that the second emphasizes the first, much as in the A.V.] I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children [Our translators have often sacrificed force to elegance by disregarding the order of the Hebrew, which here, e.g; is “Thy silver and thy gold to me thou shalt give them.”]
1Ki 20:6
Yet I will send my servants unto thee tomorrow about this time [This proposal was definite and immediate, the first demand was vague and general. “In the first Ahab was to send what he thought fit to give; in the second, Ben-hadad’s servants were to take into their own hands whatsoever they thought fit to sieze” (Wordsworth)], and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in [Heb. the desire of] thine eyes [The LXX. and some other versions have a plural suffixtheir eyes. But the Hebrew text is to be preferred. The object of Ben-hadad was to couch his message in the most oftensive and humiliating terms, and “the desire of thine eyes” would be likely to cut deeper and wound more than “the desire of their eyes”], they shall put it in their hand, and take it away. [If Ahab ever hoped by his abject submission to conciliate the Syrian king, he now finds that his words have had just the opposite effect. For all that the latter concluded from it was that Ahab was one upon whom he might trample at pleasure, and this servility encouraged Ben-hadad to renew his demands in a still more galling and vexatious form. This second message discloses to us still more plainly the royal bully and braggart, and shows us what the “comity of nations” in the old world was often like.]
1Ki 20:7
Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land [Bhr remarks that this expression, compared with “the elders of the city” (1Ki 21:8, etc.), suggests either that these nobles, as the highest officials, had their residences at the court, or upon the approach of Ben-hadad had betaken themselves thither with their treasures. Rawlinson builds on this slender basis the conclusion that the council of elders which, he says, belonged to the undivided kingdom, had been continued among the ten tribes, had an important place in the government, and held regular sittings at the capital] and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man [or fellow. The expresses either hatred or contempt. Cf. 1Ki 22:27; Luk 23:2, Luk 23:18, etc.] seeketh mischief [the purport of Ahab’s address is not, “Ben-hadad is not satisfied with my treasures; he wants yours also” (Bhr), for there is no reference whatsoever to their property, but, “See how he is determined on our ruin. Nothing short of our destruction will suffice him. He is bent on provoking an encounter, that he may plunder the city at pleasure.” The salient word is the ]: far he sent unto me for my wives, and for my children [LXX. . This shows clearly that “the most eminent young men “cannot be meant in Luk 23:3], and for my silver and for my gold: and I dented him not. [What these words mean depends on what Luk 23:4 (where see note) means. It is difficult to conceive that any monarch could gravely proclaim his own shame to his counsellors; could confess, that is, that he had consented to surrender his children and concubines without a struggle.]
1Ki 20:8
And an the eiders and an the people [not only, i.e; the inhabitants of Samaria (Keil), but also those who had flea thither for refuge. It is not implied that they were formally consulted, but at such a crisis, when nothing could be done, humanly speaking, without their support, it was natural that they should express their opinion] said unto him Hearken not unto him nor consent. [Lit; thou shalt not consent. is the equivalent of , ne, and of , non. Cf. Amo 5:5, and Ewald 350 a.]
1Ki 20:9
Wherefore [Heb. and] he said unto the mcaeengers of Ben-hadad, Tell my lord the king [He still employs the same obsequious language as in verse 4], All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first I will do: but this thing I may [Heb. can] not do [At first sight it appears as if Ahab objected to the search (verse 6), i.e; plunder, of his house and capital much more than to the surrender of his wives to shame and of his children to slavery. But we must remember that a man is ready to promise almost anything in his extremity, and that we do not know what construction he put, or would have claimed to put, upon Ben-hadad’s first demand, had that monarch consented to revert to these conditions, or by what means he hoped to evade it]. And the messengers departed, and brought him [Ben-hadad, not Ahab, as Rawlinson imagines] word again. [Not the “word related in the next verse” (Rawlinson), but the message just recorded.]
1Ki 20:10
And Ben-hadad sent unto him, and said [These words would be quite superfluous, if the oaths of which we now hear were the “word” of 1Ki 20:9], The gods do so unto me, and more also [see notes on 1Ki 2:23; 1Ki 19:2], if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls [The meaning of pugilli, is fixed by Isa 40:12, and Eze 13:19] for all the people that follow me. [Heb. that are in my feet. Same expression Jdg 4:16; Jdg 5:15; 1Sa 25:27; 2Sa 15:17, etc. This thoroughly Oriental piece of bluster and boasting, which was intended, no doubt, to strike terror into the hearts of king and people, has been variously interpreted, but the meaning appears to be sufficiently clear. Ben-bahad vows that he will make Samaria a heap of dust, and at the same time affirms that so overwhelming is his host, that this dust will be insufficient to fill the hands of his soldiers. Rawlinson compares with it the well-known saying of the Trachinian to Dieneces, that the Median arrows would obscure the sun (Herod. 7:226), but 2Sa 17:18 is still more apposite.]
1Ki 20:11
And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him Let not him that girdeth on his harness bout himself as he that putteth it off. [This proverb consists of four words in the Hebrew. The commentators cite the Latin, Ne triumphum canas ante victoriam, but proverbs to the same effect are found in most languages.
1Ki 20:12
And it came to pass, when Ben-hadad [Heb. he] heard this message [Heb. word], as he was drinking, he and the kings in the pavilions [Heb. booths. The word shows that, in lieu of tents, kings and generals on an expedition sometimes used leafy huts, like those of Israel (Lev 23:34, Lev 23:42). Such booths, it is said, are still erected on military expeditions in the East], that he said unto his servants, Set yourselves in array [Heb. one short, decisive word. His indignation and astonishment were too great for more. We might perhaps render “Form.” Cf. 1Sa 11:11; Jos 8:2, Jos 8:13; Job 1:17; Eze 23:24. It cannot mean (LXX.)] And they set themselves in array [or formed. Again one word, which is more spirited and graphic, and conveys that the command was instantly obeyed] against the city.
1Ki 20:13
And, behold, there came a prophet [Heb. one prophet. Cf. 1Ki 13:11. According to Jewish writers, this was Micaiah, son of Imlah, but 1Ki 22:8 negatives this supposition, This is another proof that all the prophets had not been exterminated. Where Elijah was at this time, or why he was not employed, we have no means of determining. Bhr says that he was “least of all suited for such a message,” but not if he had learned the lesson of 1Ki 19:12. At the same time, it is to be remembered that he invariably appears as the minister of wrath. It may also be reasonably asked why this gracious interposition was granted to the kingdom of Samaria at all. Was not this invasion, and would not the sack of the city have been, a just recompense for the gross corruption of the age, for the persecution of the prophets, etc.? But to this it may be replied that Ben-hadad was not then the instrument which God had designed for the correction of Israel (see 1Ki 19:17; 1Ki 22:31; 2Ki 10:32), and furthermore that by his brutal tyranny and despotic demands, he had himself merited a chastisement. The city, too, may have been delivered for the sake of the seven thousand (1Ki 19:18; 2Ki 19:34. Cf. Gen 18:26 sqq.) But this gracious help in the time of extremity was primarily designed as a proof of Jehovah’s power over the gods of Syria (cf. 1Ki 19:13, 28; 1Ki 18:39; 2Ki 19:22 sqq.), and so as an instrument for the conversion of Israel. His supremacy over the idols of Phoenicia had already been established] unto Ahab king of Israel, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou seen all this great multitude? [cf. 1Ki 19:10. “In Ben-hadad’s wars with the Assyrians, we sometimes find him at the head of nearly 100,000 men” (Rawlinson).] Behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. [This explains to us the motif of this great deliverance.]
1Ki 20:14
And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the Lord [Observe the repetition. He is careful to give special prominence to the sacred name, as the only help in trouble (Psa 20:1, Psa 20:5, Psa 20:7, etc.)], Even by the young men [or servants, has both meanings, corresponding with (cf. Gen 37:2; 2Ki 5:20; 2Ki 8:4] of the princes of the provinces. [The local governors (cf. 1Ki 4:7; 1Ki 10:15), on the approach of Ben hadad, had apparently fled to the capital. Whether these “young men” were their “pages” (Thenius), or even were “young lads” (Ewald) at all, or, on the contrary, a “select body of strong young men” (Bhr), the bodyguard of the various governors (2Sa 18:15) (Von Gerlach), may be doubtful; but when Bhr says that Ahab would not have consented to appoint weak boys to lead the van, at least without remonstrance, he must have forgotten that all the ordinary means at Ahab’s disposal were equally insufficient, and that in themselves 200 or 2000 tried veterans would have been just as inadequate a force as 200 pages. The agency by which the victory was won was purposely weak and feeble (per turbam imbellem), in order that the work might be seen to be of God (cf. Jdg 7:2; 1Co 1:27, 1Co 1:29). And this consideration makes against the supposition that the attacking body was composed of tried and skilful warriors.] Then he said, Who shall order [Heb. bind; we speak of “joining battle”] the battle? [The meaning isnot, “who shall command this force,” but, “which side shall begin the fray?”] And he answered, Thou [i.e; thy band of young men shall make the attack.]
1Ki 20:15
Then he numbered [or reviewed (cf. Num 1:44 sqq.; Num 3:39-43)] the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two [cf. 2Ch 14:11; Psa 33:16; Deu 32:30, etc. LXX. . Theodoret remarks that by this band230, as he understood itAlmighty God would destroy the hosts of thirty and two kings. The numbers may have been recorded because of the correspondency]: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand. [This number is of course to be understood, unlike that of Deu 19:18, literally. And the context (cf. Deu 19:19) shows that this was the number of fighting men. But this small army can hardly fail to create surprise, especially if we compare it with the statistics of the soldiery of an earlier age (2Sa 24:9; 1Ch 21:5; 2Ch 13:3; 2Ch 14:8). It is true this was not strictly an army, but a garrison for the defence of the capital. But it looks very much as if, under the feeble rule of Ahab, the kingdom of Israel had become thoroughly disorganized. “The position of Jarchi is that of a true Rabbi, viz; that the 7000 were those who had not bowed the knee unto Baal (1Ki 19:18),” Bhr.]
1Ki 20:16
And they went out at noon. [“At the time when Ben-hadad, haughty and confident, had given himself up with his vassals, to the table, news of which had probably been received in the city” (Bhr). But it seems at least equally probable that the noon hour was selected either in obedience to the unrecorded directions of the prophet, or as being a time for rest and sleep, as it still is in the East.] But Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings that helped him. [Strong drink would seem to have been a besetment of the monarchs of that age (of. 1Ki 16:9; Pro 31:4; Dan 5:1 sqq.; Est 1:10; Est 7:2; Hab 2:5). It can hardly have been to “mark his utter contempt of the foe,” Rawlinson, who compares Belshazzar’s feast (Dan 5:1-4) when besieged by Cyrus. But Ben-hadad was the besieger. We are rather reminded of Alexander’s carouse at Babylon.]
1Ki 20:17
And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben-hadad sent out [Or had sent out. Possibly, the unusual stir in the city, the mustering of the troops, etc; had led to his sending out scouts before the young men issued from the gates. The LXX; however, has “And they send and tell the king of Syria,” which Rawlinson thinks represents a purer text. But it looks like an emendation to avoid the difficulty, which is removed by translating as pluperfect], and they told him saying, There are men come out of Samaria. [Heb. men went forth, etc.]
1Ki 20:18
And he said, Whether they be come out for peace [i.e; to negociate or to submit], take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive. [We may trace in these words, possibly the influence of wine, but certainly the exasperation which Ahab’s last message had occasioned the king. So incensed is he that he will not respect the rights of ambassadors, and he is afraid lest belligerents should be slain before he can arraign them before him. Possibly he meant that they should be tortured or slain before his face.]
1Ki 20:19
So these young men of the princes of the provinces came out of the city, and the army which followed them. [i.e; the 7000. They “came out” after the young men.]
1Ki 20:20
And they slew every one his man [The LXX; which differs here considerably from the Hebrew, inserts at this point . Ewald thinks the Hebrew text ought to be made to correspond, and would read i.e; each repeatedly killed his man, as in 1Sa 14:16]: and the Syrians fled [When a few had fallen, utter panic seized the rest. The separate kings, with their divided interests, thought only of their own safety. It was a sauve qui pout. “The hasty and disordered flight of a vast Oriental army before an enemy contemptible in numbers is no uncommon occurrence. Above 1,000,000 of Persians fled before 47,000 Greeks at Arbela” (Rawlinson). The very size of such hosts, especially where the command is divided and where the generals are drunk or incapable, contributes to their defeat]; and Israel pursued them: and Ben-hadad the king of Syria escaped on an horse [Thenius suggests that this was a chariot horse, the first that presented] with the horsemen. [Heb. and horsemen; sc; escaped with him Keil). He had an escort in some of his fugitive cavalry.]
1Ki 20:21
And the king of Israel went out [It looks as if Ahab had remained within the city until the defeat of the Syrians was assured], and smote [LXX. , and captured] the horses and chariots [i.e; the cavalry and chariotry; cf. 1Ki 20:1], and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter. [Heb. in Syria a great, etc.]
1Ki 20:22
And the prophet [obviously the same prophet] came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen thyself [both as to army and to city], and mark, and see what thou doest [“Take every precaution. Don’t think that the danger is past”]: for at the return of the year [in the following spring. There was a favourite time for campaigns (2Sa 11:1), viz; when the rainy season was past. Several late wars, notably those of our own armies in Africa and Afghanistan, have been considerably influenced by the seasons. And the wars of ancient times were almost universally summer raids. “Sustained invasions, lasting over the winter, are not found until the time of Shalmaneser” (2Ki 17:5; 2Ki 18:9 10, Rawlinson)] the king of Syria will come [Heb. cometh] up against thee.
1Ki 20:23
And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him [naturally anxious to retrieve their character and obliterate their disgrace], Their gods are gods of the hills [All pagan nations have believed in local deities, Dii montium, dii nemorum, etc. (see 2Ki 18:33-35; 2Ki 19:12, 2Ki 19:13). Keil accounts for this beliefthat the gods of Israel were mountain divinities, by the consideration that the temple was built on Mount Moriah, and that worship was always offered on “high places.” Kitto reminds us that the law was given from Mount Sinai, and that fire had recently descended on Mount Carmel. “In Syrophoenicia, even mountains themselves had Divine honours paid to them” But it is enough to remember that Samaria was a hilly district, and that the courtiers must find some excuse for the defeat]; therefore they were stronger than we; but [Heb. ( often well rendered but not in this instance) by the LXX. ] let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. [This counsel, which apparently rests on religious grounds alone, was, it is probable, really dictated by the practical consideration that in the plain the Syrians would be able to deploy their chariots a most important arm of their service in a way which they could not do in the valleys round Samaria. See 1Ki 16:24, note. Moreover the Israelites would lose the advantage of a strong position and the cover of their fortifications if they could be induced to meet them in the “great plain,” or on any similar battlefield.]
1Ki 20:24
And do this thing. Take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains [Same word as in 1Ki 10:15, where see note] in their rooms. [Not so much because (Bhr) the kings only fought through compulsion, for they appear to have been in complete accord with Ben-hadad (1Ki 10:1, 1Ki 10:12, 1Ki 10:16), as because of their incapacity and divided interests and plans. The captains would presumably be selected because of their valour, military skill, etc.; the kings would owe their command to the accident of birth, etc. Moreover an army with thirty-three leaders could not have the necessary solidarity. Bhr assumes that the removal of the kings would involve the withdrawal of the auxiliaries which they contributed. But this does not appear to have occurred to Ben-ha
], horse for [Heb. as] horse, and chariot for chariot: and we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. And he hearkened unto their voice, and did so.
1Ki 20:26
And it came to pass at the return of the year, that Ben-hadad numbered the Syrians [Heb. Syria], and went up to Aphek [As the word signifies “fortress,” it is only natural that several different places should bear this name, and the commentators are not agreed as to which of them is here intended. Keil and Bhr identify it with the Aphek hard by Shunem (1 Samuels 29:1; cf. 28:4), and therefore in the plain of Esdraelon, while Gesenius and Grove the latter because of its connection with the plain, a word applied, to the plain in the tribe of Reuben (Deu 3:10; Deu 4:43; Jos 13:9, Jos 13:16, Jos 13:17, Jos 13:21, etc.)would see in it the Aphek east of the Jordan, the Apheca of Eusebius, and perhaps the place mentioned 2Ki 13:17 (where, however, see note). This trans-Jordanic Aphek is new represented by the village of Fik, six miles east of the sea of Galilee, and standing, as Aphek must have then stood, on the high road between Damascus and Jerusalem. On the whole, the balance of probability inclines to the latter. It would follow hence that the Israelites, emboldened by their victory of the preceding year, had crossed the river to meet the enemy], to fight against Israel. [Heb. to the war with Israel.]
1Ki 20:27
And the children of Israel were numbered [lit; numbered themselves. Hith-pael], and were all present [Rather, and were provided with food, = to nourish. The Alex. LXX. inserts . Vulgate accepetis cibariis. Marg. were victualled. This word of itself suggests that they were at a distance from their capital or other city], and went against them [Heb. to meet them]: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks strictly means separated. It is rightly translated “little flocks” (not “flocks,” Rawlinson ), because the idea is that of two bands of stragglers separated from the main body of the flock. So the Vulgate, duo parvi greges caprarum; but LXX; . Ewald thinks the “two flocks” points to an an auxiliary fores furnished by Jehoshaphat, fighting with Israel. He also thinks goats are mentioned to convey the exalted position of the camp upon the hills. Flocks of goats as a rule are smaller than those of sheep, the former being more given to straying] of kids [lit; she-goats. “These flocks pasture mostly on the cliffs, and are smaller than the flocks of sheep” (Bhr)]; but the Syrians filled the country. [The whole plain swarmed with their legions in striking contrast to the two insignificant Bodies of Israelites.]
1Ki 20:28
And there came a man of God [Whether this is the same person as the “prophet” of 1Ki 20:13, 1Ki 20:22, is not quite clear. The difference in the designation would lead us to suppose that a different messenger was meant. It is true the Hebrew has the article “the man of God” (LXX. ), but (see Jdg 13:6; Deu 33:1) is often hardly distinguishable from the same words without the article], and spake [Heb. said, same word as below] unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the Lord, Because the Syrians [Heb. Syria, but with a plural verb] have said, The Lord is Cod of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. [It was partly for the instruction of Israel, and to confirm their wavering faith in Jehovah (see verse 13), that this deliverance was wrought. But it was also that neighbouring nations might learn His power, and that His name might be magnified among the heathen.]
1Ki 20:29
And they pitched one over against the other [Heb. these opposite these] seven days. [The Syrians, despite their overwhelming numbers, appear to have been afraid to attack, and the Israelites were naturally reluctant, despite the promise they had received, to join battle with so great a host]. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was Joined [Heb. the war drew near. It may have been by the direction of the man of God that the Israelites attacked on the seventh day, or the precedent of Jericho (Jos 6:15) may have influenced their leaders; or the number seven, properly the mark and signature of the covenant, may have come to be regarded superstitiouslyin fact, as a lucky number And the Hebrew at first sight seems to favour this idea, for it may be rendered literally, they smote Syria, a hundred thousand, etc. The 100,000 would then represent the entire strength of the Syrian infantry. But the mention of the “footmen” and of “one day” alike suggests that it is of slaughter, not dispersion, that the historian speaks.]
1Ki 20:30
But the rest [Plainly those not claim It cannot mean those not defeated] fled to Aphek [It is clear that this fortress was then in the possession of the Syrians, as they took refuge within its walls], into the city; and there a wall [Heb. the wall, i.e; the city wall] fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. [The Hebrew implies that these were practically all who survived the battle, is the word translated above, “the rest.” We have here surely an exaggeration, even more obvious than that of verse 39. For even if we suppose an earthquake, it is difficult to believe that the walls of a place like Aphek could bury so large a number in their ruins. Rawlinson suggests that the Syrians at the time were “manning the defences in full force,” and that the earthquake “threw down the wall where they were most thickly crowded upon it;” hut the question arises whether it is possible to mass 27,000 men upon any part of a wall, or all the walls, especially of an ancient village fortress. Thenius hints that the fall of the wall may have been occasioned by the Israelites undermining it during the night, but it seems hardly likely that so small a force could undertake operations of that kind against so formidable a body of troops. Keil objects to this view on another ground, viz; that its object is to negative the idea of a Divine interposition. But the text does not ascribe the fall of the wall to any such interposition, and we know that the sacred writers are not slow to recognize the finger of God whenever it is exerted.] And Ben-hadad fled, and came into [Heb. to] the city [i.e; Aphek. Rawlinson interprets this statement to mean that he “fled from the wall, where he had been at the time of the disaster, into the inner parts of the city,” but this is extremely doubtful. Observe the words, “fled and cane to the city”words almost identical with those used of the fugitives above], into an inner chamber. [Heb. into a chamber within a chamber, as in 1Ki 22:25. This cannot mean from chamber to chamber,” as marg. It is to be observed that alone signifies properly an inner chamber. See Gen 43:30; Jdg 16:9, Jdg 16:12. Rawlinson thinks that a secret chamber may be meant “a chamber in the wall, or one beneath the floor of another.”]
1Ki 20:31
And his servants [Possibly the very same men who (1Ki 20:23) had counselled this second expedition] said unto him, Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings [As no doubt they were when compared with contemporary pagan sovereigns]: let us, I pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins [in token of humiliation and contrition, is identical, radically, with , saccus, and our sack], and ropes upon our heads [i.e; round our necks. To show how completely they were at Ahab’s mercy. Bhr shows that this custom still exists in China hut the well-known story of the citizens of Calais, after its siege by Edward III; supplies a closer illustration], and go out [Heb. go] to the king of Israel [It would appear from the language of verse 33 am if Ahab’s army was now besieging the place. He himself may have kept at a safe distance from it]: peradventure he will save thy life. [LXX. our lives, .]
1Ki 20:32
So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Ben-hadad saith, I pray thee, let me live. [Compare with this abject petition for life the arrogant insolence of 1Ki 20:6, 1Ki 20:10. The tables are indeed turned.] And he said, Is he yet alive? he is my brother.
1Ki 20:33
Now the men did diligently observe whether anything would come from him and did hastily catch it [Heb. and the men augured divinavit. Cf. Gen 44:15; Le Gen 19:26; 2Ki 17:17. LXX. . Vulgate acceperunt pro omineand hasted and made him declare whether from him, the meaning of which is sufficiently clear, viz; that the men took Ahab’s words,”He is my brother,” as a speech of good omen, and immediately laid hold of it, and contrived that the king should be held to it and made to confirm it. The only difficulty is in the word which is My. The Talmud, however, interprets it to mean, declare, confirm; in the Kal conjugation and the Hiphil would therefore mean, made him declare. The LXX. and Vulgate, however, have understood it otherwise, taking as the equivalent of rapuit. The former has , and the latter rapuerunt verbum ex ore ejus. They would seem also to have read instead of (Ewald). The law of dakheet, by which Rawlinson would explain this incident, seems to be rather an usage of the Bedouin than of any civilized nations]: and they said, Thy brother Ben-hadad. Then said he, Go ye, bring him. Then Ben-hadad came forth to him [out of his hiding-place and out of the city]: and he caused him to come up into the chariot. [A mark of great favour (compare Gen 41:43), and of reconciliation and concord (cf. 2Ki 10:15).]
1Ki 20:34
And Ben-hadad said unto him The cities, which my father took from thy father, I will restore [We can hardly see in these words “the terms of peace which he is willing to offer as the price of his freedom” (Rawlinson), because he was absolutely at Ahab’s mercy, and was not in a position to make any stipulations; but they express Ben-hadad’s idea of the results which must follow the conquest. His utter defeat would necessitate this reconstruction of their respective territories, etc. We cannot be quite certain that the cities here referred to are those enumerated in 1Ki 15:20, as taken by Ben-hadad’s armies from Baasha. For Baasha was not the father, nor even was he the “ancestor” (as Keil, later edition) of Ahab, but belonged to a different dynasty. At the same time it is quite conceivable that a prince in Ben-hadad’s position, in his ignorance or forgetfulness of the history of Israel, might use the word “father” improperly, or even in the sense of “predecessor.” We know that had a very extended signification.] Keil and Bhr, however, think that we have a reference to some war in the reign of Omri (cf. 1Ki 16:27), which is not recorded in Scripture. And the words which follow make this extremely probable, inasmuch as in Baasha’s days Samaria had no existence]; and thou shalt make streets [ lit; whatever is without; hence streets, spaces, quarters] for thee in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. [The commentators are agreed that a permission to establish bazaars or quarters, in which the Hebrews might live and trade, is here conceded]. Then said Ahab [These words are rightly supplied by our translators. The meaning would have been quite clear had the Hebrews been familiar with the use of quotation marks. For lack of these, all the versions ascribe the words to Ben-hadad], I will send thee away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him and sent him away.
1Ki 20:35
And a certain man [Heb. one man; of. 1Ki 13:11, note] of the sons of the prophets [Here mentioned for the first time, though the prophetic schools probably owed their existence, certainly their development, to Samuel. The are of course not the children, but the pupils of the prophets. For this use of “son,” cf. 1Sa 20:1-42 :81 (“a son of death”); 2Sa 12:5; Deu 25:2; Mat 23:15; 1Ki 4:30; Ezr 2:1; Joh 17:12, and Amo 7:14. Gesenius refers to the Greek , etc; and says that among the Persians “the disciples of the Magi are called, “Sons of Magi.” The word, again, does not necessarily imply youth. That they were sometimes married men appears from 2Ki 6:1, though this was probably after their collegiate life was ended. As they were called “sons,” so their instructor, or head, was called “father” (1Sa 10:12)] said unto his neighbour [or companion. Another prophet is implied. It was because this “neighbour” was a prophet that his disregard of the word of the Lord was so sinful, and received such severe punishment], in the word of the Lord [see on 1Ki 13:1], Smite me, I pray thee. [Why the prophet, in order to the accomplishment of his missionwhich was to obtain from Ahab’s own lips a confession of his desertswhy he should have been smitten, i.e; bruised and wounded, is not quite clear. For it is obvious that he might have sustained his part, told his story, and obtained a judgment from the king, without proceeding to such painful extremities. It is quite true that a person thus wounded would perhaps sustain the part of one who had been in battle better, but the wounds were in no way necessary to his disguise, and men do not court pain without imperious reasons. Besides, it was “in the word of the Lord” that these wounds were sought and received. It is quite clear, therefore, that it cannot have been merely to give him a claim to an audience with the king (Ewald)he could easily have simulated wounds by means of bandages, which would at the same time have helped to disguise himor that he might foreshadow in his own person the wounding which Ahab would receive (1Ki 22:11), for of that he says nothing, or for any similar reason. The wounding, we may be quite sure, and the tragical circumstances connected therewith, are essential parts of the parable this prophet had to act, of the lesson he had to teach. 1%w the great lesson he had to convey, not to the king alone, but to the prophetic order and to the whole country, the lesson most necessary in that lawless age, was that of implicit unquestioning obedience to the Divine law. Ahab had just transgressed that law. He had “let go a man whom God had appointed to utter destruction;” he had heaped honours on the oppressor of his country, and in gratifying benevolent impulses had ignored the will and counsel of God (see on verse 42). No doubt it seemed to him, as it has seemed to others since, that he had acted with rare magnanimity, and that his generosity in that age, an age which showed no mercy to the fallen, was unexampled. But he must be taught that he has no right to be generous at the expense of others; that God’s will must be done even when it goes against the grain, when it contradicts impulses of kindness, and demands painful sacrifices. He is taught this by the prophetic word (verse 42), but much more effectively by the actions which preceded it. A prophet required to smite a brother prophet, and that for no apparent reason, would no doubt find it repugnant to his feelings to do so; it would seem to him hard and cruel and shameful to smite a companion. But the prophet who refused to do this, who followed his benevolent impulses in preference to the word of the Lord, died for his sindied forthwith by the visitation of God. What a lesson was this to king and countryfor no doubt the incident would be bruited abroad, and the very strangeness of the whole proceeding would heighten the impression it made. Indeed, it is hardly possible to conceive a way in which the duty of unquestioning obedience could be more emphatically taught. When this prophet appeared before the king, a man had smitten and wounded him, disagreeable and painful as the task must have been, because of the word of the Lord; whilst a brother prophet, who declined the office because it was painful, had been slain by a wild beast. It is easy to see that there was here a solemn lesson for the king, and that the wounding gave it its edge.] And the man refused to smite him.
1Ki 20:36
Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion [Heb. the lion, perhaps the lion appointed already to this office, or one that had lately been seen in the neighbourhood] shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a [Heb. the] lion found him [same word as in 1Ki 13:24, where see note], and slew him [For the same sin as that of “the man of God (1Ki 13:21, 1Ki 13:26), viz; disobedience (Deu 32:24; Jer 5:6), and disobedience, too, under circumstances remarkably similar to those. In fact, the two histories run on almost parallel lines. In each case it is a prophet who disobeys, and disobeys the “word of the Lord;” in each case the disobedience appears almost excusable; in each case the prophet appears to be hardly dealt with, and suffers instant punishment, whilst the king escapes; in each case the punishment is foretold by a prophet; in each case it is effected by the instrumentality of a lion. And in each case the lesson is the samethat God’s commands must be kept, whatever the cost, or that stern retribution will inevitably follow.]
1Ki 20:37
Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him [Heb. smiting and wounding. This last particular is apparently recorded to show how promptly and thoroughly this “other man,” who is not said to have been a prophet, obeyed the charge. Probably he had the fate of the other before his eyes.]
1Ki 20:38
So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. [Rather, a bandage upon his eyes. there can be no doubt, denotes some sort of covering (LXX. ), and is probably the equivalent of . Ashes cannot be put on the eyes, and even on the head would be but a poor disguise. This bandage was at the same time in keeping with the prophet’s role as a wounded man, and an effective means of concealment. It would almost seem as if this prophet was personally known to the king.]
1Ki 20:39
And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king [in his capacity of supreme judge; see on 1Ki 3:9]: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle [i.e; the recent battle]; and, behold, a man turned aside [; cf. 1Ki 22:43; Exo 3:3; Exo 32:8. But Ewald, al. would read, prince or captain (properly ), a change which certainly lends force to the apologue, and makes the analogy more complete. Only such an officer was entitled to give such an order. Moreover just as a common soldier ought to obey his captain, so should Ahab have obeyed God. But as our present text yields a good and sufficient meaning, we are hardly warranted in making any change], and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay [Heb. weigh. There was then no coinage. Payments were made by means of bars of silver or gold] a talent of silver. [A considerable sumabout 400. “The prisoner is thus represented to be a very important personage” (Thenius). There is a hint at Ben-hadad. Ewald holds that the wounds represented the penalty inflicted instead of the talent which a common soldier naturally could not pay.]
1Ki 20:40
And as thy servant was busy [Heb. doing. The LXX. , and the Vulgate dum ego turbatus hue illucque me verterem, have led some critics to urge the substitution of turning, or looking, for doing, in the text. But no alteration is needed] here and there [or hither and thitherthe is generally localas in Jos 8:20. But sometimes it is merely demonstrative, “here and there,” as in Gen 21:29, Dan 12:5, and so it may be understood here (Gesenius)], he was gone [Heb. he is not]. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. [Cf. 2Sa 12:5-7, Ahab has himself pronounced that his judgment is just, and what it shall be.]
1Ki 20:41
And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face [Heb. removed the covering from upon his eyes]; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. [That is, he was one of the prophets who were known to him The face alone would hardly have proclaimed him a prophet. And the prophet’s dress would of course have been laid aside when the disguise was assumed.]
1Ki 20:42
And he said onto him. Thus saith the lord, Because thou hast let go [Heb. sent away; same word as in ver; 34. This is an in direct proof that those were the words of Ahab] out of thy hand [Heb. out of handsame idiom in 1Sa 26:23i.e; power, possession. Cf. Gen 32:12; Exo 18:9; Num 35:25] a man whom I appointed to utter destruction [Heb. a man of my devoting. Cf. Isa 34:5; Zec 14:11. It is the word used of the Canaanites and their cities, Deu 2:34; Deu 7:2; Jos 8:26; Jos 10:28; and it gave a name to the city Hormah, Num 21:3; Num 14:45. Ben-hadad, therefore, was doomed of God], therefore thy life shall go for [Heb. be instead of] his life, and thy people for his people. [By the lex talionis. It was probably because of this denunciation (cf. 1Ki 22:8) that Josephus identifies this prophet with Micaiah, the son of Imlah, “whom Ahab appears to have imprisoned on account of some threatening prophecy (Rawlinson). See 1Ki 22:9, 1Ki 22:26. For the fulfilment o! this prediction see 1Ki 22:1-53. It has seemed to some writers as if Ahab were here very hardly dealt with for merely gratifying s generous impulse, and dealing magnanimously with a conquered foe. Indeed, there are commentators who see in his release of the cruel and insolent tyrant s “trait which does honour to the heart of Ahab.” But it is to be remembered, first, that Ahab was not free to do as he liked in this matter. His victories had been won, not by his prowess, by the skill of his generals, or the valour of his soldiers, but by the power of God alone. The war, that is to say, was God’s war: it was begun and continued, and should therefore have been ended, in Him. When even the details of the attack had been ordered of God (1Ki 22:14), surely He should have been consulted as to the disposal of the prisoners. The prophet who promised Divine aid might at any rate have been askedas prophets constantly were in that age (1Ki 22:5, 1Ki 22:8)what was the “word of the Lord” concerning Israel’s overbearing and inveterate enemy. But Ahab, who had himself played so craven a part (1Ki 22:21, 1Ki 22:31), and who had contributed nothing to these great and unhoped-for victories, nevertheless arrogated to himself their fruits, and thereby ignored and dishonoured God. Secondly, if he had so little regard for his own private interests as to liberate such a man as Ben-hadad, he ought, as trustee for the peace and welfare of Israel, to have acted differently. The demand of 1Ki 22:6 should have revealed to him the character of the man he had to deal with. And lastly, he was acting in defiance of all the principles and precedents of the Old Testament dispensation. For one great principle of that dispensation was the lex talionis. The king was the authorized dispenser of rewards and punishments, not only to wicked subjects but to aggressive nations. It was his duty to mete out to them the measure they had served to Israel. And the precedents were all in favour of putting such wretches as this Ben-hadad to the sword (Jos 10:26; Jdg 7:25; 1Sa 15:33). If he had been the first oppressor who fell into the hands of Israel, Ahab might have had some excuse. But with the fate of Agog, of Adonibezek, of Oreb and Zeeb, in his memory, he ought at any rate to have paused and asked counsel of God before taking Ben-hadad into his chariot and sending him away with a covenant of peace, to reappear at no distant period on the scene as the scourge of the Lord’s people.]
1Ki 20:43
And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased [Heb. sullen and angry; same words 1Ki 21:4], and came to Samaria. [The order of verse suggests that the house was one in or near Aphek, in which the king was lodged after the battleon which this interview, therefore, followed closelyand that shortly afterwards he left it for his capital.]
HOMILETICS
1Ki 20:1-43
The Purgatory of Nations and Kings.
The two invasions of Israel by the armies of Syria, and their defeat by the finger of God, may suggest some lessons as to God’s dealings with nations, and with oppressive and tyrannical kings. Two considerations must, however, be borne in mind here. First, that the present age, unlike the Mosaic, is not a dispensation of temporal rewards and punishments. It is true that even now men do receive a rough sort of retribution, according to their deserts, from the operation of natural laws; but that retribution is uncertain and indirect. Sometimes vengeance overtakes the wrong doer, but as often as not he escapes scathless. The Jewish economy, however, had absolutely none but temporal sanctions. A “judgment to come” formed no part of its system. It dealt with men as if there were no hereafter. It taught them to expect an exact and proportionate and immediate recompense; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. It preached an ever-present Deity, the true King of the country, visiting every transgression and disobedience with its just recompense of reward (Heb 2:2). And so long as that economy was practised in its integrity, so long, either through the immediate dispensations of God, or the mediate action of the authorities who represented Him, did vice and crime, extortion and oppression, infidelity and apostasy, receive their just deserts. But with the advent of our Lord, and His apocalypse of life and immortality, all this was changed. We no longer look for temporal judgments because we are taught to wait for the judgement seat of Christ. It is only within very narrow limits that we expect to see vice punished or virtue rewarded. It causes us no surprise, consequently, to find even the tyrant and oppressor escaping all the whips and stings of vengeance. We know that he will not always escape; that though “the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;” and that he and all such as he will surely satisfy the inexorable claims of Justice hereafter.
But there is apparently one exceptionand this is the second considerationto this general rule. If the individual is not judged here, the nation is. For nations, as such, have no existence apart from this life present. In the kingdom of the future, nationalities have no place (Col 2:11). “Mortals have many tongues, immortals have but one.” If, then, men are ever to be dealt with in their corporate capacity, they must, and as a matter of fact they do, receive their reckoning here. It surely is not difficult to trace the finger of God in the history of Europe as well as of Israel, of modern as of ancient times. In our own generation have not both Austria and Prussia paid in blood for the spoliation of Denmark? Have not the United States suffered for their overweening pride and greed and reckless speculation? Has not France paid a heavy forfeit for the corruption, the profligacy, the secularity which marked the latter years of the Empire? Has not England, too, had to lament her intermeddling? have not her late reverses suggested to many minds the painful thought that the hand of the Lord is gone out against her? Is she not suffering at this moment for her past misgovernment of Ireland? Is not Turkey, by the agonies of dissolution, expiating the uncleanness and injustice of the last four centuries? Yes, it should be clear that whatever arraignment awaits the individual hereafter, the community, the nation, receives its requital and acquittance here.
And if this be so, it is obvious that the king, the representative of the country, or the sovereign power, who is responsible primarily for the action of the community, will have a share, and by far the largest share, in whatever good or evil befalls it. On him primarily does the disgrace and blow of a disaster fall. It is not always true that “the kings make war and their subjects have to pay for it,” for the king, in case of defeat, pays the heaviest toll of all. And though there is no one to call him to an account for internal misgovernment, yet even that does not go unrecompensed, as the history of Rome, of Russia, of Turkey, of England shows. We are warranted in looking, consequently, for the punishment of aggressive nations and tyrannical kings in this present age.
Now this chapter describes two invasions of the territory of Israel, and two successive defeats of the invaders. In the invasions we see the punishment of Israel and of Ahab; in the defeats the punishment of Syria and Ben-hadad. Let us inquire, in the first place, what each had done to provoke and deserve his respective chastisement.
I. THE INVASIONS. That these were punishments hardly needs proof. For can any land be overrun with a horde of barbarians, such as the Syrians and their confederates, the Hittite chieftains, were, without widespread and profound suffering? We know what invasion means in modern times, when warfare is conducted with some approach to humanity, but what it meant in the Old World and the Orient, we are quite unable to realize. It is idle to say that the Syrians were defeated in the end. Who shall picture to us what the thousands of Israel suffered during the advance, possibly during the retreat, of that unwieldy and rapacious host, certainly during the occupation of the country? “Before them the garden of Eden, behind them a desolate wilderness” (Joe 2:3). Fire, rapine, famine, these three fell sisters marched in their train. The invasions, then, though repelled, would entail prodigious loss and suffering on the people. It would not compensate the Jewish farmer for the loss of his corn and oil and wine, still less the Jewish father for the dishonour of his daughters, to know that the siege was raised, that the king had fled to an inner chamber, that thousands of their enemies lay buried under the walls of Aphek. No, each invasion was nothing short of a national calamity, and we do well to ask what it was had provoked this chastisement. It was
1. The sin of the people at large. The sin of Israel at this epoch was idolatry. The sin of Jeroboam had already received, in part at least, its recompense. A Syrian invasion in a preceding generation (1Ki 15:20) had wasted the territory of Daniel But the calf worship was continued, and vile idolatry was now associated with it. It is true this had been fostered, if not introduced, by Jezebel, but it is impossible to acquit the people of blame. The pleasant vices of the Phoenician ritual were sweet to their taste. They loved to have it so. Justice demanded, consequently, that they should share in the punishment. Idolatry had already procured the investment and spoliation of Jerusalem; it now accounts for the march of the Syrians and the siege of Samaris, the centre of the Baal-worship. This is the third time that a foreign army has appeared before a polluted shrine. “How can they expect peace from the earth who do wilfully fight against heaven?”
2. The sin of its rulers. We have just seen that Ahab and Jezebel were primarily responsible for this last great apostasy. It was Jezebel really who “reared up an altar for Baal,” etc. (1Ki 16:32), though Ahab was a facile instrument in her hands. We find, consequently, that king and queen were the first to suffer, and suffered most. It is easy to picture the abject wretchedness and despair to which Ahab was reduced by the insolent messages of the northern barbarian. Those were indeed days of trouble and rebuke and blasphemy. The iron must have entered into his soul as he found himself utterly without resources, at the mercy of one who showed no mercy, but absolutely gloated over his misery. Nor did Jezebel escape her share of torture. She had to face the prospect of being handed over with the other ladies of the harem, to the will of the brutal, sensual, drunken despot who was thundering at their gates. Had her hair turned white, like that of another queen, in one night, we could not have wondered at it. Strong-willed, desperate woman that she was (2Ki 9:31), she must have known too well how cruel are the tender mercies of the wicked not to have trembled. It is clear, therefore, that that prince and princess reaped some fruit of their doings in this life.
But it may be said that this reign of terror did not last long, and that despair was speedily succeeded by the joy and triumph of victory. But the victory was not one which could afford unmixed satisfaction, either to king or people. It was not won by their prowess. It was Of such a kind that all boasting was excluded. In the first place, they owed it to a prophet of the Lordone of the order whom Jezebel had persecuted. It Would therefore heap coals of fire upon Ahab’s head. Secondly, it was achieved by a handful of boys. His trained veterans had to follow their lead and enter into their labours. It was therefore more of a humiliation than a glory for his arms. It left him, in the presence of his people, a helpless debtor to that God whose altars he had overthrown; to that prophet whose companions he had slain.
Such were the immediate causes of the invasion. Two others, which were more remote, must be briefly indicated.
3. The unwisdom and unbelief of Asa. He it was who first taught the Syrians that the way to Samaria lay open to them, and that the spoils of the country repaid the cost and trouble of invasion (1Ki 15:18, 1Ki 15:19).
4. The impiety of Solomon. The horses and chariots furnished by that great prince to the “kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria” (1Ki 10:29) now overrun the great plain and stream into the valleys of Samaria. The Syrians owed the most important arm of their service (verses 1, 25) to the disobedience of the Lord’s anointed. The two-and-thirty subject princes had once been the vassals of Solomon (1Ki 4:21). We now turn to
II. THE DEFEATS. If this prodigious host was really called together to chastise the idolatries of Israel, it seems strange that it was not allowed to effect its purpose; that in the very hour of victory it was utterly and irretrievably defeated. But the explanation is not far to seek. Its advance was the punishment of Ahab’s sin; its dispersion the punishment of Ben-hadad’s. “Well may God plague each with other who means vengeance to them both.” And Ben-hadad’s sin consisted in
1. Defiance of God. The Battles of the Old World, as this chapter shows, were regarded as the contests of national deities. The defeat of Pharaoh was a judgment upon the gods of Egypt (Exo 12:12). It was to altars, hecatombs, incantations that Balak looked for help (Num 22:23.) It was the mighty gods of Israel that the Philistines feared (1Sa 4:7, 1Sa 4:8). And we know how Goliath (1Sa 17:45) and Sennacherib alike (Isa 37:23) defied the living God. And when we see Ben-hadad swearing by his gods (verse 10), when we find his courtiers accounting for their first defeat by the belief that the gods of their adversaries were gods of the hills only, we perceive at once that this war was regarded on Syria’s and Israel’s part alike (verse 28) as a trial of strength between the deities whom they respectively worshipped. The defeat, consequently, was primarily the punishment of Ben-hadad’s blasphemy (Isa 37:29).
2. Wanton insolence and cruelty. We constantly find the instruments used of God for the punishment of Israel, punished in their turn for their oppression of Israel. We have instances in Jdg 3:1-31.; Jdg 4:8, Jdg 4:22; Jdg 6:1; cf. Jdg 7:25; 2Ch 32:21; Isa 10:5-12, Isa 10:24 sqq.; Isa 14:4 sqq.; Oba 1:1 :28. When king or army exceeded their commission, when they trampled on the foe, they straightway provoked the vengeance which they were employed to minister. It would have been strange of such overbearing brutality as Ben-hadad’s (Oba 1:8, Oba 1:6, Oba 1:10) had gone unreproved.
3. Overweening pride. He was so intoxicated with the greatness of his army, with the praises of his courtiers and allies, that he thinks, Nebuchadnezzar-like, that neither God nor man can withstand him. His haughtiness comes out very clearly in his messages (Oba 1:8, Oba 1:6), in his scorn of his adversaries (Oba 1:16-18), in the passionate outburst with which he receives Ahab’s reply (Oba 1:10). “The proud Syrian would have taken it in foul scorn to be denied, though he had sent for all the heads of Israel.” And pride provokes a fall (Pro 16:18; Pro 29:23; cf. 2Ch 32:26; Isa 16:6, Isa 16:7; Oba 1:4.) The highest mountain-tops draw down on themselves the artillery of the skies. Pride stands first on the list of the “seven deadly sins,” because self-worship is the most hateful form of idolatry, the most obnoxious to the Majesty of Heaven.
4. Drunkenness. Like another invader, he transgressed by wine (Hab 2:5; cf. Dan 5:2, Dan 5:23). His revels in the thick of the siege reveal to us the man. It would have been, in Jewish eyes especially, a glaring injustice if such a man, while employed to chastise the sins of others, had escaped all chastisement himself. And his two-and-thirty confederates were like him. They had aided and encouraged him; they drank with him (Oba 1:16), and they fell with him (verse 24).
It only remains for us now to observe how exact and exemplary was the punishment which overtook king and princes and the entire armyfor the army, no doubt, had shared the views and vices of its commanders. The defeat of the entire host was not occasioned by the sin of its leader alone, any more than the invasion was provoked by the sin of Ahab alone. In the day that God visited the sin of Ben-hadad, He visited also the sin of Syria. In the first place, the drunkenness of the leaders brought its own retribution. It involved the demeralization of the soldiery. With such besotted and incapable heads, they were unprepared for attack, and fell an easy prey to the vigorous onslaught of the 232 youths. The size of the host, again, contributed to make the disaster all the greater. And what but pride and cruelty had dictated the assembling of such an enormous array, merely to crush a neighbour kingdom? And their pride was further humbled by the circumstances of their defeat. It was to their eternal disgrace that a handful of men, of boys rather, unused to war, foemen quite unworthy of their steel, had routed and dispersed them; that their innumerable army had melted away before “two little flocks of kids.” What a contrast to the proud boasting of Oba 1:10! Even the manner of Ben-hadad’s escape, his hurried, ignominious flight on the first horse that offered; his cowering abjectly in a corner of an inner chamber, this helped to sink him to a lower pitch of shame. The cavalry that was to accomplish such great things; he is thankful for one of its stray horses to bear him away from the field of slaughter. The walls of Aphek, again, avenged his threats against the walls of Samaria And the kings who had flattered him and encouraged his cruel projects, they too received a meet recompense, not only in the defeat, but in their summary degradation from their commands; while the courtiers who suggested the second expedition expiated their folly by the miseries and indignities which they suffered. It was a pitiful end of a campaign begun with so much of bluster and fury, and threatening; that procession of wretched and terrified men, with “sackcloth on their loins, and ropes on their heads.” Nor did the losses of Syria end with the battle or the earthquake; the king voluntarily cedes a part of the territory which his father had won by his valour from Israel, and returns to his capital with a decimated army, a tarnished fame, and a restricted realm. His gluttonous desire for pillage, his forcing a quarrel upon Israel, his defiance of the Almighty, have been punished by the forfeiture of all he holds most dear.
It has more than once been remarked that the history of Israel has its lessons for the individual soul. But it also speaks to nations and kings. This chapter proclaims that neither any people nor its rulers can forget God with impunity; that disregard of His laws is sure to bring down His judgments; that the purgatory of nations is in this life present; that, while the individual awaits a judgment to come, the community is judged now, by sword, and famine, and pestilence; by invasion and defeat; by loss of fame and territory; by bad harvests and crippled trade. Corporate bodies and communities may” have no conscience,” but they will prove sooner or later, as Assyria and Babylon, as Medes and Persians, as Greeks and Romans, as Russia and Turkey, as France and Germany have proved, that” verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth” (Psa 58:11).
But this history has other lessons than those which concern nations and kings. Some of these we may glean as we pass along.
1Ki 20:1
“All his host thirty and two kings horses and chariots.” It has been remarked that it is not easy to account for this expedition. Was it that Ahab had refused to do fealty? or had he offered some personal affront to the Syrian king? Nay, may we not find explanation enough in the fact that Ben-hadad, having an enormous host at his command, must find something for it to do? Large standing armies are constantly the cause of war. Preparations for war in the interest of peace (si vis pacem, etc.) are so manifestly paradoxical that who can wonder if war, and not peace, is the result? Let Europe beware of its bloated armaments. It is natural for statesmen to wish to have something to show for the cost of their maintenance.
1Ki 20:3
“They silver, is mine.” A conspicuous instance this of that law of old time
” the simple plan
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can.”
But is our modern warfare so very different in principle? Why may kings remove landmarks any more than peasants? Why may a Ben-hadad, an Alexander, a Napoleon cry, “Your lands or your life,” without reproach, and yet the footpad who plays at the same game on the highway is hanged for it? Why should what is plain “stealing” in private life be called “conveying“ or “annexing“ when practised on a larger scale?
1Ki 20:4
“I am thine.” “Wisely doth Ahab, as a reed in a tempest, stoop to this violent charge.” “It is not for the overpowered to capitulate.” Besides, who knew what the “soft answer” might effect? If smooth words could do no good, rough ones would certainly do much harm. The meek always have the best of it, and so inherit the earth.
1Ki 20:9
“This thing I may not do.” “Better die than live in disgrace,” says the Greek proverb. The king of Samaria was in a similar strait to those four logical lepers who, a few years later, in another siege, lay at the gate of the city (2Ki 7:4). He could but die in any case, and he might perchance live if he stood on his defence. Even a worm will turn when trod upon. We should think scorn of Ahab, had he not made a stand for his life and wife and children.
1Ki 20:10
“The gods do so to me,” .etc. How often has the swearer to eat his words. The hero does; he never talks of what he will do. “Victory is to be achieved, not to be sworn.” This vulgar fashion of calling upon God to do oneself some hurt thus appears to be of great antiquity. But it always proceeds from those who have very little belief in God at all. The profane swearer is practically an infidel, so far as the gods he invokes are concerned. An Italian workman was once reproved in a Roman studio for the oaths which he swore by the sacred name of Gesu. “Oh,” said he boldly, “I’m not afraid of Him at all.” Then, lowering his voice to a whisper, he added, “I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of: it is His blessed mother” He never swore by the Deity he believed in.
1Ki 20:12
“Set yourselves in array“ (Heb. ). The command was prompt and decided enough. But observe, he himself went on drinking (1Ki 20:16). This helps to explain his defeat. He was a man of words only. The successful generalsit is a trite sayingare those who say “Come,” not “Go.”
1Ki 20:18
“There came a prophet” O altitudo! For years past the prophets have been proscribed, hunted, harried to death. Yet in his darkest hour, when other refuge fails him, Ahab finds a prophet at his side. God bears no grudges. It is sufficient to give us a claim upon His help that we are helpless (Psa 68:5; Hos 14:8). He “comforteth” (i.e; strengtheneth, con fortis) “those that are cast down (2Co 7:6). “Who can wonder enough at this unweariable mercy of God? After the fire and rain, fetched miraculously from heaven, Ahab had promised much, performed nothing, yet God will again bless and solicit him with victory; one of those prophets whom he persecuted shall comfort his dejection with the news of deliverance and triumph.” This act of grace should have proved that the Lord was God, and that the prophet was His messenger. It is not in man to act thus. “Thou shalt know that I am the Lord.” “Not for thy righteousness or the uprightness of thine heart dost thou go in to possess their land, but for the wickedness of these nations,” etc. (Deu 9:4, Deu 9:5). The drought, the fire, the great rain, none of these had convinced the king and queen. Will deliverance from the jaws of death move them? Will they believe in a God of battles? Will they recognize HIS finger in a superhuman victory?
1Ki 20:15
“The young men were two hundred and thirty-two.” “Not by might nor by power (Zechariah 15:6). God’s host is ever a little flock (cf. Jdg 7:2-7; 2Ch 20:12; 1Co 1:27-29). The “weak things” were chosen then, as subsequently, “that no flesh should glory in his presence.” God never departs from that rule. The “carpenter’s son,” the “fishermen,” the “unlearned and ignorant men”it is the same principle underlies His choice in every case.
1Ki 20:16
“Drinking himself drunk he and the kings.” Of strong drink it may justly be said, “Many strong men have been slain by her” (Pro 7:20). “It is not for kings to drink wine” (Pro 31:4). Nor is it for warriors. Alexander, conqueror of the world, was conquered by wine. Our great generals of modern times have been abstainers. The march to Coomassie, to Candahar was effected without the aid of intoxicants. The Russian soldiers in the Crimea were drugged with vodka, but it did not prevent their defeat.
1Ki 20:18
“Take them alive.” “Security is the certain usher of destruction. We have never so much cause to fear as when we fear nothing” (cf. Dan 5:1, 80; Luk 17:27; 1Th 5:3).
1Ki 20:20
“They slew every one his man.” It is thus the world must be won for Christ. Mohammed had two fixed ideas: first, to make converts; second, to make his converts soldiers. And every Christian is a soldier of the Cross, enlisted at his baptism into the Church militant. By personal, individual effort are Churches built up and believers added to the Lord. So it was in the first days. “Andrew findeth his own brother Simon.” “Philip findeth Nathanael” (Joh 1:41-45).
1Ki 20:23
“Their gods are gods of the hills.” It is no uncommon thing to find men laying the blame of their misfortune on God. We smile at those poor pagans who beat their wooden gods with sticks, or those Italian villagers who, s few weeks ago, threw the image of their patron saint into a well, and set upon their parish priest, because their prayers for rain remained unanswered; but the same thing, slightly varied in shape, is often done amongst ourselves. “Bad luck” is held responsible for many of the failures for which we have only ourselves to thank. That “everybody is against him” is often the cry of the man who has no enemy but himself. The idle scoundrel who has wife and children generally accuses them of being the causes of his misfortunes; if he has no such scapegoats, he will lay the blame on God’s providence. He never remembers that he himself was “drinking himself drunk” at the hour for action.
1Ki 20:22
Go strengthen thyself.” Though God had delivered him once and would deliver him again (1Ki 20:28), yet Ahab must consult for his own safety. While trusting in God, he must keep his powder dry. The same prophet who has announced deliverance by a band of youths, wholly inadequate to cope with the Syrians, now bids him look well to the defences of the country. Aide-toi et Dieu t’aidera; this is the purport of his message.
1Ki 20:29
“Seven days.” Compare the “seven thousand” of 1Ki 20:15, and Jos 6:4, Jos 6:15, Jos 6:16. He hath commanded His covenant forever (Psalm 3:9; cf. 1Ch 16:15; Psa 89:28, 84). By this act, Israel
(1) showed that they remembered the works of the Lord, His wonders of old time; and
(2) they reminded Him of His holy covenant (Luk 1:72-74).
1Ki 20:30
“A wall fell,“ etc. (Cf. Act 28:4; Hab 2:11). “A dead wall in Aphek shall revenge God on the rest that remained.” Where they sought shelter and thought themselves secure, they found death (cf. Amo 5:19; Amo 9:3; Psa 139:7-10; Luk 19:40).
1Ki 20:31
“The kings of Israel are merciful kings.” How true is that of the true King of Israel. He is the very fount of mercy (Exo 34:7; Num 14:18; Psa 25:10; Psa 100:5; Psa 102:17; Psa 130:7). We often picture Him as “less merciful than His image in a man.” But let us do Him this dishonour no more. It is “His property always to have mercy.” Is He less clement than an Ahab? Is His heart less tender to penitent rebels? “Behold now, we know that the King of Heaven, the God of Israel, is a merciful God; let us put sackcloth upon our loins, and strew ashes upon our heads, and go meet the Lord God of Israel, that he may save our souls.”
1Ki 20:34
“I will send thee away,“ etc. On another occasion such conduct as this was commanded (2Ki 6:22, 2Ki 6:23). Why, then, was it sinful now? Precisely because it was not commanded; because God intended the opposite (1Ki 20:42). It was not clemency, it was culpable weakness to send this overbearing despot, who had already cost Israel so dear, to send him to his home, there to renew his plots against the people of God. As well might the magistrate compassionate the burglar, or the garotter, and instead of shutting him up in prison, send him into the streets, to be the plague of society. The king, like the magistrate, is trustee for the commonwealth. He has no right to gratify his benevolent instincts at the expense of the community. Still less right had the theocratic king, the representative of Heaven, to liberate, ex mero arbitrio, a tyrant whom God had manifestly given into his hands. “Charity cannot excuse disobedience.” He had proved Ben-hadad twice, yet he asks for no material guarantees. He neither consults nor remembers his deliverer.
1Ki 20:40
“Thyself hast decided it.” So shall our judgment be. “Out of thine own mouth,” etc. (Luk 19:22). How many will stand self condemned, condemned by their own precepts, condemned by the sentences they have passed upon others, by the measure they have exacted from others, etc.
1Ki 20:43
“Heavy and displeased.” Cf. Psa 16:4; Psa 32:10. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Life out of God brings only disappointment. The most magnificent of kings found it vanity and vexation of spirit. The things of earth cannot satisfy the soul of man, the soul made for God. History has preserved for us a striking testimony to this truth in the confession of Abdalrahman, caliph of Spain. “I have now reigned,” he wrote, “fifty years in victory or peace; beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies. Riches and honours, power and pleasures, have waited on my call, nor does any earthly blessing appear to have been wanting to my felicity. In this situation I have numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot: they amount to fourteen! O man, place not thy confidence in this present world.”
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
1Ki 20:1-11
The Spirit of War.
In human histories so much is made of brilliant uniforms, scientific discipline, skilful manoeuvres, exploits, surprises, and successes, that readers are carried away with “the pomp and circumstance” of so-called “glorious war.” In the text we have the other side; and we are reminded of the appeal of James: “From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your own lusts that war in your members?” (Jas 4:1.) Conspicuous amongst these is
I. THE SPIRIT OF WAR, We see this
1. In Ben-hadad’s message (verse 3).
(1) We do not understand this to be a demand from Ahab for the actual surrender to Ben-hadad of his “silver” and “gold,” “wives” and “children.” Else it would be difficult to see any material difference between this first message and that which followed (verse 6).
(2) The meaning seems to be that Ben-hadad would hold Ahab as his vassal, so that Ahab should retain his wealth, wives, and children only by the sufferance and generosity of his superior. He would have the king of Israel reduced to the condition of the “thirty and two kings” who, with their subjects and fortunes, appear to have been at his service.
2. In his confident boasting.
(1) He boasts of the vastness of his army. “All the people that follow me.” The Hebrew is given in the margin, “at my feet,” suggesting subjection and submission.
(2) Of the certainty and ease with which such an army may carry victory. “The gods do so to me and more also if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me.” They need not be content with handfuls of dust when they can fill their hands with the most valuable things in Samaria.
(3) This was the boasting which Ahab rebuked by the use of what had probably been a proverbial expression: “Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.” This caution might be profitably considered by those who are engaged in spiritual conflicts: “Be not high minded, but fear.”
II. THE SPIRIT OF INJUSTICE. This we see
1. In Ben-hadad’s requisitions.
(1) In those of his first message right is outraged. “Thy silver and gold are mine.” Taking this demand in the sense of Ahab’s coming under villenage to Ben-hadad, the claim was iniquitous. Man has rights of property and freedom, which, unless they are forfeited to law by crime, should ever be held most sacred. The injustice of slavery is horrible.
(2) The second message went even farther. It threatened open robbery. Robbery not only of the monarch, but of his subjects also. A starving wretch who steals a loaf of bread may be convicted as a felon; but warrior who plunders kingdomsa Napoleonis glorified as a hero! Rut how will these weigh together in the balances of the sanctuary?
2. In his principles of appeal.
(1) Justice is not named. How often is justice named in warfare where it has no place! The Syrian king was more outspoken than many modern war makers.
(2) Mercy is quite out of the question. Yet in modern times wars against savages have been trumpeted as benignities, because of the civilization which, it is presumed, will follow in their wake!
(3) Ben-hadad did not live in these favoured times, so the one principle to which he appeals is might. “He has the men,” and he will have “the money tool” In this he has had too many successors in the kingdoms of civilization.
(4) Not only must the covetousness of the king be gratified; so also must the host “at his feet;” and since the “dust of Samaria” will not satisfy them, Samaria must be sacked and pillaged. One injustice begets another.
III. THE SPIRIT OF CRUELTY. This appears
1. In the provocations.
(1) Observe the “putting” of Ben-hadad’s requisitions. No attempt is made to spare the feelings of Ahab, but, on the contrary, the language is studiously framed to lacerate. “Whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes”note, not what is pleasant in the eyes of the spoilers”they shall put it in their hand and take it away.”
(2) Witness also the peremptoriness. “Tomorrow about this time.”
2. In the struggles.
(1) Men are in conflict. This is not a strife of elements without feeling, which is terrible enough, but of flesh and blood and nerves with exquisite sensibilities, with susceptibilities of acute pain and suffering.
(2) The combatants are armed. That they may put each other to torture they are provided with swords, spears, arrows; and in these clays of civilization, with fire-arms of various kinds. Elephants, camels, horses, and other animals are pressed into the dreadful service.
(3) Survey the battlefield after the strife. Men and animals dead and dying, mingled; gaping wounds; mangled limbs, sickening horrors I What pictures of cruelty are here!
(4) Reflect upon the homes plunged into grief and poverty entailed through the loss of breadwinners; and add the sequel of pestilences and famines. Surely we should pray for the advent of that peaceful reign of righteousness which is promised in the Scriptures of prophecy.J.A.M.
1Ki 20:12-21
The hand of God.
The notable answer of the king of Israel to the insolent king of Syria, “Let not him that girdeth on the harness boast himself as he that putteth it off,” came to Ben-hadad when he was drinking wine with the thirty and two kings that followed him. He at once gave orders to his servants to set themselves in battle array. While the enormous host which “filled the country” (see 1Ki 20:25, 1Ki 20:27) disposed itself to attack the city, the men of Israel, who were but a handful, naturally trembled for the issue, at this juncture God interposed in the manner related here, and thereby asserted the general truths, viz.
I. THAT GOD RULES IN THE DESTINIES OF MEN.
1. Here He showed His hand.
(1) He sent a prophet. Jarchi says it was Micalah, the son of Imlah, while others think it was Elijah in disguise; but it is useless to speculate on this point. We are more concerned with the purport of His message, which was to promise victory to Israel, and to indicate how that victory should be organized, so that in the issue Jehovah might be acknowledged.
(2) The hand of God was seen not only in the prophet’s foreknowledge of events, but also in the wisdom of the adjustments by which they were to be brought about. For the victory was organized according to instructions of the prophet, purporting also to be from the Lord. Who but the Lord could have foreseen that at noon Ben-hadad and his kings would be so drunken as to be unfit and indisposed to take their posts of command? Who else could have foreseen that Ben-hadad would have been so foolish as to order the sortie to be taken alive? For thereby the Syrians were put to a disadvantage, which enabled the “young men of the princes of the provinces” and those who followed them to slay “every one his man,” and throw the invading host into confusion.
(3) The power of God also was evident when the disparity of numbers is considered. An army of seven thousand Israelites could never without supernatural aid, have demoralized and routed the formidable hosts of Syria.
(4) And that God was in this victory could not be reasonably doubted, since this was not an extraordinary event by itself, but one of a series of such events; therefore it could not have been an accident. It was preceded by three years of drought which began and ended according to the “word” of Elijah, with the miracle on Carmel.
2. By so showing His hand He evinced that He is ever working.
(1) When events are ordinary, men are disposed to see in them natural causes only; but extraordinary events force upon their consideration the fact of a superior agency behind these causes.
(2) This truth is the more evident when the ordinary are recognized in the extraordinary. Thus God ordered the battle. He appointed the general, disposed the attack which was to assure the victory, and timed everything so to fit in with circumstances as to bring about the promised result.
(3) With God there is no essential difference between things ordinary and extraordinary. It is simply a question of proportions. For natural causes are all second causes, and would have no existence but for the First Cause. A miracle is but the unusual action of the First Cause upon the second causes; but in the usual action, God is none the less present and necessary to the result.
II. THAT HE RULES IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERCY.
1. He humbles the proud is righteousness.
(1) Defeat in any case is humiliation. To Ben-hadad after his confident boasting it was eminently so. He would remember the lesson, “Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.” Let us observe it.
(2) The manner was an aggravation of the defeat. It was accomplished by two hundred and thirty-two “young men of the princes of the provinces,” who are by some thought to have been a militia raised by provincial magistrates, and by others, with perhaps better reasonfor the number seems too small to answer the former descriptionthe attendants of such of those princes as were then in Samaria. It was intensely humiliating that a company of such combatants should rout a formidable army. God makes the weak confound the mighty.
(3) Ben-hadad would be mortified to think how his overweening confidence, together with his drunkenness, had directly contributed to his humiliation. He was too drunk to appear at the head of his army, but not too drunk to find his way to the cavalry to facilitate his flight. “There is but one step from the sublime to the ludicrous!”
2. He shows long–suffering in mercy.
(1) The judgment upon Ben-hadad was mercy to Ahab. It delivered him from the hand of a cruel oppressor. It gave him another warning and space for repentance.
(2) Did Ahab deserve this? Certainly not, while he submitted to be led by Jezebel, and that notwithstanding his experience of the drought and the miracle on Carmel. God is long suffering in mercy.
(3) But there were “seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which had not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him” Jarchi would identify these with the “seven thousand” mentioned in 1Ki 20:15. Probably some of that seven thousand went to compose this, and for their sakes it may have been that God had so signally interposed. Let us never lose sight of God. Let us discern His hand in nature, providence, grace. Let us never provoke His justice by pride, by rebellion. Let us respect His long-suffering by repentance. Let us throw ourselves upon His mercy for salvation, for help.J.A.M.
1Ki 20:22-30
Wisdom in Counsel.
No man is so wise that it may not be to his advantage to consider advice; but in listening to advice we may be led astray. There are two classes of advisers, viz; those who are influenced by the “wisdom of this world,” and those who are influenced by the “wisdom from above.” Of both we have examples in the text.
I. THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD IS A WISDOM OF EXPEDIENCY.
1. It is not destitute of sagacity.
(1) It has its maxims of prudence.
(a) Ben-hadad’s counsellors would not have him underrate his enemy. The army they advise him to raise for the invasion of Israel must not be inferior to that which had been lately vanquished (1Ki 20:25). Let us not underrate our spiritual foes.
(b) Neither would they have him underrate the quality of his soldiers. They do not admit that his army was fairly beaten, but speak of “the army that thou hast lost,” or “that fell from thee.” In this also they were right, for if God had not helped Israel the Syrians would not have been routed. In all our spiritual conflicts let us fight under the banner of Jehovah.
(2) It has its lessons of experience.
(a) Ben-hadad’s counsellors lay emphasis here”And do this thing, Take the kings away, every man out of his place.” Why remove the kings? Because in the last war they were “drinking themselves drunk” when they should have been at their posts, and the army, without officers, became confused and demoralized. Trust not the kings again (see Psa 118:9; Psa 146:8).
(b) “Put captains in their rooms.” Let the army be commanded by men of ability and experience. Pageants are of no use in times of exigency.
2. But its sagacity is mingled with folly.
(1) Because the motives of the wicked are vicious.
(a) In his former war Ben-hadad’s impulse was pride. The insolence of his demands evidenced this (1Ki 20:3, 1Ki 20:6). But what wisdom is there in pride?
(b) Though mortified by defeat, that pride remained, and was now moved by the spirit of revenge: “Surely we shall be stronger than they.” But what wisdom is there in resentment?
(c) Beyond these base feelings the desire for plunder seems to have moved the Syrian. But where is the wisdom in a king becoming a common robber?
(2) Because they put themselves into conflict with the Almighty.
(a) The Syrians formed an unworthy idea of the Elohim of Israel when they localized and limited Him to the hills. Palestine is a hilly country, and its cities and high places were generally on hills; and probably in the hill country of Samaria the cavalry and chariots of Syria were of little service. (See Psa 15:1; Psa 24:3; Psa 87:1; Psa 121:1.)
(b) In the proposal to give Israel battle in the plains the Syrians now set Jehovah at defiance.
II. THE WISDOM FROM ABOVE IS THE WISDOM OF TRUTH.
1. It is far reaching.
(1) God sees the end from the beginning. We should therefore seek His counsel and guidance.
(2) He forewarns His people. He sent His prophet to the king of Israel to inform him that the king of Syria would come up against him at the return of the year. He forewarns us of the things of eternity.
2. It is prudent.
(1) The prophet advised Ahab to prepare for the event. “Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, and see what thou doest.” We should ever deport ourselves as in the presence of spiritual foes.
(2) God helps those who help themselves.
3. It is unerring.
(1) Events foreshown by God will surely come to pass.
(2) According to the advice of the prophet, “at the return of the year,” viz; “at the time when kings go forth to battle” (see 2Sa 11:1; 1Ch 20:1), probably answering to our March, which has its name from Mars, the god of war, Ben-hadad “went up to Aphek to fight against Israel.” There were several cities of this name: one in the tribe of Asher (Jos 19:30); another in Judah (1Sa 4:1); a third in Syria (2Ki 13:17). The last is probably that referred to here.
4. It is profitable.
(1) This follows from its other qualities. The guidance which is “prudent,” “far reaching,” and “unerring” must be “profitable.”
(2) But further, those who follow that guidance so commend themselves to God that He directly interposes in their behalf. There was a faithful “seven thousand” in Israel (1Ki 19:18).
(3) If in conflict with those who prefer a worldly policy, they not only have God on their side, but they have Him with them against their enemy.
(4) God helped Ahab against Ben-hadad, not that Ahab deserved it, but that Ben-hadad had to be punished (1Ki 20:28. See also Eze 36:22). The “two little flocks of kids” could not have slain in one day “one hundred thousand men” unless God had helped them. The hand of God also was in the falling of that wall by which “seven and twenty thousand” perished.
Let us faithfully pursue the policy of right. Let us never permit the expediency of a moment to swerve us from this. Truth abides.J.A.M.
1Ki 20:30-43
False Mercy.
The first army with which Ben-hadad invaded Israel was defeated with “great slaughter,” and the king saved himself by flight. The defeat of the second was even more complete, when 127,000 men were destroyed and the king had to surrender at discretion. But Ahab, for his false mercy in sparing the life of Ben-hadad, brought judgment upon himself and upon his people.
I. MERCY IS FALSE WHEN IT OPPOSES THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.
1. That righteousness dooms the incorrigible to death.
(1) “The wages of sin.” The incorrigible will certainly find this in the “damnation of hell” (Psa 9:17).
(2) Their time also in this life is shortened either by the sword of the magistrate or by the judgment of God. They get sufficient space for repentance; but the space so given, if misimproved, aggravates the terror of their death. Protracted probationary existence under such conditions, therefore, becomes a doubtful mercy.
(3) It is also the reverse of mercy to their contemporaries, because the influence of the wicked is mischievous. It is, therefore, a considerate judgment that they do “not live out half their days” (Psa 55:23).
(4) The difference between good and evil cannot be too strongly marked. The good must have no fellowship with the wicked. In eternity their separation is complete (Mat 25:46; Luk 16:26). The more perfect the separation here, the more of heaven upon earth will the good enjoy; and the more of hell upon earth, the wicked.
2. Ben-hadad was obnoxious to that doom.
(1) He was guilty of the highest crimes against humanity. In his offensive wars he was not only a public robber, but also a wholesale murderer. But murder at least is held to be a capital crime (see Gen 9:5; Exo 21:12, Exo 21:14; Le Exo 24:17. See also Mat 26:52; Rev 13:10).
(2) He was guilty likewise of the highest crimes against God. He was not only a gross idolater, but also a blasphemer of Jehovah. tie localized and limited Him as “Elohim of the hills” and defied Him in the plains. But such blasphemy also was punishable with death (Le 24:11-16).
(3) He committed all these offences in the land of Israel, where they were capital crimes, and the God of Israel delivered him into the hand of Ahab that he might suffer the penalty.
3. But Ahab opposed his mercy to the righteousness of God.
(1) But is there no mercy for the penitent? Certainly there is. In repentance there is no encouragement to evil; on the contrary, in it evil is condemned. Faith in Christ is the perfection of repentance since therein only can we be effectually delivered from sin. Repentance must be genuine.
(2) Ben-hadad’s repentance was not genuine. His servants “girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Ben-hadad saith, I pray thee, let me live.”. All this was intensely mortifying to Ben-hadad, whose tone was so different when he thought himself in the position of a dictator (see 1Ki 20:3-6). The haughtiest in prosperity are often the meanest in adversity.
(3) But here is no show of repentance towards God. He confesses that he deserves to be hanged for invading the land, but not a word about his blasphemy against the Elohim of Israel. Yet Ahab granted him his life.
II. THOSE WHO SHOW SUCH MERCY ENCOUNTER THE JUDGMENT OF GOD.
1. Because thereby they encourage evil.
(1) If sin be committed with impunity it will soon lose its character. Men are naturally inclined to sin, and are restrained chiefly by fear of its penalties. If these are remitted, offences against the law of God will come to be justified.
(2) The estimate of goodness would consequently be lowered, for we judge of qualities by contrasts. Heaven is seen in its strongest light as the antithesis of hell Remove from sin its sinfulness, and goodness will be distorted into weakness or folly.
(3) Such confounding of right and wrong must be fatal to all law and order, and tend to inaugurate the wildest confusion and the deepest misery. All this flows from the principle of false or indiscriminate mercy.
2. Hence Ahab was held to be an accomplice with Ben-hadad.
(1) He had an unworthy sympathy with. this blaspheming monarch. “Is he yet alive? He is my brother.” “Brother king, though not brother Israelite. Ahab valued himself more on his royalty than on his religion” (Henry). Would Ben-hadad have called Ahab his brother had he been victorious?
(2) “He caused him to come up into the chariot.” This was a sign of cordial friendship (see 2Ki 10:15, 2Ki 10:16). “The friendship of the world is enmity against God.” So instead of imposing terms, he accepted those proposed by Ben-hadad (1Ki 20:34).
(3) “So he made a covenant with him and sent him away.” The form of these covenants was to cut a sacrifice in twain, and the persons entering into the compact walked between the pieces and were sprinkled, together with the articles of agreement, with the blood, to express that if they failed to fulfil their pledge God might treat them as the sacrifice had been treated.
3. Ahab in consequence was doomed to die.
(1) This was signified to him by another prophet. He is by the Jews supposed to have been Micaiah, and with some reason perhaps (compare 1Ki 22:8).
(2) This prophet, after the example of Nathan (2Sa 12:1-31.), made Ahab pronounce his own sentence (1Ki 20:37-42). In the doom of the prophet who, for disobedience to the word of the Lord in not smiting his fellow, was destroyed by the lion, Ahab could also read his doom for not obeying the word of the Lord when he should have smitten ben-hadad to death (1Ki 20:35, 1Ki 20:36).
(3) The prophecy came true. Ahab was slain fighting against the Syrians to recover Ramoth in Gilead (1Ki 22:1-53 :85). And by the hands of the Syrians, under Hazael, the children of Israel suffered severely (see 2Ki 8:12; 2Ki 10:32, 2Ki 10:33).
(4) In anticipation of these things Ahab “went to his house heavy and displeased.” Heavy at the tidings and displeased with the prophet. It would have been more to his advantage had he gone to the house of God in contrition for the sins of his wicked life.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
1Ki 20:1-21
Veiled Mercies.
I. AHAB‘S EXTREMITY (1Ki 20:1-11). God’s goodness to the froward is shown by His bringing them into circumstances where they may prove and know Him. The clouds they “so much dread are big with mercy.”
1. The land is overrun and the capital besieged. The fruit of sin is difficulty and disaster. The land and the life which will not acknowledge God will know at last what it is to be bereft of His protecting care and the ministrations of His goodness. These are the eternal portion only of those whom they raise and bless.
2. His degradation (1Ki 20:2-4). In his own city he has to listen and assent to the terms that rob him at one stroke of all that is dearest and best. The foe has no mercy, and Ahab neither strength nor dignity. Those who forsake God, and shut themselves out from the experience of His truth and mercy, will prove the vanity of every other trust.
3. His helplessness (1Ki 20:5-11).
(1) Compliance with Ben-hadad’s first demands does not save him from further degradation. Those who rely only on the world’s compassion lean on a reed which will break and pierce them.
(2) Ahab’s defiance (1Ki 20:11) was an appeal to chance. He had no clear confidence that Ben-hadad’s threatenings would come to nothing. Forgetfulness of God is weakness for the battle of life, and darkness amid its dangers. Are we remembering Him? Are we stirring ourselves up to lay hold on God?
II. GOD‘S HELP (1Ki 20:12-21).
1. Its compassionateness. The help came unsought, and when, indeed, there was no thought of seeking it. How often has He thus prevented us with the blessings of His goodness!
2. Its timeliness. The final attack was about to be made (1Ki 20:12). The progress of the siege had no doubt alarmed Ahab, and led to negotiation. Now it needed but one more effort and the Syrian hosts would be surging through the streets of Samaria. Within the city there was only a terrible fear, or dull, defiant despair. But now, as the blow is about to fail, the shield of God sweeps in between. The Lord knows]:[is time to help, and, by helping, to reveal Himself and bind us to Him.
3. Its fulness.
(1) Israel is glorified. The weakest part of the army achieves the victory.
(2) Ahab is honoured (1Ki 20:14). The victory is gained under the leadership of the man whom God might have righteously destroyed.
(3) The triumph is complete (1Ki 20:20, 1Ki 20:21), Ben-hadad a fugitive, and his army a prey. The glory of God is manifested most of all in His mercy. We cannot contemplate our deliverance from danger and the fulness of our triumph in Christ without feeling upon our soul the recreative touch of the hand of God.J.U.
1Ki 20:22-43
Resisted Mercy.
I. GOD MULTIPLIES HIS BENEFITS TO THE SINFUL (1Ki 20:22-30). Ahab makes no public acknowledgment of God’s mercy, nor, so far as appears, has it been suffered to change in any way his attitude towards Jehovah; yet God crowns him with loving-kindnesses.
1. Delivered from one danger, he is warned of another. “Go, strengthen thyself, and see what thou doer,” etc. The enemy, baffled for the time, will return again. The intimation was a call not only to prepare his hosts and strengthen his cities, but, beyond all else, to seek His face who had delivered him already, and was able to deliver him again. We are warned of dangers that we may strengthen ourselves in God. There is love in the warning, and vaster love in the offered strength.
2. When the danger comes he is assured of success (1Ki 20:28). The most needful preparation had been neglected; Ahab had not sought God. But God again seeks him. Mark the unwearied, all-forgiving love of God.
3. The Lord fights for him. In vain did the Syrians change their ground and remodel their army. In vain did they surround with their myriads the two small bands of Israel. They are given as stubble to the swords of Israel, and the very walls of the city into which they flee for safety become their destruction. God’s hand is so marked in His deliverances, that the sinful cannot fail to see the wondrous love that is behind them. They bring us face to face with “the depths of the riches” of His mercy.
4. The purpose of the mercy. “Ye shall know that I am the Lord.” It is the revelation of God, and is meant to. be the birth hour of the soul. The goodness of God may be mentioned with seeming gratitude, but it. has been barren of result unless it has brought us into the presence of the King. The Divine Love has blessed us in vain unless it has become the light of the Lord’s face.
II. HOW THE MERCY WAS MADE OF NO EFFECT. TO Ahab the mercy brought only deeper condemnation. It will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for Chorazin and Bethsaida, which saw the goodness of God in Christ, and yet repented not.
1. The mercy was frustrated by prayerlessness. Though warned of the danger, he does not with lowly confession of sin and unworthiness implore God’s direction and help. There is no breaking up of the fallow ground that it may receive the blessing as the seed of joy and life in God.
2. By thanklessness. When the blessing came it might still have saved him. The benefits with which God had loaded him might have bowed him in lowly acknowledgment of his multiplied iniquities and long impious rebellion. The goodness of God leads us to repentance only as we pass in before the Lord through the gates of praise.
3. By blindness to the indications of God’s will. The multitude slain in the battle, the falling of the wall upon those who escaped, the overthrowing of every defence till the king, the head and centre of the whole evil, was reached, might have shown that God purposed to make an end for the time of the Syrian power, and give a full deliverance to Israel. The fruit of the victory was blighted by Ahab’s blindness and folly. To cooperate with God in working out our own salvation, we must read and faithfully fulfil His purpose.
4. By vanity and worldly policy. He enjoys for a brief moment the Bower which God has given, becomes the benefactor and brother of the man whom the Lord had doomed, and makes a covenant with him. The trust which God had desired should wholly rest upon Himself he reposes in his foe. The hour of prosperity, which should be our covenant time with God, is too often made the occasion for worldly alliances, which lead us to forget Him and all we owe to Him.
III. MERCY FRUSTRATED BEARS FRUIT IN JUDGMENT (verses 35-43).
1. The message came through swift and stern judgment. Disobedience meant death (verses 35, 36). The Divine threatenings come to us through terrible judgments.
2. Ahab was self condemned. The voice of conscience is on God’s side. “If our heart condemn us,” etc.
3. His own life should answer for the life he spared. Letting go God’s enemy, and keeping back his hand from God’s righteous though terrible work, he destroyed himself. No cross, no crown. The awful price which a soul must pay for present ease and pleasure: “He that loveth his life shall lose it.”
4. The shadow of God’s wrath swallows up the worldling’s peace (verse 43); and it falls ever deeper till the end come.U.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
1Ki 20:40
The Neglected Opportunity.
Ben-hadad II. was seeking his revenge for a defeat inflicted on him the preceding year by the Israelitish army, led by a band of 232 young noblemen. He had disciplined his army, and reofficered it, no longer allowing money or family influence to supersede military skill. Everything that organization could accomplish or superstition dictate (1Ki 20:23) had been done, but all proved in vain; for the contest was not simply between Ben-hadad and Ahab, but between the heathen and the living God who had been blasphemously challenged. Describe Ben-hadad’s successful appeal to Ahab after the defeat. Why was it not commendable (as it was, for example, after the siege of Calais) to spare the vanquished? Because the motive was not pity, but policy; and the criminal allowed to escape had avowedly fought as Jehovah s foe. It is sometimes “expedient that one man should die for the people.” Ben-hadad’s death would have been the salvation of Ahab, who in the next war fell mortally wounded; it would have ensured a lasting peace, as this was the campaign of the Syrian king, rather than of the Syrian]people; and it would hare seriously shaken the confidence of the heathen in their gods. The king let his prisoner go to his own undoing. It was this sin which was now rebuked. Picture Ahab returning from the field flushed with victory. He is accosted by a man who has been sitting wounded and dusty beside the road. He is a disguised prophet, probably Micaiah, acting a parable. Says he, in effect: “I have come from the battle. In the hour of victory, the captain, whom I acknowledge I was bound to obey, gave me in charge a prisoner of note, saying that if he escaped my life should answer for it. I admit that I failed, though not designedly; but while thy servant was busy here and there he was gone. Ought I to suffer for that slight negligence?” And when Ahab answered, “Yes,” the disguise was flung off, and the daring prophet appeared, saying, “In pronouncing my doom, thou hast pronounced thine own.” [Read 1Ki 20:42 and 1Ki 20:43.] The prophet set before the king a picture of his neglect of opportunity which is worthy of our study. We observe
I. THAT OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN OF GOD. “There is a time forevery purpose under heaven.” Examples:
(1) In the operations of nature. There is a suitable time for the gathering of fruit. It may not come when you wish it or expect it; but neglected then, the fruit is spoiled. A farmer may in the spring be “busy here and there” with other things, and so neglect to sow his seed. The opportunity does not recur.
(2) In the cultivation of mind. The indolent schoolboy never gets again the leisure and opportunity for study; and if he did, his capacity for acquiring knowledge has decreased. Contrast the flexibility of mind of the lad with that of the man in middle life.
(3) In the acquisition of material good. Energy, promptitude, and diligence displayed at a critical moment make a man a millionaire. “There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune,” etc.
(4) In the consecration of life. No father is content with the physical beauty of his child if mentally he is deadan idiot; nor is our heavenly Father satisfied to see mental vigour accompanied by spiritual death. He looks for a change, which is a passing from death unto life, and for this He gives opportunity. Observe, secondly
II. THAT OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED TO ALL. If you would discover this,
(1) Consider your outward circumstances. The helpfulness of a Christian home; inherited tendencies; direct religious teaching; exemplars of holy life; recognition of God at the family altar; services frequented from childhood. If these leave you unblessed, they leave you under heavier condemnation. Soon the home may be broken up, and the encouragements to good may vanish, and with unavailing regret you will say, “As thy servant was busy here and there, they were gone.”
(2) Consider your inward condition. There are seasons when it is easier to avail ourselves of religious advantages. Youth is such a season, for then impulses are generous, susceptibilities are tender, affections free. Under the influence of bereavement or personal illness religious convictions are experienced. In and through these the Holy Spirit works. Such a tame may be like the morning twilight which brightens into day, or like the evening twilight that deepens into night. Beware of letting convictions slip!
III. THAT OPPORTUNITY IS NEGLECTED BY MANY. TWO causes of this may be suggested:
(1) The pressure of business. The man on the battlefield was busy enough, but he failed to remember his special charge. Nothing he did was wrong in itself, but it became a wrong when it led to the neglect of obvious duty: and if his life was sacrificed because of that neglect, the advantage gained by other activity was of no value. Apply this, and show the difficulty in the way of meditation and prayer, created by the multitudinous claims upon our activity.
(2) The effect of frivolity. Some people are “busy here and there” in another sense. You never know where to find them. Their character is indeterminate; their information is incomplete; their work is wanting in persistence and thoroughness; and their whole life is frittered away, they scarcely know how. Each day comes to such an one, saying, “Here is something for you to do for God, something for you to think of for your spiritual good;” and, having delivered its message, the day falls back into the darkness of night. Again and again the message comes in vain, until the last day approaches, then vanishes, and eternity is at hand! The work is left undone; and over the lost opportunity he can only say, “While thy servant was busy here and there, it was gone.”
CONCLUSION.
1. Apply to Christians who are neglecting work for God.
2. Apply to the careless who are neglecting decision for God.A.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
SECOND SECTION
The Deeds Of Ahab
1 Kings 20, 21, 22
A.The Victories of Ahab over the Syrians
Chap. 120:143
1And Ben-hadad2 the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. 2And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the city,3 and said unto him, Thus saith Ben-hadad, 3Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest,4 are mine. 4And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have. 5And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Ben-hadad, saying, Although5 I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children; 6yet I will send my servants unto thee to-morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes,6 they shall put it in their hand,and take it away. 7Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeketh mischief: for he sent unto me for my wives, and for my children,7 and for my silver, and for my gold; and I denied him not. 8And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Hearken not unto him, nor8 consent. 9Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Ben-hadad, Tell my9 lord the king, All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first, I will do: but this thing I may not do. And the messengers departed, and 10brought him word again. And Ben-hadad sent unto him, and said, The gods10 do so unto me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls11 for all the people that follow me. 11And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. 12And it came to pass, when Ben–hadad heard this message as he was drinking, he and the kings in the pavilions, that he said unto his servants, Set yourselves in array. And they set themselves in array against the city.
13And behold, there came a prophet unto Ahab king of Israel, saying, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Hast thou seen all this great multitude? behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord [Jehovah]. 14And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Even by the young men of the princes of the provinces. Then he said, Who shall order [begin12] the battle? And he answered, Thou. 15Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two[13] hundred and thirty-two: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand. 16And they went out at noon. But Benhadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings that helped him. 17And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben-hadad sent out, and they told him, saying, There are men come out of Samaria. 18And he said, Whether they be come out for peace, take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive.[14] 19So these young men of the princes of the provinces came out of the city, and the army which followed them. 20And they slew every one his man15: and the Syrians fled; and Israel pursued them: and Ben-hadad the king of Syria escaped on an horse with the horsemen. 21And the king of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter.
22And the prophet came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, and see what thou doest: for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against thee. 23And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they16 were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. 24And do this thing, Take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains in their rooms: 25and number thee an army, like the army that thou hast lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot: and we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. And he hearkened unto their voice, and did so. 26And it came to pass at the return of the year, that Ben-hadad numbered the Syrians, and went up to Aphek, to fight against Israel. 27And the children of Israel were numbered, and were all present [were provided for17], and went against them: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks of kids; but the Syrians filled the country. 28And there came a man of God, and spake unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Because the Syrians have said, The Lord [Jehovah] is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye18 shall know that I am the Lord [Jehovah]. 29And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day. 30But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and there a [the19] wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. And Ben-hadad fled, and came into the city, into an inner chamber.
31And his servants said unto him,20 Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings:. let us, I pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins, and ropes upon our heads, and go out to the king of Israel: peradventure he will save thy life. 32So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Ben-hadad saith, I pray thee, let me live. And he said, Is he yet alive? he is my brother. 33Now the men did diligently observe whether any thing would come from him [and the men interpreted this favorably21], and did hastily catch it:22 and they said, Thy brother Ben-hadad. Then he said, Go ye, bring him. Then Ben-hadad came forth to him; and he caused him to come up into the chariot. 34And Ben–hadad said unto him, The cities which my father took from thy father, I will restore; and thou shalt make streets for thee in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. Then said Ahab,23 I will send thee away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him, and sent him away.
35And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbor in the word of the Lord [Jehovah], Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him. 36Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. 37Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him. 38So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face 39[with a band over his eyes24]. And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of sil1 Kings 1Ki 20:40 And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. 41And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face [band away from his eyes]; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. 42And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. 43And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.
Exegetical and Critical
1Ki 20:1-9. And Ben-hadad. &c. The entire account of chap. 20. was derived, as we have already remarked, from a different source than chaps. 17, 18, and 19. There can be no other reason for our authors having introduced it here than this, that the victory of Ahab over the Syrians occurred previous in time to the execution of Naboth (chap. 21), which gave occasion for the reappearance of Elijah.Concerning Ben–hadad, see 1Ki 15:18. The thirty-two kings were not rulers over entire territories, but were lords of single cities and their districts (cf.Jos. 1Ki 12:7), vassals (Grotius: reguli in clientela ipsius), who paid tribute to Ben-hadad, and in the event of war, were obliged to furnish auxiliaries. The cause and aim of the expedition was, according to 1Ki 20:3, to plunder Ahab, and make him a vassal. can hardly refer, as Thenius and Keil would have it, to wives and sons, but only to the latter; by them are meant not Ahabs own sons, but the best, that is, the most eminent young men of the city or the country, whom Ben-hadad demanded as hostages. The import of his message was, surrender to me all these, and I will withdraw. When Ahab, without hesitation, consented so submissively and timorously, Ben-hadad grew only the more audacious and insolent in his demands; he was sorry for having demanded so little, and he now threatens to give over the kings palace and the dwellings of the kings servants to be plundered (the pillaging of the entire city can hardly be meant, as Keil and Kimchi think).Whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes,i.e., not merely silver and gold, but everything costly and valuable. According to Maurer, Gesenius, Keil, and others, , of 1Ki 20:5, serves, like , only to introduce the oratio directa; and before , 1Ki 20:6, is a repetition for the sake of emphasis merely; , however, meaning in that place when; better Thenius: , 1Ki 20:5, serves to strengthen the assertion; , 1Ki 20:6, to strengthen it still more, so that the latter is, according to the sense, to be rendered: but since Ben-hadad increases his demand. The elders of the land (1Ki 20:7), in distinction from the elders of the city (1Ki 21:8), being the highest officials, perhaps, had their court at their residences, or, upon the approach of Ben-hadad, had betaken themselves thither with their treasures. Ahab calls them together to say to them: Ben-hadad is not satisfied with my treasures, he wants yours also. does not here mean mischief (Luther: how malevolent his purpose is), but disaster, destruction: he intends to ruin us completely.
1Ki 20:10-12. And Ben-hadad sent unto him, &c., 1Ki 20:10. He seeks, by boasting in the genuine oriental style, to overawe Ahab (cf.2 Sam. 1Ki 17:13); the import of his words is, My army is so large that if, in the impending desolation of Samaria, every one of my people desired to take away with him only a handful of rubbish, many would have to go back empty-handed. The explanation of the Rabbins and the Chaldean: Si suffecerit pulvis Somron, ut feratur soleis plantarum pedum populi qui mecum est, is incorrect, since in Isa 40:12; Eze 13:19, the only other places where the wore occurs, means not vola pedis, but the hollow of the hand. Just as incorrect is the interpretation of Josephus: He could, with his army, cast up a dike higher than his walls were, if every one of his people contributed only a handful of earth. Ahabs somewhat defiant response, expressed in words of a proverb, 1Ki 20:11, proceeded, perhaps, from the elders, who were much more determined and courageous, and were willing to await the utmost. The import of the proverb is the Latin: ne triumphum canas ante victoriam; the German: Verkaufe das Fell des Bren nicht, bevor du ihn hast. Let not him who is arming for the fight, boast as though he had already laid aside his weapons, i.e., had gained the victory. The , 1Ki 20:12, in which the drinking-bout occurred, were not tents of sailcloth, but huts made of branches of trees, like those put up to-day for the Turkish pashas and Agas on their expeditions (Keil, Rosenmller A. u. N. Morgenland III. s. 198). The translation of , bring up! (the siege instruments) as a command to prepare for immediately storming the place (so Thenius, following the Sept. ), does not accord with the use of the word elsewhere: in 1Sa 11:11; Job 1:17, the word seems to refer simply to setting the army in array.
1Ki 20:13. There came a prophet unto Ahab. The conjecture of the Rabbins that this prophet may have been Micaiah (1Ki 22:8) has no historical basis. The entrance of a prophet here and in 1Ki 20:28; 1Ki 20:35 Thenius thinks inconsistent with the statements, chap, 1Ki 18:4; 1Ki 18:22; 1Ki 19:10; 1Ki 19:14. But the statement is nowhere made that in the persecution of the prophets all had been put to death; Obadiah, in fact, had concealed a hundred of them who did not perish, and Elijah mentioned himself as the only remaining one, because at that time he was the only one who openly appeared as a prophet. The persecution appears to have taken place principally at the time of the famine, and to have ceased after the flight of Elijah. On the approach of Ben-hadad there were other things to be thought of beside the extermination of the prophets, and in the time of their distress a prophet who foretold victory was even welcome. From what quarter this prophet came to Samaria, whether he lived there, or whether he had been sent there from one of the schools of the prophets, must remain undecided. In no case, however, could the compiler of our books have been so thoughtless as to have inserted in chap. 20 anything which stands in contradiction to the immediately preceding chapters. Where Elijah sojourned at the time of the war we do not learn. That it was not he but some other prophet who announced the promise of victory to Ahab cannot be wondered at under the existing circumstances. Elijah was the least suited of all for such a message.
1Ki 20:14-16. By the servants of the princes, 1Ki 20:14. Gerlach: The administrators appointed over separate districts of the country appear at that time to have assembled with the army in Samaria, and each one among them had a sort of body-guard, or such servants about him as generally executed his orders (2Sa 18:15). The are therefore not pages unaccustomed to fight (Thenius), or young lads of very tender age (Ewald); much rather are we to suppose that they were a very select body of strong young men. Ahab would not have consented to appoint weak, inexperienced boys for the advance guard, without at least having expressed some scruples. The extraordinary divine aid consisted not in this, that the victory should be gained by boys, but by such a small number (for that very reason the number is so explicitly specified). Ahabs question, Who shall open the battle? represents him as by no means a courageous and resolute man (Thenius), for such a man, in a struggle where it was a question of life or death, would not first ask a prophet who was to make the attack. The thou in the reply, moreover, does not mean that Ahab was to lead the two hundred and thirty-two, but that the attack was to be made by Israel. According to 1Ki 20:21, Ahab did not march out until the Syrians had betaken themselves to flight. The very small army of only seven thousand is a token of a not very glorious condition of the might of the kingdom under Ahab. The position of Jarchi is that of a true Rabbi, viz., that the seven thousand were those who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1Ki 19:18); the number, without doubt, is here an historical one. At noon they marched out, that is, at the time when Ben-hadad, haughty and confident, had given, himself up with his vassals to the table, news of which had probably been received in the city.
1Ki 20:17-21. And Ben-hadad sent out, &c., 1Ki 20:17. When he was made aware that something was going on, and the messengers who had been sent out brought him news that a troop was drawing near, in his haughtiness he gave the command to take them all prisoners, even in case they had come to treat or capitulate. Starke, indeed, fills out the idea of alive with that they may be cut down before mine eyes, which thought, however, is not necessarily contained in the word. According to 1Ki 20:20 they fought man to man, each one coping with the enemy immediately opposed to him; the addition of the Sept.: is gloss, and does not justify an alteration of the text. does not mean equis mutatis alternis (Schulz), nor according to the Sept. , but upon a horse (according to Thenius: on a hastily seized chariot-horse) with his rider, i.e., in company with the horsemen. Not till now did the king march out of the city with the remainder of the garrison. In place of the Sept. has , therefore Thenius would read , which is unnecessary, as the idea of taking posession of is contained in the word slew, according to Vatablus: he smote those who were endeavoring to escape upon horses and chariots. In any case the idea of butchering of the horses and the demolishing of the chariots is not intended.
1Ki 20:22-25. And the prophet came, &c. 1Ki 20:22. The same prophet as that mentioned in 1Ki 20:13, as we see by the article. The translation of be of good cheer! or be brave! is not suitable, inasmuch as Ahab had just now gained the victory; therefore: fortify yourself, make yourself strongnamely, by collecting your forces of war. At the return of the year, i.e., with the beginning of the next year, when, after the close of the winter rains, campaigns were customarily commenced, 2Sa 11:1 (Keil). 1Ki 20:23-25 do not belong to the speech of the prophet, who only announced the coming war; the man of God (1Ki 20:28) is the first to tell the king what was to happen in that conflict; 1Ki 20:23-25 are thus an insertion of the narrators. The sense of 1Ki 20:23 is this: in the mountainous region of Samaria we were defeated by the Israelites, because we were there obliged to contend against their gods who are gods of the mountains; in the plains, on the other hand, where these gods do not reside, we will most certainly be victorious. The dii montium, who are enthroned on mountains and direct and watch over everything that takes place within their region, and accordingly prosper and defend the inhabitants of the mountains, are mentioned in other places in heathen antiquities (Deyling, Observatt. III. 12; Winer, Real-Wrt.-Buch I. p. 154). The advice to remove the kings was caused, perhaps, by the fact that they as vassals marched with him only through compulsion, and therefore were not in earnest, or not entirely to be depended upon in a fight, while the leaders appointed by Ben-hadad himself would be bound to obey him absolutely, and thus there would be greater harmony in inaugurating the war (cf. 1Ki 22:31). The removal of the princes was accompanied with the loss of the auxiliaries furnished by them, therefore Benhadad was obliged to form an army from his own people that would equal the former one, including the auxiliary troops.
1Ki 20:26-30. And it came to pass at the return of the year, &c., 1Ki 20:26. Ben-hadads wish being to fight in the plain, this Aphek spoken of can be neither that one at the foot of Lebanon, in the tribe of Asher (Jos 13:4; Jos 19:30), nor the highly elevated one of the east of the sea of Galilee; it is rather Aphek in the plain of Jezreel, in the tribe of Issachar, the largest plain of Palestine, where from the times of Joshua to Napoleon so many great battles have been fought (Keil). cf. 1Sa 29:1; 1Sa 28:4; Robinsons Palestine III. p. 477. 1Ki 20:27 means properly something separated (from in its original meaningto separate), literally, then, like two flocks of kids, i.e., like two little flocks of kids separated from the main herd (Keil). These flocks pasture mostly on the cliffs, and are smaller than the flocks of sheep. The figure was used, without question, to present in a vivid manner the insignificance of the Israelitish army, separated into two bands, as contrasted with that of the Syrians which covered the entire plain (Thenius). The seventh day (1Ki 20:29) was probably chosen for the attack as being a day of good omen (Jos 6:15). There is a difficulty in the number one hundred thousand; to slaughter so many men in one day seems scarcely possible. Either here has, like our word beat, the meaning of defeat, so that by 100,000 the size of the entire army is designated, or the number is a mistake, to be classed with those mistakes in numbers which arise from confounding figures of similar appearance. The falling of the wall (1Ki 20:30), according to the old interpreters, resulted from a miracle; according to others, from an earthquake; according to Gerlach and Keil, through a special interposition of God. Thenius supposes a plan for undermining carried on by night on the part of the Israelites; they then enticed a part of the besieged away to the place, and at the capture which occurred thereupon the rest were put to death. Ewald says: the rubbish of the quickly devastated city buried the remaining 27,000. The Sept. translates , ; the Vulgate; in cubiculum, quod erat intra cubiculum; it is, however, not necessary to refer it to a bed-chamber. Josephus has . Thenius interprets arbitrarily: Ben-hadad fled into the fortress of the city, and there from one chamber into another (cf. 1Ki 22:25; 2Ch 18:24).
1Ki 20:31-34. And his servants said, &c., 1Ki 20:31. Sackcloth was a sign of penitence, the ropes about the neck signs of most complete subjection. The latter custom still exists in the East. The peasants in the region of Ningpo (China) are obliged to bring the contributions levied upon them to the city with ropes about their necks, as a sign of their subjection. (Allg. Zeitung, 1862, Suppl. s. 2,931). In place of thy life the Sept. and Vulg. have, our lives; evidently incorrect. (1Ki 20:33) Vulg. Quod acceperunt viri pro omine; they took the expression of Ahabs to be a good omen. The words are variously understood. The Talmud interprets the verb , occurring only in this place, by declare, and this Maurer and Keil follow: declarare eum fecerunt, an ex ipso pronunciation esset, num ex animi sententia hoc dixisset. Others consider equivalent to , to snatch, and according to the Syriac, Chald., and some manuscripts unite the standing before with the verb as a suffix: arripuerunt id ex eo (ex ejus ore, ne istud revocare posset); so likewise the Vulg.: rapuerunt verbum ex ore ejus; the Sept. has ; following this Ewald would read: in place of , i.e., they hastily quoted his own word, and adopted it as theirs. Thenius: they took him immediately at his own word. The words my brother contained more than they demanded; namely, not only that he would grant Ben-hadad his life, but that he would treat him not even as captive, rather as a king of equal rank, in fine, as though, nothing had happened between them.
1Ki 20:34. The cities which my father, &c. The cities mentioned in 1Ki 15:20 cannot he referred to here, since these were taken in the time of Baasha, and Baasha was not the father of Ahab, and the city of Samaria, besides, was not yet built; we are therefore compelled to assume that Ben-hadads father, as formerly with Baasha, so afterwards with Omri, Ahabs father, had a war, and that, too, after the building of Samaria, which war was concluded by the surrender of certain cities, and can easily be included in what is spoken of in 1Ki 16:27. The are neither fortified places, nor places for paying customs, nor pasture grounds, but streets, in which the Syrians were accustomed to live and do business; thoroughfares for licensed merchants (Bttcher), bazars (Thenius). The words , can only he translated: but I will permit you to go hence free, in accordance with the covenant, i.e., the concluded treaty; thus translated they could only have been the words of Ahab, and we are compelled to supply at the beginningAhab replied. This is much more admissible than, following the grammatically incorrect translation of the Vulgate (et ego [Benadad] fderatus recedam a te), to alter the text as Thenius does, and read, , i.e., and I, on the other, wish to be sent away in accordance with an agreement concluded and sworn to. Opposed to this is the emphatic , which throughout is not suited to Ben-hadad; moreover, the two following verbs, of which Ahab is the subject, compel us to refer the to him.
1Ki 20:35. And a certain man of the sons of the prophets, &c. The expression appears here for the first time; we are not to consider the sons of the prophets young men necessarily, but rather members of the society of prophets, or, if we will, of the order of prophets; according to 2Ki 4:1, there were married men among them. They were called sons in distinction from the heads and leaders of the separate communities of prophets (cf. Winer, Real-Wrt.-Buch II. p. 282). The is a fellow-prophet. Concerning see under 1Ki 13:1. The passage 1Ki 20:35-43 is not a part which is arbitrarily appended to the preceding narrative, while not originally belonging to it (Thenius), but is an essential constituent part of itits fitting conclusion, for it furnishes the solemn announcement of the divine punishment for Ahabs perverse procedure with Ben-hadad (1Ki 20:32-34). All that the prophet says and does, is summed up in the declaration of v. 42, which must not be lost sight of, as the principal thing. Just as the victory was foretold to the king by a prophet, as an act of God, so also the punishment for his conduct, after the victory had been granted him, was made known to him by a prophet (whether by the same one or some other is unknown), as a judgment of God upon him. This happened in a peculiar, but in every respect in a genuinely prophetic and solemn manner, namely, by means of symbolic action followed by explicit declaration (see above, p. 119). The symbolic action, however, was of such a kind as not only to present to the eyes of the king the blamableness of his conduct, but also to lead him, without his knowing it or wishing it, to pass sentence upon himself, and by that means declare that the prophesied punishment was justly deserved.
1Ki 20:35. Smite me, I pray thee, &c., that is, wound me (cf. 1Ki 20:37). The prophet was shortly about to represent himself as a warrior returning from a severe fight (cf. 1Ki 20:39 : into the midst of the battle); the wounding of the prophet renders all the remaining symbolic action conditional, and just for that reason it is made so markedly prominent. The demand: Smite me! was accompanied without doubt with a statement of the reason and with an appeal to the word of Jehovah, and for that very reason the refusal to fulfil the demand, on the part of a fellow-prophet especially, was not at all justifiable. But because the prophet without being wounded could not carry out the action which he had been charged with, nor make a prophetic announcement of the coming punishment, he turned and made his request of another, who consented. What is related besides in 1Ki 20:36 of the fellow-prophet who refused, does not really belong to the main action, but is a side feature of the narrative, and shows itself to be such from the brevity and fragmentary character of the statements. It is nevertheless important, because by it the main action is made only the more conspicuous, and is at the same time referred to the necessity of unconditional obedience to the word of God within the society of prophets. To oppose this word is a thing not consistent with the nature of the prophets position, whose calling consists wholly in being the instrument of Jehovahs word (cf. 1Ki 13:21, p. 144). 1Ki 20:37 : , smiting and wounding, i. e., he smote him in such a manner as to wound him. , 1Ki 20:38, is not equivalent to ashes, as the Vulg., Luther, and others translate, but means (from to enwrap, to surround) head-bandage, Sept. , bandage (not turban, as Maurer and others would have it). The bandages betokened one severely wounded, and served at the same time to conceal his features, so that Ahab, who was to be made to pass sentence upon himself, could not recognize him (1Ki 20:41). By the way he stationed himself, because the proceeding was to take place previous to the kings return home, in the open street, and before the eyes of his entire retinue, as an open testimony against himself.
1Ki 20:39-41. Thy servant went out, &c. 1Ki 20:39. De Wette translates , a man approached, but does not mean to approach, but turn aside, turn away from the road (Exo 3:3; Jdg 14:8); here, then, one who has left the field of battle. Ewald, whom Thenius follows, would read which is used for , and then translates captain, i. e., one whom he (the wounded man) as king, a common soldier must obey, an officer. The parable would, under these circumstances, certainly be more complete, since this officer would represent Jehovah, who had given Ben-hadad into the power of Ahab; but another lection is not required. If the wounded man should suffer the prisoner committed to him to escape, he would have to forfeit his life or a talent of silver, i. e., 2,600 thalers. The prisoner is thus represented to be a very important personage (Thenius).In place of (1Ki 20:40), Houbigant reads , Thenius (turning his eyes this way and that); wherefore the translations read: Sept., ; Vulg. dum ego turbatus huc illucque me verterem. This alteration of the text is absolutely unnecessary.Concerning the signification of the parable, so much is indisputable, that the young man who had gone out into the battle is representative of Ahab, and the man intrusted to his keeping, but allowed to escape through carelessness, is the representative of King Ben-hadad. The signification of the wounding is not so apparent, inasmuch, indeed, as Ahab was not wounded. The hostile treatment which Ahab suffered soon after at the hands of the released Ben-hadad (chap. 22), cannot possibly be signified, since the wounding happened before the mans escape, and besides it was not the work of the captive; still less possible is the idea of older interpreters, that it was a symbol of the wound which Ahab had inflicted on himself and the people by his idolatry and the release of Ben-hadad. Neither is Ewalds explanation acceptable, that the prophet allowed himself to be wounded by another, and as though he had a right, on account of the bloody injury which he had received, to call aloud on the king for help, put himself in Ahabs way. It is not acceptable, because the wounded man did not cry to the king for help, but demanded of him, as the chief judge, a decision as to whether he was punishable or not; moreover, the king answered him, thyself hast decided it ( 1Ki 20:40). We would do better to recognize in the wounded man a picture not only of Ahab, but at the same time of the people of Israel, inasmuch as the king is the peopleindividualized, is the deputy and representative of his people. The sentence of punishment (1Ki 20:42) especially shows this: Thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. Israel had just endured a hard, bloody fight, and had carried off the promised victory; but now, in the person of its king, it had let the arch-enemy, whom the Lord had given into their hands, go free and unpunished. They sinned therefore against Jehovah, whose will it was that this enemy, who had sworn to destroy Israel, should not be suffered to escape out of their hands, but should suffer merited punishment; their suffering him to escape was a practical denial of the might, the goodness, and the justice of Jehovah. After the king had pronounced his own sentence, the aim of the disguise by means of bandages, indeed the aim of the entire symbolic proceeding was attained, and hence the prophet threw aside the bands, and allowed himself to be recognized as a prophet, as one who declares the word of Jehovah; following the symbolic-prophetic action comes (1Ki 20:42) the solemn, prophetic declaration, as in 1Ki 11:31.
1Ki 20:42-43. Thus saith the Lord, Because, &c., 1Ki 20:42. Ben-hadad is called , i. e., man of my curse, the man whom I appointed to destruction. Cf. Isa 34:5 : My sword shall come down upon Idumea, (Mal. 3:24). The punishment which Ben-hadad and his people had deserved, but which thou, disobeying the Lord, hast remitted completely, and on thine own authority, shall fall upon thee and thy nation. King and people seem here inseparable from one another, as head and members. Ahab probably had a great desire to seize the prophet for this independent outspoken reproof and curse, but he had the less courage to do it since he had given the sentence of judgment himself; still he was deeply moved to resistance in his heart, and angrily withdrew (, from , to be stubborn, refractory, Deu 21:18; Isa 30:1, meaning more than disheartened or low-spirited).
Historical and Ethical
1. The two victories over the Syrians were designed, according to the declaration of both the prophets who foretold them, to effect that thou, (king) and ye (the entire nation) may know that I am Jehovah, that is to say, that Jehovah is the only true God, the God of Israel. In this declaration we have specified the purpose of the entire narrative, and at the same time the stand-point from which it is to be comprehended. That day on Mount Carmel, if it did not put an end to idolatry at once, had at least broken its power, as was already evident from the mere fact that the prophets were no longer persecuted and put to death, but could again go about openly and continue the work begun by Elijah; they even had access to Ahab again. Still the conversion was by no means complete, but rather, being weak, it needed support and strength from above if a complete relapse was to be prevented from setting in. This assistance came from the display of the power of Jehovah, a power which rescued in a time of great need and distress. The attack of the Syrian king, who had grown so mighty, threatened Ahab and his kingdom with destruction; at this crisis God, who never forsakes his people, who is merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth (Exo 34:6), repeatedly grants them the victory, which was so extraordinary and wonderful, that it could not possibly be ascribed to human power and strength, but only to God, to His might, His grace and truth. It was designed to make king and people unmistakably certain that it is not Baal or any other god but the God Jehovah who doeth wonders, and declareth His strength among His people, and redeemeth His people with a strong arm (Psa 77:15). And in order that every one may know whence and from whom such a victory came, he caused it to be foretold by his servants the prophets. If ever anything could be, this double victory was designed to open the eyes of king and people, and bring them to a recognition of the thus saith the Lord, I am Jehovah. We have thus in this account, not merely an ordinary history of wars, but a part of the divine history of salvation before us, which in an individual instance is what the entire history of Israel is in its completeness, namely, a display of the special dealings with a guidance of His people on Gods part. Although the first victory is a marked evidence of the saving might and grace of Jehovah, the second, by which the entire Syrian power was destroyed, was for Israel as well as for the Syrians themselves a still more remarkable proof of the fact, that Jehovah was no mere mountain, and local, or national divinity, but that the whole earth was His, and He was God of all nations (Exo 19:5; Psa 24:1). He who reduces the God of Israel to a mere local or national deity, as is so often done even nowadays, stands on the same footing with the servants of the king of Syria (1Ki 20:23; 1Ki 20:28).
2. King Ahab appears by no means in the present part of the historical narrative in a more favorable light than in those [previously alluded to, traditional] passages (Thenius); on the contrary he is just as weak, faithless, and devoid of character. There is not the slightest evidence of a single religious emotion, in a time of need and distress; he neither calls upon the Lord for help and assistance, nor renders thanks to him after his rescue from danger. The name of Jehovah does not pass his lips. He does not oppose himself to the haughty, boastful enemy as a resolutely determined man, but is faint-hearted and timorous, calls himself his servant, submits to his demands, and is ready to surrender to him not only his gold and silver, but also his wives and sons. It is only when the whole nation cries out to him, You have no right to do that! that he plucks up courage and assumes quite a different tone: to-day despairing and way down, to-morrow defiant and lofty; still for some time he inquired of the very prophet who foretold to him his victory, whether indeed he should make the attack and place himself at the head of his people. When the danger was past it did not occur to him to prepare for a similar peril; a prophet must first suggest it to him and give him instructions to that end. After the second victory, which brings into his power the bold, dangerous enemy who was constantly threatening Israel, and who, as circumstances afterwards gave evidence, was a false and treacherous foe, he acknowledges him as a brother, treats him with royal honor, and allows him to depart on the easiest possible conditions. This last-mentioned act later interpreters and historians have set down as greatly to his credit; it was an act which did honor to his heart (Bauer), a token of a naturally very noble mind (J. D. Michaelis), or of natural kindness of heart and confiding disposition (Thenius), he had magnanimously granted life and liberty to a wounded and captive enemy (Duncker). Not much can be said, however, concerning kindness of heart in connection with that man who at one time permitted the slaughter of defenceless prophets because they opposed the wild, lascivious Baal and Astarte worship, and subsequently permitted the innocent Naboth to be executed through deceit and treachery, merely because he wanted his vineyard; and when he called that barbarous Syrian Ben-hadad, who had set out on an expedition merely to plunder and devastate, and, persevering, sought to destroy Israel at once, his brother, and at the same time honored him as a kingwhereas he had found fault with such a man as Elijah, charging him with being a disturber of Israel (chap, 1Ki 18:17). We see no evidence in such action of generosity and magnanimity, but simply that foolishness which is usually allied with weakness and lack of character. He is flattered that the highest servants and generals of Benhadad should come to him in sackcloth and with ropes around their necks, and recite to him all manner of things about the well-known mercy and high-mindedness of the kings of the house of Israel, but about which in reality nothing had been known since the time of Jeroboam. That he should allow himself to be immediately influenced and entrapped by their flattery, is only a proof of his fickle character and his want of serious moral conduct. The sequel (1Ki 22:31 sq.) shows how wretchedly he had allowed himself to be deceived.
3. The solemn prophetic denunciation which Ahab drew down upon himself was in every sense justly deserved. Concerning the fitness of it and the method of its accomplishment Hess says (loc. cit. O. p. 146): A very striking scene, if we take the affair out from its old surroundings, and transfer it to the present time. Considered from the point of view of the theocracy, as the old narrator looked at it, it has by no means any of the impropriety which the sense of the present day ascribes to it, but it is a noticeable evidence of the delicate insight into human nature, and the noble independence with which the prophets understood how to resent the encroachments of the kings on the rights of the theocracy. If ever a man ought to have been made harmless once for all, it was this Benhadad, who had twice wantonly commenced war for the mere sake of robbing and exercising power, who had set a small value on the lives of thousands of his subjects, and who proposed to change Samaria into a heap of ruins and utterly exterminate Israel. This is no question of relations between private individuals; just as Ahab was not so much victor as Jehovah, so Ben-hadad was not Ahabs but Jehovahs prisoner. Ahab had then no right to let him go free and unpunished, for by so doing he arbitrarily interfered with the righteous decision of God, and instead of being an instrument of divine justice he became the toy of his own foolishness and imbecility. The nature and method of the prophetic denunciation was similar to that of Nathan, who caused David to utter sentence against himself concerning his deed (2Sa 12:1 sq.). What took place there by means of a spoken parable took place here through an acted one, whose peculiarity is by no means any more striking than the one which we find pro ex. in Jer 13:1 sq.; Jer 27:2 sq.; Eze 5:1 sq.; Eze 24:3 sq. At the same time, however, it gives us an opportunity, as Von Gerlach observes, to gain an insight into the awful solemnity of the prophetic office at this period of the revolt. What an obedience to the word of Jehovah, what independence and courage were required to do what this son of the prophets did! When Duncker says (loc. cit. p. 412): The prophets of Jehovah were very much dissatisfied with this merciful forbearance; as Samuel had once blamed Saul, so now they blamed Ahab passionately and bitterly, his remarks spring from the same spirit of animosity, in accordance with which they discover something noble and good in the actions of Ahab and men like him, but place the doings of the prophets in the worst possible light. Clericus has indeed remarked with justice: Factum Ahabi, quamvis clementi speciem pr se ferat, non erat ver clementi, qu non est erga latrones exercenda; qui si dimittantur, multo magis nocebunt, quam antea, quemadmodum re vera fecit Benhadad.
Homiletical and Practical
1Ki 20:1-43. The twice repeated victory of Ahab over the Syrians proclaimed aloud and distinctly (a) the power and strength of the Lord (Ben-hadad came with thirty-two kings, horses and chariots, and a great army, 1Ki 20:1; 1Ki 20:10, the first time, with more than a hundred thousand men the second time, 1Ki 20:29. Ahab had only seven thousand; two hundred and thirty-two decided the battle, 1Ki 20:15, the first time, and the second time his army was like two flocks of kids, 1Ki 20:27; nevertheless, he conquered. If ever, it could be said in this case: the horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord, Pro 21:31; 1Ma 3:18-19. Every king who goes to battle should consider what is written in Psa 33:16 sq., and his army should sing: By our own strength nothing is done, &c., through God we shall do valiantly, Ps. 60:14; 84:6). (b) The grace and mercy of the Lord. (Ahab had deserved nothing as little as he had this repeated victory, for he had introduced the worship of idols, abandoned the confederacy, &c., divine judgments had been fruitless. However, God granted him the victory, not from any merit of his, but out of pure grace and compassion. He endured with much long-suffering, &c., Rom 9:22. He is long-suffering, not willing that any, &c., 2Pe 3:9; Eze 18:23. But the great triumph, cried out to Ahab and Israel: Despisest thou the riches, &c., Rom 2:4-6. Great victories ought not to make a king and his people haughty, but humble, and bring them to the knowledge that He, the Lord, is God alone.) 1Ki 20:1-21. The war between Ben-hadad and Ahab; (a) Ben-hadads invasion and demands; (b) Ahabs danger and distress; (c) Israels victory. 1Ki 20:1-11. The messages of Ben-hadad to Ahab, and his responses, (a) The first one, 1Ki 20:1-4; (b) the second, 1Ki 20:5-9; (c) the third, 1Ki 20:10-11.
1Ki 20:1-4. Wrt Summ.: In these two kings we see what a thing the human heart is, how insolent and timorous by turns (Jer 17:9). It is insolent when man, grown prosperous, powerful, and rich, places his confidence in his success, and haughtily despises his neighbor. But it is timid when man falls into difficulty, and neither sees nor knows any help, just as was the despairing, womanly heart of king Ahab, who took it for granted that everything was lost when he saw the hosts of his enemies.
1Ki 20:1-3. Ben-hadad thought that because he had the power to rob and appropriate, ho also had the right to do so. But God gives power and might to kings, not to distort the right, but to protect it. The power of that one who, confiding in his own strength, treads the right under his feet, will sooner or later miserably decline.
1Ki 20:4. Those who no longer have a Lord in heaven whom they fear, and before whom they bow, cringe and fawn before all men who can harm or serve them. If Ahab had said to the King of kings what he sent as a response to the royal robber and boaster: I am thine and all that I have; he would then have had the trust and assurance: He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty, &c. (Psa 91:1-3). He who bows before God is sure to be humble before men; but he does not cringe to them nor throw himself away. To submit to the superior power and force that demands gold and silver is no disgrace; but to surrender wife and child is contrary to honor, duty, and conscience.
1Ki 20:5-6. Haughty and insolent men grow all the more overbearing and ungovernable, and the more one submits to them and crawls before them and gratifies their desires, the more exorbitant they become in their demands. It is the curse that rests upon avarice, that the more the appetite after money and property is gratified, the more it grows, not diminishes (Pro 16:8).
1Ki 20:7-9. Ahab and his people, (a) Ahab feels himself helpless and perplexed. Adversity teaches us how to pray, but Ahab had turned from the living God, who is a helper in every time of trouble, to a dumb idol that cannot help; he had forgotten how to pray, forgotten the word of the Psa 50:15 : Call on me in a day of trouble, &c.; he had sought to help himself by cowardly submission, and now he seeks help of men. In every distress we should turn first to the Lord, Psa 118:8-9; Psa 108:13; Hymn: Wenn wir in hchsten Nthen sein, und wissen nicht wo aus und ein, &c. (God is the refuge of his saints, when storms of deep distress invade), 1Ki 20:1-2. (b) The elders and the people reproach him. Instead of his giving instructions to them with the words of Joe 3:15, like a king, they give commands to him: Hearken not unto him. He is no real king, realizing the position which has been given to him by God, whom the people control instead of allowing themselves to be controlled by him. Tyrants are of this class: at first they do not consult the people, and do not scruple to appropriate their most sacred possessions, take away their faith, and burden their consciences. Ahab did not consult his people about the introduction of the worship of Baal and the persecution of the prophets; but now when he does not know how to counsel or help himself, he applies to the wish of the nation, the aid of the people is now very acceptable.
1Ki 20:10. Boasting and braggadocio are never a sign of true strength and ability, much rather of moral weakness. Ben-hadad, who speaks of the dust of Samaria, shows himself by that very act to be of dust, Psa 75:5-6; Jer 17:5 (Mat 26:33; Mat 26:69).
1Ki 20:11. Cramer: It is presumption for a man to celebrate a triumph before he has gained the victory; so that those who propose doing anything should say: If the Lord will, &c. (Jam 4:15). Starke: We have no need to stand in fear of men who put their confidence in themselves.
1Ki 20:12. No success or blessing can rest upon orders which issue from drunken revelries.
1Ki 20:13. Formerly Ahab wished no instruction from the prophets; now in his danger and distress he admits them and listens to them. In days of prosperity the world does not care for any advice from the faithful servants of the divine word; it looks down upon them and despises them; but in the hour of sorrow and mourning it grants them access, and is glad to avail itself of their consolation. Temptation teaches us to observe Gods word. They who do accept it and obey it will have as little cause as Ahab to repent of it. Before a great troop which has been abandoned of God, you have no cause to fear if God has said to you: I will help thee (Isa 41:13). You are to acknowledge: I am the Lord. This is the end and aim of all Gods guidings and providences; if they do not attain this end in your case, your life and existence are vain and of no value, to no purpose.
1Ki 20:14-15. Cf. 1Sa 14:6; 2Ch 14:11. A little band of brave men accomplishes more than a great troop of such as fight in a bad cause and with a wicked conscience.
1Ki 20:16. Ben-hadad must have sorely repented his drunkenness, as it resulted in the loss of his army, his horses and chariots. How often still is drunkenness the original cause of great sorrow and distress (Ephes. 1Ki 5:18; Isa 5:22; Pro 23:29-30).
1Ki 20:18. Great men often think, when they have been disturbed in their carnal rest and security, that they only need to speak the word of command in order to be relieved from everything disagreeable and wearisome, but they must learn that they cannot rid themselves by a command of what God has sent for their humiliation.
1Ki 20:19-21. The way of the godless shall perish (Psa 1:6). Their way is covetousness and pillage (1Ki 20:3; 1Ki 20:6), haughtiness, insolence, and assurance (1Ki 20:10; 1Ki 20:18), service of their belly, wantonness (1Ki 20:16). This way shall perish; they are as chaff which the wind driveth away, utterly consumed with terrors (1Ki 20:20-21; Psa 73:19).
1Ki 20:22-34. The second expedition of the Syrians against Israel. (a) The motive; (b) the issue.
1Ki 20:22. The advice of the prophet; Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, &c. is applicable in another, higher sense to us all. Our enemies are not idle, they are constantly returning to the attack. Even if we have by the help of the Lord conquered a victory over sin, the world, and the devil, that is not all there is to be done; we must even after the victory be on our guard and arm ourselves, so that the enemy may not fall upon us unawares (1Co 16:13; Ephes 1Ki 6:10 sq.; 1Pe 5:8; Hymn: Rstet euch, ihr Christenleute, die Feinde suchen euch zur Beute, &c., My soul be on thy guard. Ten thousand foes arise, &c.).
1Ki 20:23-25. The evil counsellors of Ahab. (a) They urge him on to war and battle instead of counselling peace, because their pride was wounded and their hope of booty had been frustrated. Place no confidence in the man who incites you to begin a quarrel. The saying of Scripture (Heb 12:14) is applicable to all, in private as well as public life, for individuals and entire nations, for masters and servants. (b) They plead religious reasons, and make use of the superstition of their unwitting lord. It is possible for a bad, unholy thing to become confirmed through superstition; the man who plants himself on truth, however, will not permit himself to be deceived on such a foundation, (c) They shove the blame of the ignominious defeat on to the thirty-two kings, instead of seeking for it in themselves. A man always prefers to find the cause of his own misfortune and distress in anothers rather than in his own sin and guilt.
1Ki 20:26. Ben-hadad followed their foolish and perverse advice because it was entirely in accordance with his own wish. So strong and overpowering is sinful desire in the human heart, that even the bitterest dispensation and chastisement of God suppresses it only for a time, and, as soon as the external impression ceases, it breaks forth afresh.
1Ki 20:28. He who calls the God of Israel, who made heaven and earth and filled them both (Jer 23:23-24), a god of the hills or a national divinity, blasphemes His name; the Lord, however, will not let him go unpunished, who takes His name in vain.
1Ki 20:29 sq. God is a judge who putteth down one and setteth up another (Psa 75:8). Hymn: Es sind ja Gott geringe Sachen, und seiner Allmacht gilt es gleich, den Reichen arm und klein zu machen, &c. Today a king and lord over hundreds and thousands, to-morrow a man who is obliged to sneak about and beg for mercy; to-day haughty and insolent, to-morrow a slave in sackcloth, and with a rope about the neck (Jer 16:6-7).Wrt. Summ.: Nothing among mortal affairs is so inconstant as temporal prosperity. There is a time for everything. For that reason let no man place his dependence on his good fortune and exalt himself on its account, for he does not know whether he shall possess in the evening what was his in the morning (Sir 18:26).
1Ki 20:31-42. Lisko: Ahabs wicked conduct after the victory. (a) In what it consisted. (b) How he was punished for it.Cramer: When authority is compassionate out of proper season and neglects its office of correction, it draws upon itself the guilt of the other. God wants no mercy to be shown where he has ordered punishment. 1Ki 20:31-33. Praise, flattery, and subserviency are only too often the snare with which kings and great men are caught, so that under the appearance of generosity and magnanimity they may be led astray and act contrary to the will of God. They ought, indeed, to be merciful and gracious, but not forget that to do justice is their first duty, and that they do not carry the sword in vain.Ahab persecutes an Elijah in every kingdom (chap, 1Ki 18:10), and threatens him with death, but he permits a robber and a plunderer to sit beside him in his chariot and makes a covenant with him. What to the eyes of the world looks like generosity, in the eyes of God, who trieth the heart and reins, is only weakness and folly. Great injury can be done by seeming ill-timed generosity.
1Ki 20:33. Cramer: After a word has been once spoken, we cannot recall it. Therefore learn to guard thy mouth: he who does will not offend by his words (Sir 23:7).
1Ki 20:35-43. The proclamation of the divine punishment for Ahabs conduct. (a) How it occurred; (b) how it was received by him (vide Historical and Ethical).
1Ki 20:35-37. He who has his calling and service from the word of God ought to allow no danger to detain him from making an announcement of the fact (2Ti 4:2), and must obediently submit himself to his commands even when the fulfilment of them is joined with pain and sacrifice.
1Ki 20:38-40. A genuine preacher of repentance must first of all convict the sinner of his guilt and bring him to the point where he condemns himself, just as Nathan did with David.
1Ki 20:42-43. Ahab listened well pleased to the falsehood from the lips of the Syrian nobles, for it gave nourishment to his folly; the truth from the mouth of the prophet made him restless and angry, because it punished his folly. There is no help for the man who allows himself to be irritated by the truth instead of receiving it with meekness (Jam 1:21). There is nothing that so rouses and provokes an unconverted and unbelieving man as to have his sinful character so unveiled and set before his eyes that he can no longer justify or excuse himself.
Footnotes:
[1][The Vat. Sept. transposes chapters 20 and 21, thus making the affair of Naboth precede the deliverance and victories of Ahab, but making the narrative of the wars of Israel under Ahab with the Syrians continuous.
[2]1Ki 20:1.[Many MSS., followed by the Sept., have this name uniformly with the final letter r instead of d.
[3]1Ki 20:2.[1Ki 20:3 begins at this point in the arrangement of our Heb. Bibles, of Luther, and of our author; the Sept. divides as in the A. V.
[4]1Ki 20:3.[The Vat. Sept. omits this qualification of Ben-hadads demand.
[5]1Ki 20:5.[On this form of oath, cf. 1Ki 17:1.
[6]1Ki 20:6.The Sept., Vulg., and Syr., by taking the pronoun in the plural, make this refer to the officers of Ben-hadadwhatsoever they should fancy.
[7]1Ki 20:7.[The Sept. more particularly, my sons and my daughters.
[8]1Ki 20:8.[The negative is here printed , which form occurs but twice elsewhere, but many MSS. give the more usual form .
[9]1Ki 20:9.[The Sept changes the pronoun, and reads, tell your lord. The other VV. all follow the Heb., but below the Alex. Sept. omits the words at the first.
[10]1Ki 20:10.[ is here, as in 1Ki 19:2, connected with verbs in the plural, and is rightly translated as referring to the false gods of Ben-hadad. The Vat. Sept., however, has in the singular, and the Chald. = the terrors.
[11]1Ki 20:10.[On the meaning of see the Exeg. Com.
[12]1Ki 20:14.[ = who shall join the battle, i. e., begin the fight?
[13]1Ki 20:15.[The Alex. Sept. alters this number to 332, an evident error.
[14]1Ki 20:19.The Sept., by introducing the negative and changing the form of the verb to makes 1Ki 20:19 a part of Ben-hadads order: Let not the princes. go out, &c.
[15]1Ki 20:20.[The Sept. very unnecessarily reduplicates: .
[16]1Ki 20:23.[The Sept., by putting the verb in the singular, refers the superiority more immediately to the God of Israel.
[17]1Ki 20:27.[The translation of the A. V. is certainly wrong, resting upon a false derivation of from . The word is Polp.: from , and means were supplied with provisions. Vulg. acceptis cibariis. Our author renders [mit Lebensmitteln] versorgt; Keil, too fully, were supplied with ammunition and provisions. The Vat. Sept. neglects the word altogether, but the Alex, renders .
[18]1Ki 20:28.[The Sept. puts this in the sing., thou shalt know.
[19]1Ki 20:30.[ = the wall sc. of the city. The fleeing Syrians probably, in order to make a stand in Aphek against the pursuing Israelites, bad partly climbed and occupied the city walls, and partly sought behind them a shelter for their protection, Keil. Many MSS. read without the , and Kennicott, adopting this reading, would understand the word of the Simoom, or pestilential wind, by which so many of the Syrians were destroyed. There seems little support for this.
[20]1Ki 20:31.[The Vat. Sept. makes this the address of Ben-hadad to his servants. At the close of the verse both recensions have the plural pronoun of the first personsave our lives.
[21]1Ki 20:33.[ . The verb seems to be always used of augury, foreboding, presentiment, &c. (cf. Gen 44:5; Gen 44:15; Lev 19:26; 2Ki 17:17, &c). and is always translated in this general sense in the A. V. except in this passage and in Gen 30:27, where it should be. All the versions here concur in this sense, e. g. the Vulg. Quod acceperunt viri pro omine. Our author translates as in the bracketsUnd die Mnner deuteten es gnstig. So also Keil: These took the words of Ahab as a good omen.
[22]1Ki 20:33.[ . These words are of much more difficult interpretation, especially because of the . word . For a discussion of its meaning see the Exeg. Com.
[23]1Ki 20:34.[All the VV. concur in making this clause a continuation of the words of Ben-hadad. Keil agrees with our author and with the AV. in changing the speaker to Ahab.
[24]1Ki 20:38 is rendered in the A. V. as in the Vulg. and some of the other VV. as if it had been pointed . The Chald. and Sept. () have undoubtedly hit the true sense, which in the Chald, is expressed by the very similar word . This is agreeable to the following words , and also to the readiness with which it was removed, 1Ki 20:41.F. G.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter relates more to the history of Israel as a nation, than to the government of the church. It informs us of a battle between Syria and Israel, in which the Syrians are worsted. Ahab doth not avail himself of his victory, for which he is reproved by the prophet.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. (2) And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Benhadad, (3) Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine. (4) And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have.
During the time that Israel served the Lord, the Lord made all their enemies submissive. But when Israel rebelled against the Lord, the enemies of Israel became formidable. We may spiritualize this passage with great safety. While the Lord’s people live in dutiful affection to Jesus, he maketh even their enemies to be at peace with them. But when they leave their first love, many subdued foes gain their ascendency. But what an object still is the soul of that man reduced to by sin, that, like Ahab, will rather live a pensioner upon the devil’s favor, than die a freed servant of the Lord of hosts.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Partial Exclusion of God
1Ki 20:28
I. There are scenes with which we naturally associate God; and how true that was of the Syrians a glance will show us. It was among the hills that Israel fought them; it was on the rough hillside that Israel conquered. For us no less than for the Syrians there is a suggestion of God about the hills. It was on a hill that our Saviour blessed the world with the priceless preaching of the Sermon on the Mount. And on a hill-top having said farewell He ascended to the mansions of His Father. Somehow right through the Bible story there clings to the hills the thought of the Divine. As it is with nature so it is with our lives, for they, too, have got their hill-tops mystical. There are great hours when we rise above ourselves and in such hours God is not far away. For just as the fierce north wind catches the clouds and drives them apart till through the gap we see the sun, so our great sorrows and joys and passions and despairs scatter the clinging mists and show us God.
II. We are often blind to God just where He is most active. You see at once how true that was of the Syrians. They saw Him on the wild torrent-swept hills, but not in the tenanted and fertile valleys. They denied the Infinite in its sweetest revelation, and were blind to God just where He was most active. Perhaps we are all in danger of that sin, as the Syrians were, even in regard to nature. There are certain set places we can admire enthusiastically, but to all the rest of God’s world we are half-blind. The man who can see hardly needs to go abroad. The wonder and bloom of the world are at his hand. But perhaps our great danger lies in ignoring God in the valley-lands of common life. It is far easier to see God upon the hills than to discern His presence in the valleys. It is far easier to see Him in the crisis than to detect His going in our common days, yet He is never nearer than in these simple duties that meet us every morning when we rise, in these common joys that consecrate our homes, in these common burdens that we all must bear.
III. To exclude God always spells disaster, in friendship and home and State, even in business. And the more a man prospers in a godless business, the worse is the disaster in the eye of heaven. Exclude God altogether if you will, but do not give Him the hills and Keep the valleys. That did not save the Syrians in the battle, and it will not keep you and me from being lost.
G. H. Morrison, The Unlighted Lustre, p. 144.
Business Here and There
1Ki 20:40
The words of the text are a part of a parable spoken by the prophet to King Ahab. The King of Syria had been given over to the hands of Ahab, whose duty it was, for the sake of the religion of God and of the people of Israel, that Ben-hadad, the king, should be slain. Instead of that, in a moment of weakness, weakness which cost Israel dear, the king let Ben-hadad go free, and the words of the text are really a portion of a parable spoken by the prophet against the act of the king. Now we will get away from the context, and look upon our own age.
I. A Busy Age. It is, all will acknowledge, a busy age. It is a mere truism to tell you that the life you lead is a busy one, it is from Monday morning till Saturday night full of business; but the warning which the prophet gives the king is quite as good for you as it was for Ahab. ‘And as thy servant was busy here and there the great opportunity was gone.’ It does not require much paraphrasing. Now in a great town it is business that holds sway. We are all of us conscious of the evil influence that this rush and hurry has on our spiritual life. In our better moments we are ashamed to think how very far behind business religion comes. We try, some of us at any rate, to climb the steep incline to heaven with a burden tied to our back. Is it to be wondered at that your steps are feeble and tottering and faint? Religion strikes most of us as a thing for heaven only. It is for the eternal spheres and not for the temporal. ‘Business is the thing here,’ you say. It requires the exercise of moral qualities. A man must be honest, his integrity must be above reproach, he must be truthful, he must be diligent. These are moral qualities which in themselves are glorious, but after all they are not the best qualities, are they? How about unselfishness, meekness, considerateness for other people, purity, rightness of motive, do they thrive on the milk of business? No, business does not touch them because they are higher than business.
II. What will Business Do for You? It will give you a certain amount of comfort. Quite so, it will. It will give you a fair share of pleasure. Yes, there is nothing wrong in that. It will give you a certain influence with your fellow-men. That is right; there is nothing wrong in that. But what more can business give you? Can it give you anything that you will take away when you go to a better realm than this? No; I will tell you why. The things of business are temporal, and when the things of time finish, the things of business end. Therefore whatever you gain here in quantity you must leave behind. There is no arguing with it. All the credit that a man has got will end when his will is proved, and it is known that he has left so many thousands. Notice the word. He is leaving them. He does not benefit. The issues of business have to do with quantity, not quality; with time, not with eternity.
III. ‘Good Business.’ There is nothing in the Bible against making a man a diligent business man. Diligence, skill, perseverance, will always have their due reward. The business man who is a Christian should be second to none. The working man who is a Christian should need no watching. The servant man or the servant girl who are Christians should be above complaint, because the Christian, whatever his sphere, should be the very best.
IV. The Noblest Standard. Now it is very practical for us to consider that religion after all is the only thing that gives us the noblest standard of purity. The noblest standard of purity is to be had in the religion of Jesus Christ, and in the religion of Jesus Christ only. Religion demands truthfulness. You cannot be a Christian and a liar at the same time. You must be absolutely truthful in word and deed. Religion is utterly opposed to the modern fashion of putting on appearances, trying to induce people to think that you are what you are not. Religion will not permit you to start a dishonest business. You cannot, if you are a religious man, start your business on a fictitious character. Let no man go beyond and defraud his brother in anything. That is religion. Be busy; be as busy as you can; be diligent, work hard in the fear of God and in the love of Christ. You will not then lose your opportunity. No, you will be busy here and there, but the love of Christ will be in your hearts. You will be better Christians and better business men, and in the long run, when the adding up and counting is done, you will find the incorruptible crown which God, the righteous Judge shall give you.
References. XX. 40. J. Angell James, The Penny Pulpit, No. 1938. XXI. 1-10. J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Feast Days, p. 27. XXI. 19, 20. C. Kingsley, Town and County Sermons, p. 317. XXI. 20. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Holytide Teachings, p. 128. XXI. 29. J. Keble, Sermons for Sunday After Trinity, part i. p. 283.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
The Universal God
1Ki 20:28
This was the profound mistake which the Syrian soldiers made. We fear that the whole world is making the same mistake. What, if on inquiry it should be proved that we have a partial religion, a religion useful here but useless there, an admirable contemplation for Sunday, but a grievous burden for Monday? What if we practically reverse the Syrian conception, and say that the Lord is God of the valleys but not God of the hills? That we want him in dark and dangerous places, but we can fight for ourselves in open places and on the tops of the breezy hills?
Is it an erroneous supposition that most of us have a God who is called in on special occasions, and that few of us live and move and have our being in a God that encloses and protects and trains to high purposes the whole life, body, soul, and spirit? Is ours a local or a universal God? Does he occupy the hills always, or the valleys alone, or does he fill all things with the fulness and silence of light?
There are those who confine him to the hills of speculation, but exclude him from the valleys of daily life. They are the intellectual patrons and flatterers of God. He is too great to be realised. He is the Supreme Thought, the Infinite Conception, the Unconditioned Absolute, and various other magnificent inanities. According to their view, he cannot be brought down to daily experience, or take any immediate part in the common progress of life. He is grand, but useless. He is glorious, but unapproachable. His sanctuary is on hills that cannot be climbed, or in clouds that cannot be entered; but he has no agency in the valleys.
Then there are those who recognise God in the valleys of trouble, but ignore him on the hills of strength and joy. They call him in professionally. He is kept for the hour of distress. They use religion as a night-bell which they can pull in times of exigency. He is sympathetic, pensive, helpful, but in the hour of progress and festival and conquest, he is neither needed nor called for. They are partially right, and in that very fact is their great danger. They make a convenience of God, and they can quote Scripture for the sake of the uses to which they put him. It is true that God is the God of the valleys. When the life-road suddenly dips into steep and perilous places, when it turns sharply into thick jungles where wild beasts roar and cruel birds scream in the hot wind; where it so narrows itself that only one can go forward at a time, and the kindest of strong friends must helplessly walk behind; when it terminates in the deep grave, without a singing bird in the air or a waft of summer flowers in the bitter wind; then God shines upon it mile by mile, and makes its end the starting point of an everlasting ascent. All this is true, but it is only part of the truth. God has to do as intimately with our prosperity as with our adversity. “The Lord God giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous; he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.” Our breath is in our nostrils, and our light is the daily gift of God. “The strength of the hills” is God’s, and his are the munitions of rocks.
It is the very glory of religion in its most intelligent conception that it comprehends and blesses the whole life. From this fact it draws one of its most powerful defensive arguments. Sometimes upon reading an attack upon the Christian faith we feel that its power wholly depends upon its mistaken estimate of the case with which it deals. If life were a short straight line, beginning and ending at points which the eye can clearly see; if it were an easy game which every mind can at once comprehend; if it were a competition in business, or a race on an open road and upon equal terms, nothing would be easier than to show the positive needlessness of the whole apparatus which is called religious. In order to make any infidel theory even seem to be good we must narrow and dwarf and impoverish the life which it seeks to rule and direct. We must make that life a straight line; we must ignore its mysteries, and exclude its future; we must silence its most urgent and penetrating inquiries; and having completed those acts of mutilation, it will be easy enough to invent a theory to meet its mean necessities.
What is this life for which any religion that is true has to provide? It is no easy riddle. It is easy enough to invent a theory or an outfit for one side of it; but we want a doctrine that will involve and ennoble its entirety. What is this life? What is its origin? Look at the impulses which excite it; add up into some nameable total the forces which operate upon it; and bring under one law the ambitions which lure or goad it into its most daring activities. Here is a hunger which no bread can satisfy. Here is an imagination which conquers the visible and longs to penetrate the unseen. In the breast is an eager suppliant that will not be forbidden to pray. What are those wondrous trials which strain the life to cruelty, and say they have come for its purification? Bar the gate never so surely, the black affliction will open it and come straight up to the house and enter its brightest rooms. Close the windows, yet the storm will batter upon them and pour its drenching floods upon the gladdest hearthstone. What is this life? It can curse and pray; it can descend to beasthood; it can fit itself for heaven; it can write poems in ink, build them in stone, paint them in colour: and it can drink away its genius and die in lunacy.
And what is the hereafter of this multiplied life? Does it go out like a spark? Does it perish like a dog? Does it burst like a bubble? Or does it go forward to new scenes, grow up into nobler power, study profounder questions, and culminate in the very holiness of God? These are some of the questions which the life asks of itself. These are monologues. These are not questions suggested from the outside, they come up out of the very centre of the soul, and are the very soul itself translated into anxious but mocking words.
Thus that which is emphatically false of the true religion is emphatically true of every religion that is false. The false religion is God of the hills but not God of the valleys. The superficial theory is excellent in fine weather, but useless in foul. It is pleasant in prosperity, it is helpless in adversity. It can swell our laughter, it cannot dry our tears. This is the proof of the true religion that it encompasses with infinite sufficiency the whole life, is equally strong at every point. It can run with the footmen; it can keep pace with the horses; and it can subdue into peace the swellings of Jordan.
Prayer
Almighty God we bless thee for all good men, strong and wise, pure and tender; men who have despised money when the exchange was not to be wrought except by sacrifice of conviction. We bless thee for the men who have held by their vineyards because of their fathers’ memories. We thank thee for all elevating sentiment, all noble impulse, all high enthusiasm. Thou thyself hast blessed it, and though for a moment it has been baffled and persecuted and vanquished, it has returned in fuller vitality, it has shone with nobler splendour. We thank thee for all men who have kept alive in the nations a sense of what is due to God. We bless thee for every hint of the existence of thy throne; and we thank thee for the men of courage who in the nighttime and in the storm, in the great darkness and the horrible tempest, have said with steady voice, The Lord reigneth. Enable us to hear all good voices, and to answer them gladly and gratefully. May we never be amongst those who will take down the flag in the presence of the enemy. The Lord grant unto all standard-bearers life, health, and increasing power, that they may be able to speak the right word at the right time and in the right tone, and thus keep men, who would waver because of mental and spiritual fickleness, steady and consistent. We thank thee for all high examples; for all the sweet music of home that makes us love the fireside as a sacred altar. We bless thee for all the influences which lift us upward; for all prayers addressed to thy great throne in the name of Christ, which give us hope in despair, and which are returned to us as cordial and balm and tonic in the day of weakness and fear. We thank thee for all good books, for all true teaching, for all friendly counsel tending in an upward and heavenly direction. May we be supported unto the end; at the very last may we be more than conquerors, having strength to spare, and able to enjoy the conquest which by thy grace we have won. We mourn our fickleness and inconstancy, and our hesitation in presence of evil. We have not always been strong men. Sometimes we have listened as if we intended to understand the evil one, instead of answering him with fire and smiting him with the thunder of God. We have done the things we ought not to have done, we have left undone the things we ought to have done; but, still, that we know this to be a fact, and that we acknowledge it contritely is itself the beginning of a new and gladsome hope. We thank thee for the great Christ of God, who never faltered, who hardened his face that he might go to Jerusalem, who knew that he was to be baptised with a baptism of blood, but turned not aside because of fear. We bless thee for his struggle in Gethsemane a struggle which expressed its agony in great drops of blood; we thank thee for the Nevertheless with which he won the victory. We bless thee for that second prayer of his in which he enlarged the first, and in which he plucked the sword from heaven with which he smote the foe. May we follow this blessed Christ, Emmanuel, Saviour of the world, who understood the mystery of blood, the power of sacrifice, and the glorious significance of the cross. He endured the cross, despising the shame; he was despised and rejected of men; but he never left the throne, or forswore his cause. O that we may follow him, and be like him, and repeat his life according to the measure of our capacity and the quality of our spirit. The Lord hear us, and astonish us with great replies! Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
VIII
ELIJAH ALONE AGAINST THE WORLD
1Ki 17:1-21:29
Elijah the Tishbite is the most dramatic personage in all history. He has left an ineffaceable impress on the imagination of the men of all times. He appears on the stage of action suddenly, rarely, startlingly, and disappears as suddenly and dramatically for long intervals of time, in which he is completely hidden from public sight. The ordinary life of the man never becomes commonplace because never familiar by association with the people. His successor lived much in a city, and never in seclusion, so that his everyday life was in the full glare of publicity. This intensely dramatic way of appearing, when coupled with his strange garb, stern manners and ascetic life, naturally impresses the imagination. We are not disappointed in the reasonable expectation that such a career would breed many traditions. Long after he passed away we find the Jews continually expecting his return. At the observance of the passover the door is left open that Elijah may enter if he should suddenly come, and a vacant chair is reserved for him at the circumcision of a child. When lost goods are discovered and the owner cannot be found, they are set aside until Elijah comes to identify the owner. In New Testament times, the Jews, unable to account for Jesus of Nazareth, supposed that he was Elijah, and when Christ cried out in the extreme agony of his crucifixion they supposed he was crying for Elijah.
In harmony with his marvelous career, we find the biblical period of his history the richest in homiletical value of all the scriptures. All the great preachers in the world have found thrilling themes in the incidents of Elijah’s life, and not only the great preachers, but the preachers generally throughout the ages have gone into this deep rich mine for sermon themes. Perhaps no man in all the ministry’ and throughout all the ages entirely omitted the life of Elijah in selecting topics for pulpit discussions. It would be quite easy to name at least fifty texts for sermons in this part of the Bible. The Scripture books which treat of this remarkable man are 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans and James. The intense interest in his career is just as fresh and strong in our own time as in previous ages. Such long continued interest cannot wholly arise from the dramatic setting of his life. There must be some profounder reason for his unshaken hold on the imagination and thought of the religious world. We find that interest arising from the great world crisis of his time and his method of meeting it. Once only before, and never since, has true religion been in such danger of utter extinction as in Elijah’s time. We may therefore properly inquire: What were the elements of this crisis and what effective measures employed by him in meeting its necessities?
Briefly stated, the elements of this crisis were:
1. Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel, the Tyrian princess.
2. The marriage of Jezebel’s daughter with Jehoram, prince royal of Judah.
3. The consequent unhallowed alliance between Judah and Israel.
4. The consequent establishment of Baal worship in both kingdoms.
5. The consequent and extraordinary persecution of the true religion and its prophets in both kingdoms.
6. The same murderous extinction of the seed royal of David by Athaliah’s husband, the daughter of Jezebel until one child alone is left of all the male progeny of David.
7. The consequent eminent hazard of the extinction of the true religion in the world.
Elijah himself thus expresses the situation: “The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thy altars and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life to take it away.” It is true, in the great depression of his mind following his flight from Jezebel, while under the juniper tree he prayed that he might die, feeling that his life had been a failure, that he exaggerated through ignorance his extreme loneliness. Some of the prophets had been saved alive by Obadiah, and the Almighty whose omniscience can read the hearts of the people in the most secret hiding places, assured him that there was a remnant according to grace of 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. But he knew nothing of this secret following of Jehovah. His voice was the only voice in the whole wide world lifted up in favor of Jehovah, so that with some measure of truth he might well say: “Alone, alone, alone, one man against the world.” In the days of Noah the remnant was even smaller than in the days of Elijah, but there has never been a period since his time when the true religion was reduced to as few flickering sparks.
After the revolt of the ten tribes under Jeroboam and the establishment of the dynasty of Omri and the marriage of Ahab, Omri’s son, with Jezebel, the Tyrian princess, and the adoption of her Baal worship in the place of the worship of Jehovah, the doom of the ten tribes was fixed, and all the) voices of the prophets could only briefly delay the swiftly coming ruin. One weak woman brought about the fall of the race, and this strong, cruel woman, Jezebel, could nearly bring about a second destruction. And when she had succeeded through her daughter, Athaliah, in establishing the Baal worship in Judah as well as in Israel, both streams of the national life became intensely corrupt. We are accustomed to admire the heroism of any sixteenth century reformer, who dared to lift his voice against the prevailing religious corruption of Romanism, but in no period of either pagan or papal persecution have the Christians been reduced to such small numbers and such scanty influence as in the days of Elijah. Neither Savonarola, nor Huss, nor Jerome, nor Prague, nor the Waldenses, nor Luther, nor Calvin, nor John Knox nor the Dissenters in the days of the Stuarts nor John Bunyan, nor Spurgeon was ever subjected to the extreme loneliness that afflicted the heart of Elijah. It is easy to go with the multitude, or even stand against the multitude if only a few stalwart friends unflinchingly support us, but when one man has to put himself against the whole world, the swelling tide of public opinion, the inquisition of hate, the devouring power of persecution with no reserve to fall back on except his own unconquerable spirit; then when such a man stands like a rock against which the billows dash themselves in vain, he is a hero indeed. No man can make such a stand apart from the divine call and support. In his case, as in the case of all trials of religious heroes, the Scripture is fulfilled: “When the enemy comes in like a flood, the spirit of the Lord lifteth up a standard against him.” In our admiration of this man’s greatness and in our gratitude for the redemption wrought through his heroic courage and fidelity, we should not lose sight of the God-prompted measures employed by him to effectively stem the encroaching tide of evil.
THE EFFECTIVE MEASURES EMPLOYED BY ELIJAH Briefly speaking, these were:
1. In his meeting with Ahab he startles the irreligious world with the announcement of a drought of three and a half years, which should not be broken except at his word, and then as suddenly as the drop of the curtain hides the arena of a theater from the sight of the people, he disappears and is lost to public view until the time comes for the breaking up of the drought. His name is unknown to history up to this sudden appearance with this awful denunciation. We know nothing of his father or his mother, or his kindred, or any of the early stages of his life. He emerges from total obscurity to stand as the mouthpiece of Jehovah, and then to be swallowed up into that obscurity for three and a half years more. The ravens knew the place of his retirement and furnished him food in his solitude, and a widow in the borders of Jezebel’s home country sheltered him from human sight. He had said that at his word only the drought should be broken; he was gone and no one knew where, and the consuming drought kept up its burning logic of opposition to idolatry. No soothsayer, no diviner, no rainmaker, no god of the heathen could even fleck the burning sky with a spot of cloud. While the ground parched and the water courses dried up, and all vegetation withered, and even kings spent their time in finding enough water to support the cattle of the royal household, well might the world wonder when this dramatic man would reappear and speak the word for rain to come. May we not account for Ahab’s worldwide search for him, by the desire that he would come and break up the drought by a word, before the nation perished? This measure was exceedingly effective in stemming the tide of irreligion, and in destroying public confidence in the powerless heathen gods.
The method of his own nourishment during the famine of the drought adds much to the character of the test between opposing deities. Jehovah miraculously provides for his prophet. There is nothing too hard for him. He may employ ravens or widows as instruments. We may not attempt to shut out a miracle by different vowel pointing of the word “raven.” The word is “ravens” and not angels, nor merchants, nor Arabs. These birds probably nested in the caves where Elijah went, and may have brought the food for their young. But that conjecture could not meet the Septuagint rendering: “They brought him bread in the morning and flesh in the evening.” The God whose spirit assembled the animals in the ark could influence ravens. Elijah is called the first apostle to the Gentiles because of his saving sojourn with the widow of Zarephath. The fact that Jezebel’s own country nourished the prophet adds emphasis to the test between opposing deities and as history counts it this widow is higher than Jezebel. The saving of the widow’s son led to her own salvation: many widows in Israel perished, but electing love reached out its saving hand to this widow in Jezebel’s country, as it did again in our Lord’s day. Jewish tradition represents this restored boy as becoming a follower of Elijah and identifies him with the prophet Jonah, the second foreign missionary.
Toward the end of this drought period, when its lessons of preparation have been well learned, and when messengers had vainly sought for Elijah throughout the habitable world, he reappears with all the dramatic power of his first appearance, and his second meeting with Ahab introduces his next effective measure of opposition to the irreligious life of his time.
2. He openly challenges Ahab to bring all the prophets of Baal together to put themselves against him alone in order to determine which god had the power to break this drought. The earth had never before seen such a single public test of the power of opposing deities. Elijah thus puts the case: “And Elijah came unto all the people and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. But the people answered him not a word. Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord, but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men. Let them, therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood and put no fire under; and I will dress the other bullock and lay it on wood and put no fire under, and call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord; and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.” Thousands of sermons have been preached on these thrilling words of Elijah. The first one my own boyish mind can recall was by my own father upon this theme. The demonstration of Elijah was complete, and all the people said, “Jehovah, he is God.” In spite of their wickedness they found it impossible to blot out from their memories and from the memories of the race this great demonstration of divine power. And while the great reformation thus introduced seemed to be short-lived for these people, yet we, nearly 3,000 years later, feel the impress of the triumph of that day. Very rarely in a Bible story does a man of God indulge in sarcasm. The literature of the world cannot surpass this mockery of the false prophets of a false god: “And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is musing, or he has gone aside, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.” Certain heathen authors have imitated Elijah’s mockery of false gods; for example:
“Jove went yesterday across the ocean to banquet with the Ethiopians.” HOMER. Jove on his couch reclined his awful head, And Juno slumbered on the golden bed.
“It is no wonder that the temple of Diana was burned; since she was absent at the time, employed in bringing Alexander into the world.” PLUTARCH.
” ‘Tis plain that the gods are not at home, and probably have taken a voyage to attend the feasts of Ethiopia’s blameless race, for they are in the habit of inviting themselves as guests to those honest folks.” (Lucian, Testimony of the Ages, p. 307.) Fire from heaven having attested the truth of Elijah and demonstrated the falsehood of Baal, the lying prophets were all slain at the word of Elijah and in the presence of the panic-stricken Ahab, Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, overlooking the sea, and prayed seven times for rain. What a lesson on the importunity of prayer, and what a text for another sermon on the little cloud no larger than a man’s head at first, but rapidly darkening the heavens, and oh, the rain, the blessed rain that followed! At the word of Elijah the drought was broken. Though a man of like passions with ourselves, so great was his power of prayer, his pleadings attracted and condensed the clouds of the heavens, and the rain fell in torrents. The parched earth rejoiced under its downpour, the dying roots of vegetation revived, and burst forth in blade and bloom and fruit, and even men were not unmindful in at least their temporary gratitude for the relief that came to assuage their burning thirst. In every subsequent drought and thirst men remember Elijah and pray as Elijah prayed that God might relieve the suffering world. The lesson is titanic and far-reaching in its influence. It demonstrates that man’s extreme need is God’s opportunity. It uncovered to all human sight a throne of grace approached by human and suffering suppliants. Hundreds of thousands in the passing ages have Carmel to look on the sight of those great happenings. They put their feet where the old altar of Jehovah stood, which Jezebel destroyed, and Elijah here reconstructed. Even Tacitus, the Roman historian, ages afterward speaks of Garmel’s strange altar. These same thousands have climbed Carmel’s crest, and marked the crest where Elijah, looking out over the Mediterranean Sea, by importunate prayer, called up the cloud.
It is true that at this high tide of this reformation, the daring and cruel Jezebel affrighted Elijah, and shook for the first and only time in his history his self-reliant spirit, and drove him in abject fear to another and distant retirement. But not even Jezebel could blot out the lesson. The wilderness has swallowed Elijah like the brook Cherith once hid him from sight. Under the juniper tree he may wish to die. In the cave of Horeb he would hear the howling of the storm, feel the shock of the earthquake, see the devouring fire, and listen again to the still small voice of God. Men may say that Elijah was defeated, that he was thoroughly panic-stricken. He is gone, but he will come again out of the silence of the desert, and the opposition will hear his voice again.
The record of this disappearance of Elijah is more marvel-ous than the first. That despair under the juniper tree; that voice of God: “What doest thou here, Elijah?” that deep sleep; that angel food in the strength of which he fasted forty days, like Moses before him and his Lord after him all in that same desert, the visit to Sinai, and the voice again: “What doest thou here, Elijah?” the theme of so many sermons. Spurgeon says of himself that when a boy, seeing a deacon in a questionable place, put his finger on his shoulder and startled him with, “What doest thou here, Elijah?”
3. Just as suddenly as on the previous occasion he appears before Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard, and evokes from the trembling lips of the startled king: “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” How grim is his response: “I have found you.” And then comes the next measure to stem the tide of irreligion. As an oracle of God he denounced the doom of the house of Ahab. It shall perish root and branch; man, woman, nor child shall be left, and Jezebel) though she may array herself in royal apparel and paint her face and attire her head, yet shall the dogs eat her flesh. The word that had shut up the heavens, the word that had opened the heavens; that word now pronounces the downfall of this entire iniquitous house as certain and irrevocable. There is not space to rehearse the details of the execution of this doom. The records show that not a word of Elijah failed. The whole house of Ahab is blotted out and that lesson has power today. Even men who mock at God and deny the supernatural, and wade through blood to attain the goal of a tyrant’s ambition, yet tremble when they read the record of the fall of the house of Ahab. The miser, the covetous man who is an idolater, the individual land grabber, and the corporation thief of national territory may well cherish the experience of Elijah when in the vineyard of Naboth. The quiver of Elijah is not yet empty; another shaft is fitted to his bow of Death.
4. The son of Ahab is on the throne, and he is sick unto death. He had not forgotten the power of the word of Elijah. Let all sons of tyrants remember it. There is ever some weak or broken lattice to cause a fall that brings on the sickness unto death. And this man would inquire of Baal whether he would recover, but from out of his obscurity Elijah intercepts the messenger of inquiry and sends him back with the message of death. The affrighted man inquires of the messenger the appearance of the man who sends him this awful message: “What manner of man was he that came up to meet you and told you these words?” And they answered him: “He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about the loins, and he said, ‘It is Elijah the Tishbite.'” The message was more impressive than the garb of the one who sent it and both are always recognizable by tyrants. The unhappy king seeks to arrest the prophet, but when two companies of fifty men have been consumed by fire, the man of God appears before the dying tyrant: “Thus saith Jehovah, forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to enquire of Baalzebub the God of Ekron, is it because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word? therefore, thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.” So he died according to the word of Jehovah which Elijah had spoken. How significant this terrible lesson! Not even the sick and dying shall inquire of another God but Jehovah! It was a lesson worthy of association with the lessons of the drought and the rain, and the fire from heaven, and of the vineyard of Naboth. Some men for a time, may forget this lesson, but mankind as a rule never forgets it. The oracles of the heathen have been abandoned to the moles and bats. The lesson of Elijah falls from many lips since his time, and we hear it thus from the lips of Isaiah: “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto the wizards that chirp and mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” But the effective measures of Elijah have not reached their climax. The leaven of the Baal worship had spread through Jezebel’s daughter to the neighboring kingdom of Judah, and while Elijah’s mission was to Israel, or to the ten tribes, yet he has a measure for the kindred nations.
5. And this is his letter to Jehoram, king of Judah, the husband of Jezebel’s daughter. We have known Elijah as a man of deeds and of mighty words. We have not known him as a writer, but we do know that in this one case where he could not appear in person before the king of Judah, he wrote a letter, which, though not delivered until after his going away, yet found its object and was a posthumous bolt of lightning. This is the letter: “And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the Lord, the 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 go a whoring, 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 the bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness, day by day.” This word was as much a missive of death as the word to Ahaziah, and is a demonstration that Elijah, though alone against the world, is still triumphant in the great war against the house of Ahab and the Baal worship. Ahab, Jezebel, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are gone. Jezebel’s daughter and all the other offenders will follow later.
6. The sixth measure, God-prompted, which Elijah employed was even more powerful than the preceding ones. It is the measure of perpetuity. He is already informed that the time is at hand when he must leave the earth, and before leaving he must take steps to provide for the full prosecution of his work. This measure consists of a triple anointment. He anoints Elisha to be his own successor. He anoints Hazael, king of Syria, to afflict the idolatrous Israelites, and he anoints Jehu, king of Israel, to be his executor of all the remnants of the house of Ahab, so that his translation from this world to the one above does not put a stop to the effectiveness of the redemption of his race, and to the growth of the true religion. It seems to me however great things one may achieve in the short time of his earthly life, they cannot possibly be equal in effectiveness to those measures which provide for the successors and the perpetuity of the good work when one is gone. Only those who can leave behind them others to take up the work where they left it and who, through organizing power, can provide for an endless succession of workers only these are the great men of the world. It matters little if Christ is crucified if he left apostles and if these were empowered to institute a larger ministry, so that Paul might commit his work to Timothy, and Timothy in turn to faithful men after him, and thus secure a perpetuity of ministers. Whitefield was a great orator in his day, but his day passed. Wesley was a great organizer, and through his organization he lived long after Whitefield passed away.
7. Elijah has yet one arrow in his quiver; he will not die at all; God will translate him. Not even the sons of the prophets can find him when they search for him. No spot on earth holds his remains; no tombstone marks his resting place, and thus we come to his last effective measure.
He so went away as to create an expectation of his return. The expectation is voiced in these words of Malachi, which is the closing paragraph of the Old Testament: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
When we come to the New Testament, the angel thus carries on the closing thought of the Old Testament to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist: “For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” The words of our Lord give the interpretation of Malachi’s prophecy and of the angelic message to Zacharias. Concerning John the Baptist, Jesus said, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah which was to come.” “And they asked him saying, Why say the Scribes that Elijah must first come? And he answered and told them, Elijah verily cometh first, and restoreth all things, and how it is written of the son of man, that he must suffer many things and be set at naught. But I say unto you, that Elijah is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.”
We have thus found the elements of the crisis in Elijah’s time to be:
(1) Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel, the Tyrian princess.
(2) The marriage of Jezebel’s daughter with Jehoram, prince royal of Judah.
(3) The consequent unhallowed alliance between Israel and Judah.
(4) The consequent establishment of Baal worship in both kingdoms.
(5) The consequent and extraordinary persecution of the true religion and its prophets in both kingdoms.
(6) The murderous extinction of the seed royal of David by Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel, until one child alone is left of all the male progeny of David.
(7) The consequent imminent hazard of the true religion and its prophets in the world.
And we have found Elijah’s effective measures of resistance to be:
(1) The sending of the drought at his first meeting with Ahab.
(2) The triumph over the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, and the breaking of the drought.
(3) His confronting Ahab in the stolen vineyard of Naboth and denouncing the doom of all his house.
(4) His interception of the message of Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, and his denunciation of the doom of the wicked king.
(5) His letter to Jehoram, king of Judah.
(6) His appointment of successors to carry on his work.
(7) His departure from the earth in such a way as to create an expectation of his return in any similar crisis in the world’s history.
Such a man not only left his impress in Jewish traditions, but supplied some of the most important New Testament lessons. The most notable of these are the following:
Christ’s lesson from Elijah’s time in his sermon at Nazareth: “And he said, Verily I say unto you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land) but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city near Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.” This important lesson itself has been the theme of many a timely sermon. The lesson is one of extreme sadness. It carries back the mind to that awful drought when the stock were suffering, and the poor widows suffering most of all. It establishes the truth that any starving, dying woman of Israel could have found relief in an appeal to God’s prophet, but only a far-off stranger in Jezebel’s country had the faith to make the appeal and be saved from distress.
The next great lesson is the reappearance of Elijah at Christ’s transfiguration, where, with Moses, he appears in glory, and communes with the great Redeemer concerning his approaching death at Jerusalem (Mat 17:3 ). So that Elijah not only fulfilled the public expectation in coming again in the person of John the Baptist, who had his spirit and his power, but he comes in his own person from the high courts of heaven to confer with our Lord concerning his expiatory death. What a lesson is this when the living apostles are protesting against his death; when the murderers are expecting his death to cut off his influence and stop the progress of his principles I From the realms of the invisible world, the great law giver and the great prophet appear to find in that death the world’s only hope of salvation.
Another important New Testament lesson is Paul’s use of the remnant of 7,000 in Elijah’s day in discussing the great doctrine of “Election” (Rom 11:2 ). And what a lesson of comfort this is when we feel our isolation and loneliness; when the reformers in the ages of corruption become discouraged, to look back to Elijah, and see him under the juniper tree wishing he might die in the thought that his life was a failure, and hear the words of God: “I have reserved for myself seven thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the times of great moral and spiritual corruption we know that there is hidden away, known only to the omniscient sight, many men and women true to what is right, though the great centers of influence become corrupt and though the great leaders turn away from the simple truth as it is in Jesus.
Another important lesson is given by James the brother of our Lord: “Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.” What a lesson is here for human feebleness and doubt as to the power of prayer, and how much does the world need this lesson! Particularly is it helpful just now when it has become fashionable among the literary great to decry the power of prayer, when unsanctified science, falsely so-called, rebukes the helpless when they sink down on bended knee in dire extremities, saying, “It is vain to pray: all things move according to natural law. It is useless to cry unto God. What profit shall we have if we pray unto him?”
One other New Testament lesson which I refer to Elijah’s time, is very sweet. We find the record of it in Mat 10:41-42 . Jesus had been saying that whosoever giveth even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of a disciple shall receive a disciple’s reward, or whosoever shall receive a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. There seems to be allusion to the words of Elijah addressed to the widow of Sarepta, words spoken in times of famine and drought and thirst: “And give me, I pray thee, a cup of cold water.” This lesson speaks to the lowliest and the poorest, those who have the least, and shows the mercy and grace of God in permitting the children of poverty even to find a blessing in helping somewhat the cause of the blessed God.
So that whether we consider the crisis of this man’s time or the effective measures adopted by him to stem the tide of religious corruption, or the New Testament lessons borrowed from the record of his life, or consider his period as an inexhaustible mine for digging up precious themes of pulpit power, we find Elijah and his times as supremely worthy of human study in any age. Such are some of the lessons to be learned from the man who stood alone against the world.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the theme and text of this lesson?
2. How do you account for the ineffaceable impress on the imagination of succeeding generations made by the life of Elijah?
3. Cite some of the traditions suggested by his life.
4. What is the relation of this life to homiletics and what books of Scripture furnish the material for the life of Elijah?
5. What proves that the abiding interest in Elijah is not due exclusively to the dramatic character of that life appealing to the imagination?
6. Give briefly the elements of the world crisis in his time,
7. How does Elijah himself express the situation?
8. How does Jehovah correct the exaggeration of this statement due to ignorance and morbid depression of mind?
9. Cite instances, apart from Jezebel’s case, of great harm coming from a woman’s influence, and then cite instances of great good resulting from a woman’s influence.
10. “There is a Jewish proverb: “When the tale of brick is doubled, then cornea Moses.” What scripture embodies the thought?
11. What was Elijah’s first measure of meeting the world crisis and how did it fairly test the opposing religions and deities?
12. Why did Ahab send all over the world to find Elijah?
13. How and where did Elijah hide himself during the three and a half years of the drought and how was he nourished?
14. Was his food supply at the brook Cherith brought by angels, Arabs, or birds?
15. What poor woman of this story eclipses Jezebel, and how did this incident add emphasis to the test between opposing deities?
16. Why is Elijah called the first apostle to the Gentiles?
17. What is the proof that this heathen woman was saved by Elijah’s ministry?
18. What is the Jewish traditions about this woman’s son?
19. What was Elijah’s second test?
20. What is the meaning of the word “bait” in “How long halt ye between two opinions?”
21. What heathen authors have imitated Elijah’s sarcasm and mockery of a false god?
22. How did Jezebel turn the tables on Elijah?
23. Have you read Henry Ward Beecher’s sermon on this panic of Elijah?
24. What great lesson of the juniper tree and the cave in Horeb?
25. What was the third measure of Elijah?
26. What were the great lessons from it?
27. What was the fourth measure?
28. And what was its lesson?
29. What was the fifth measure and its lesson?
30. What was the sixth?
31. What was the seventh and last?
32. Restate the seven elements of the crisis and the seven measures opposing.
33. Cite five New Testament lessons from his life.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Ki 20:1 And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and [there were] thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it.
Ver. 1. And there were thirty and two kings with him. ] Reguli; petty kings, such as once were the kings of Canaan, thirty-two likewise in number; Jos 12:7 , &c. such as were once the kings of this land. Caesar telleth us of four kings of Kent in his time, viz., Cingentorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus, and Segonax, who shared that country amongst them.
And he went up and besieged Samaria.
a Plutarch in Camillo.
Ben-hadad. Perhaps the son of the Ben-hadad of 1Ki 15:18.
host = force.
thirty and two. Probably vassal princes. Compare 1Ki 20:24.
Chapter 20
Now Benhadad who was presently the king of Syria gathered all of his host together: and there were thirty-two kings that went with him, with their horses, and chariots: and they came up and besieged Samaria, and they warred against it. And he sent messengers to Ahab the king of Israel the city, and he said unto him, Thus saith Benhadad, Thy silver and thy gold is mine; your wives and your children, the best of everything you have, is mine. And so the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to your saying, I am thine, and all that I have ( 1Ki 20:1-4 ).
So he asked for complete capitulation. I want all your gold and silver. I want all your wives, all your, you know, all of your possessions. So Ahab was surrendering. He said, “Everything I have is yours.”
So Benhadad wasn’t satisfied.
He sent back his messengers again, and said, Thus speaketh Benhadad, saying, Although I have sent unto you, saying that you shall deliver to me your silver, gold, wives, and children; Yet I will send my servants unto you to morrow about this time, and they will search through your house, and the house of your servants; and it shall be, whatever is pleasant in their eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away. And the king of Israel called his elders together, and he said, Mark, I pray you, look how this guy is just really seeking a fight: he doesn’t want just our gold and silver and wives; he wants a fight. And so all the elders that were with him said, Don’t hearken to him, don’t consent. Therefore he sent messengers to Benhadad, he said, Tell my lord the king, All that you did send for your servant at the first will do: but this other request that you have made we’re not going to do it. And so the messengers departed, brought him word again. And Benhadad sent unto him, and said, The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for the handfuls for all the people that follow me ( 1Ki 20:5-10 ).
And he said, “If everyone took the dust of Samaria, there wouldn’t be enough for the number of people I have to even have a fistful of dirt. I got so many people that I’m coming against you with.”
And so the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girds on his harness boast himself as though he was putting it off ( 1Ki 20:11 ).
In other words, don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
And so it came to pass, when Benhadad heard this message, as he was drinking, and his kings in the pavilions, he said to his servants, Set yourselves in array. And so they set themselves in battle array against the city. And, behold, there came a prophet to Ahab the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the LORD, Have you seen this great multitude? behold, I’m going to deliver it into your hand today; and you will know that I am the LORD. So Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Even by the young men the princes of the provinces. Then he said, Who shall order the battle? And he said, You. And so Ahab numbered the young men, the princes from the provinces, there were two hundred and thirty two: after them he numbered the people, all of the children of Israel, seven thousand. They went out at noon. And old Benhadad was drinking himself drunk in his pavilions, he with his kings. And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; Benhadad sent out, and told them, saying, [There are. They sent. They came to Benhadad and said] There are men coming out of Samaria. And so he said, Have they come out if they’ve come out for peace, take them alive; if they’ve come out for war, take them alive. So the young men of the princes of the provinces came out of the city, and the army followed them. And they slew every one his man: the Syrians fled; Israel pursued them: Benhadad the king of Syria escaped on a horse with his horsemen. And so the king of Israel went out, and he smote the horses, the chariots, he slew the Syrians with a great slaughter. And the prophet came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go and strengthen yourself, and mark, and see what you are doing: for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against you again ( 1Ki 20:12-22 ).
In other words, now strengthen yourself, fortify things, because at the end of the year the guy is going to be back.
And so the servants of the king of Syria said unto them, The problem is their gods are the gods of the hills; that’s why they were able to defeat you; now if you could fight them in the valley, then you could defeat them ( 1Ki 20:23 ).
Because their gods are the gods of the hills and not the gods of the valleys. Now of course, they thought of gods in localized sense. We should never think of God in a localized sense. God is what we say omnipresent. That means he’s everywhere at once. Therefore, it is wrong to think of God in a locality. Sometimes we think of God in a localized sense in heaven. And he seems very far off and remote because I don’t know where heaven is. It’s out there in space somewhere. But I’m pointing out in the space this way but you know if you realize the earth is actually round, and so you’ll be pointing down that way through the earth and not in space in the other direction. So I may head out, you know, in space looking for God but I may be going the wrong direction in space, if I think of God in a locality, you know, heaven, wherever that may be.
Or if I think of God here in the church, in a locality. And so often even in our prayers we sort of express the idea of God dwelling here. “Lord, we are so thankful that we can come into Your presence this evening. We can gather here together in Your presence.” Hey, you were in His presence when you left home tonight. You were in His presence when you were driving out here. You can’t escape the presence of God. And thus it’s wrong to think of God in a locality. And yet that was the pagan concept of God. He’s the god of the hills. And that was your problem. You let them fight you in the hills and their god is the god of the hills. That’s why you were defeated. Next time fight them in the valleys because their god is the god of the hills, not the god of the valleys and you’ll be able to defeat them, so they said.
Now gather your army again, all of the kings, all of the chariots. And go up again the second time. And so Benhadad gathered the forces of Syria together and he came up to Aphek to fight against Israel.
And the children of Israel were numbered, all that were present, went out against them: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks of kids ( 1Ki 20:27 );
They were totally, hopelessly outnumbered.
but the Syrians filled the country ( 1Ki 20:27 ).
They were just like two little flocks. And here the whole vast number of Syrians.
And there came a man of God, and spake to the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the LORD, Because the Syrians have said, The LORD is the God of the hills, but not the God of the valleys, therefore I’m going to deliver this great multitude into your hand, and ye shall know that I am the LORD ( 1Ki 20:28 ).
Now the interesting thing to me at this point is that though Ahab had turned against God and was a very wicked king, still God was continuing to speak to him. You know, though you may turn your back on God, and though you may go your own way, God continues to speak to you. God doesn’t just forsake you and let you go, though you may have forsaken Him. God is continuing to speak after this guy has turned his back. So long his back has been turned against God and yet God is still speaking to him. As God continues to speak to you because He loves you and He’s seeking to draw you unto Himself, and thus God doesn’t cease His work speaking to man.
And so the children of Israel came against them and they’re in the valleys and wiped out the Syrians really worse this time than before. The Syrians were fleeing. Benhadad was captured and he was brought back.
And he said unto him, The cities, that my father took from your father, I’m going to restore them; and you shall make streets we’ll make streets for you in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. And then Ahab said to him, I will send you away with this covenant. So he made a treaty with him, and sent him away. And a certain man, one of the sons of the prophets came and said to his neighbour, Smite me, I pray you. And the man refused to smite him. Then he said, [All right, because you’ve refused to smite me,] you’ve not obeyed the voice of the LORD, so as soon as you depart from here, a lion is going to slay you. So as soon as the man departed from the prophet, a lion slew him. So he found another man, he said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, in that he was wounded. And so he came and he waited for Ahab to come along, he disguised himself, he put ashes upon his face. And the king passed by, and he cried to Ahab: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: and if by any means he is missing, then we’ll require your life for him. And this man got away from me and now they want to kill me. And Ahab said, You pronounced your own judgment; you said that it was your life for his life and you let him get away. [Man, you’ve set your own judgment.] And so the guy took off the disguise; and the king of Israel discerned that he was one of the prophets. And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because you have let go out of your hand the man who I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. And the king of Israel went home [and he began to live more carefully from that point on,] but he was heavily displeased when he came to Samaria ( 1Ki 20:34-43 ). “
1Ki 20:1-4. And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. And he sent messengers to Ahab, king of Israel, into the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Benhadad, Thy silver and thy gold is mine, thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine. And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have.
This was a king of Israel, meanly crouching before the idolatrous king of Syria. Not after this fashion would David have spoken, or any of those kings who followed the Lord of hosts; but when men forsake God, they soon become cowards. What kingdom or nation shall prosper that casts off the yoke of the Most High?
1Ki 20:5-6. And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Benhadad, saying, although I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children; Yet I will end my servants unto thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be that whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away.
That is always the way with such people, give them an inch, and they take a mile. Ahab had agreed to all that the Syrian king claimed, so now Benhadad pushes his advantage. If you ever yield to Satan, you will find him to be a hard taskmaster. You can never yield enough to satisfy him; and if you yield to any sin, whatever it may be, you will find it to be a cruel tyrant to you. If you allow it once to have power over your soul, it will push its advantage further and further, and make your yoke to be exceedingly heavy.
1Ki 20:7-9. Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeketh mischief: for he sent unto me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold, and I denied him not. And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Hearken not unto him, nor consent. Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Benhadad, Tell my lord, the king. All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first I will do: but this thing I may not do. And the messengers departed, and brought him word again.
Driven to extremity, Ahab showed that he had a little courage left, and when he was supported by his people, and, possibly, urged on by them, he put his foot down, and would not altogether submit to Benhadad. Oh, that men had the moral courage to revolt against sin! Would that, when they felt its cruel bondage, they would resist it! God grant them grace to do so, and strengthen them in their resistance!
1Ki 20:10. And Benhadad sent unto him, and said, The gods do so unto me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me.
As much as to say, I will bring so many against you that all the dust of the city would not be enough to furnish a handful each.
1Ki 20:11. And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.
That was a sharp shrewd check to the boasting of the Syrian king.
1Ki 20:12-15. And it came to pass, when Benhadad heard this message, as he was drinking, he and the kings in the pavilions, that he said unto his servants, Set yourselves in array. And they set themselves in array against the city. And, behold, there came a prophet unto Ahab king of Israel, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou seen all this great multitude? Behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD. And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Even by the young men of the princes of the provinces. Then he said, Who shall order the battle? And he answered, Thou. Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty two: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand.
All the volunteers that were ready for the war; they were only seven thousand.
1Ki 20:16-18. And they went out at noon. But Benhadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings that helped him. And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Benhadad sent out, and they told him, saying, There are men come out of Samaria. And he said,
In his drunken fury, he said,
1Ki 20:18. Whether they be come out for peace, take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive.
They were not to be so easily taken as Benhadad imagined.
1Ki 20:19-21. So these young men of the princes of the provinces came out of the city, and the army which followed them. And they slew every one his man: and the Syrians fled, and Israel pursued them: and Benhadad the King of Syria escaped on an horse with the horsemen. And the king of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter.
God has ways and means of delivering his people at his own time. I wish all the young men of our churches had the high ambition to be serviceable to the Lord of hosts. These young princes were a very small band of soldiers, but they led the way, and smote the drunken monarch and his troops and if our young men, full of holy zeal and ardor, had confidence in God, and went forth every one to slay his man, by which I mean, each one to win a soul to Christ, what glorious victories would be won for the truth as it is in Jesus!
1Ki 20:22. And the prophet came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, and see what thou doest: for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against thee.
Another year would bring another war, so they must be prepared.
1Ki 20:23. And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods are god of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.
It was a current heathenish idea, that there was one god for a mountain,
another for a stream, another for a plain; and these men imagined that the glorious Jehovah was a local deity like their images were supposed to be.
1Ki 20:24. And do this thing, Take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains in their rooms:
Do not let the kings, who have their own armies, govern them, for that creates divisions in the camp; but appoint captains in their place.
1Ki 20:25-27. And number thee an army, like the army that thou hast lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot: and we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. And he hearkened unto their voice, and did so. And it came to pass at the return of the year, that Benhadad numbered the Syrians, and went up to Aphek, to fight against Israel. And the children of Israel were numbered, and were all present,
That is a grand record. It shows the kind of men they were. I wish that all our church-members were present at all our prayer-meetings, and on all occasions when work is to be done for Christ. What a healthy condition the church would be in if it could be said, The children of Israel were numbered, and were all present,
1Ki 20:27. And went against them: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks of kids;
A herd of goats was seldom very large, and the whole of the Israelites put together seemed only like two little flocks of kids;
1Ki 20:27-28. But the Syrians filled the country. And there came a man of God, and spake unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the LORD, Because the Syrians have said, The LORD is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
See how good came to Israel through the blasphemy of the Syrians! Whenever there is a rather worse book than usual brought out against the religion of Jesus Christ, or a more than ordinary villainous blasphemy is invented against the grace of God, you may almost clap your hands, and say, Now will God bestir himself for his truth and for righteousness sake. These men will provoke him so that he will arise, and defend his own cause.
1Ki 20:29-32. And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day. But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and there a wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. And Benhadad fled, and came into the city, into an inner chamber. And his servants said unto him, Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings: let us, I pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins, and ropes upon our heads, and go out to the king of Israel: peradventure he will save thy life. So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Benhadad
There is a wonderful difference between this language and the way in which he had previously spoken. Thy servant Benhadad
1Ki 20:32. Saith, I pray thee, let me live. And he said, Is he yet alive? he is my brother.
When a man leaves his God, he cannot distinguish between his foes and his friends; so that, oftentimes, those who would do him the direst mischief he reckons to be his brothers.
1Ki 20:33-34. Now the men did diligently observe whether any thing would come from him, and did hastily catch it: and they said, Thy brother Benhadad. Then he said, Go ye, bring him. Then Benhadad came forth to him; and he caused him to come up into the chariot. And Benhadad said unto him, The cities, which my father took from thy father, I will restore; and thou shalt make streets for thee in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. Then said Ahab, I will send thee away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him, and sent him away.
Ahab actually made a treaty of peace with him, and let him live to plot incalculable mischief against the nation.
Here begins the actual movement in the downfall of Ahab. Ben-hadad, drunken, profligate, despotic, came in the pride of arms against Samaria. By the voices of prophets Jehovah spoke to Ahab, who, acting under their direction, gained complete victory over his enemies.
Then followed his failure in the very moment of triumph. He made a covenant with the man whom God had devoted to destruction. Pity which produces disobedience to the divine command is sin. In consequence of his disobedience his own doom was uttered, and we are told the king returned heavy and displeased, which we may express as sad and angry. The only way in which any man is able to take advantage of opportunities for repentance offered in the circumstances of his life is by return in heart and soul to loyalty to God. This return Ahab never made.
a Prosperous Nation
1Ki 4:1-7; 1Ki 20:1-43; 1Ki 21:1-29; 1Ki 22:1-53
What a picture is here given of national contentment and prosperity! We can almost hear the gladsome voice of the myriad-peopled land, teeming with young life and laden with golden harvests. It was the summer of their national existence. The sacred scribe enumerates first the high officials of the court, then the daily provision of the king, his studies, and his fame. Abundant proof was yielded by all these circumstances to the manner in which God kept the pledges which had been made to David, his father.
Here is Solomon in all his glory, but as we turn from him to the lowly Carpenter of Nazareth, who had nowhere to lay His head; who found His friends among the poor; and who ultimately laid down His life a ransom for many, we realize that, even apart from His divine nature, His was the nobler ideal and the richer existence. A greater than Solomon is here. Who can measure His empire or resources? What tongue can recount His wisdom? Happy and safe are they that sit at His table, hear His words, and are joint-heirs with Him in His Kingdom! Rom 8:17.
1Ki 20:11
These are the words of Ahab, and, so far as we know, the only wise thing he ever spoke. The saying was probably not his own, but a proverb common in his time. As a warning to Benhadad the words proved true, but Ahab’s own conduct in going up to Ramoth-gilead, where he perished, showed a strange forgetfulness of his own saying.
I. We have all a battle to fight, we all know what is meant by the “battle of life,” but that of the Christian is inward and spiritual, a battle within a battle. Conversion to Christ means at once peace and warfare. Our peace with God means war with the world, the devil, and the flesh.
II. We have all a “harness” to put on. As the enemies we fight are spiritual, so must be our armour. The armour is Divinely provided and Divinely adapted to its purpose, and nothing can be a substitute for it. The Divine armour must be put on. We must take hold and keep hold of it, otherwise it is of no avail.
III. We have all a lesson of humility and patience to learn in connection with this warfare. Young converts are apt to think they have gained the victory when they are only commencing the conflict. We must learn to depend less and less on ourselves, and more and more on Christ. Our strength and victory must be in Him.
D. McEwan, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 120.
I. This text, with its historic connections, may well admonish us generally as to the justice and rectitude of our plans. It may give us with effect this plain teaching, that we ought to undertake nothing on our own responsibility which we cannot justify and defend. Rectitude should lie at the basis of all our express undertakings.
II. Supposing a work to be right in itself, it ought to be undertaken in a spirit of modesty, self-distrust, and fear. We are dependent creatures; and when we are beginning what will require from us a great amount of strength, it is meet that we should look towards the fountain-head of all strength.
III. It is not possible for any one to come to this modest, self-distrustful, resigned, and yet resolute state of mind about temporal things, about worldly chances and fortunes and family cares, who does not look at all beyond these things and above them to a higher world of. duty and faith. Unless we have regard to the higher things, we cannot walk steadily among the lower.
A. Raleigh, From Dawn to Perfect Day, p. 98.
References: 1Ki 20:11.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii.,p. 82; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1193; D. J. Vaughan, The Days of the Son of Man, p. 348. 1Ki 20:14.-J. Thain Davidson, Talks with Young Men, p. 103. 1Ki 20:28.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii., No. 1311; Parker, vol. viii., p. 46. 1Ki 20:39, 1Ki 20:40.-E. M. Goulburn, Sermons in the Parish Church of Holywell, p. 333.
1Ki 20:40
Both the soldier and King Ahab had neglected their chief duty in their devotion to a multitude of minor duties and aims; and for this neglect the king sentences the wounded soldier to lose his life, and the supposed soldier, stripping off his disguise and reappearing as a prophet, pronounces the same sentence on the victorious king.
I. Here lies our lesson. We are often diverted from the chief duties, the main task, of life by what our Lord calls “the lusts of other things entering in.” These lusts and cravings are not necessarily evil in themselves; they may only have become evil by being put in the wrong place; indulged at the wrong time. To be busy is not wrong, but to be so busy here and there, about this and that, as to neglect our chief duty is fatally wrong. For even God cannot treat you as though you had done your chief duty if you have not done it; even God, merciful as He is, cannot give you the blessedness of having reached your chief end if you have not reached it.
II. What, we may ask, is our chief end and duty? The familiar answer of the Catechism is as good as any. Our chief end is to “glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever.” To glorify God is to share and reflect His goodness. Our chief duty is nothing short of this: to become good, after the pattern and example of our Lord Jesus Christ.
S. Cox, The Bird’s Nest, and Other Sermons for Children, p. 222.
References: 1Ki 20:40.-J. Angell James, Penny Pulpit, No. 1938; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxii., No. 1296, and My Sermon Notes: Genesis to Proverbs, p. 84. 1Ki 21:1-19.-Parker, Fountain, March 8th, 1877. 1Ki 21:2.-G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 156.
4. King Ahab: His Wicked Reign and End
CHAPTER 20 Ahabs War with the Syrians and His Victory
1. The siege and relief of Samaria (1Ki 20:1-21)
2. The victory at Aphek (1Ki 20:22-34)
3. A prophets symbolical action and his message (1Ki 20:35-43)
Two expeditions of Ben-hadad (son of the Sun) against Israel are recorded in this chapter. When Ben-hadad forced the war and insulted the King of Israel, Ahab prepared for the battle. Then a prophet came to Ahab, most likely one of those who had been hidden by Obadiah. He brought a message from the Lord. Thus saith Jehovah, Hast thou seen all this great multitude? behold I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah. From this we may gather that a spiritual revival must have taken place in Israel after the manifestation of Jehovah on Carmel. Jezebel, after her rage on account of Elijahs deed, is not mentioned again till after Ahabs failure. The Lord in graciousness gave to Ahab another evidence that He is the Lord and can smite the enemies of Israel. The Syrians were defeated. Another message came to Ahab through the prophet. A year later Ben-hadad made another expedition against Israel. And there came a man of God, and spake unto the King of Israel, and said, Thus saith Jehovah, because the Syrians have said, The LORD is the God of the hills but not the God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into their hand, and ye shall know that I am the LORD. A great victory followed at Aphek. But Ahab let Ben-hadad, who had defied Jehovah, live. More than that, he treated him like a friend and brother, had him come into his chariot, and made a covenant with him. In showing such clemency to the enemy of God, Ahab revealed the state of his soul. He had no heart for the Lord and was bound to follow his wicked ways.
Then one of the sons of the prophets (Josephus saith it was Micaiah; 22:8) was commanded by the Lord to ask another prophet to smite him. The prophet refused the unquestioning obedience demanded from a prophet and therefore the judgment of God overtook him. The purpose of God in bringing the judgment message home to Ahab is carried out nevertheless. Then Ahab pronounced his own doom for showing leniency to Ben-hadad.
am 3103, bc 901
Benhadad: 1Ki 15:18, 1Ki 15:20, 2Ki 8:7-10, 2Ch 16:2-4, Jer 49:27, Amo 1:4
Thirty and two: 1Ki 20:16, 1Ki 20:24, Gen 14:1-5, Jdg 1:7, Ezr 7:12, Isa 10:8, Eze 26:7, Dan 2:37
and horses: Exo 14:7, Deu 20:1, Jdg 4:3, 1Sa 13:5, Isa 37:24
besieged: Lev 26:25, Deu 28:52, 2Ki 6:24-29, 2Ki 17:5, 2Ki 17:6
Reciprocal: 2Sa 10:19 – servants 1Ki 16:24 – the name of the city 2Ki 6:8 – the king 1Ch 19:9 – the kings 1Ch 19:19 – the servants
CLOSE OF AHABS REIGN
HIS DEALING WITH BEN-HADAD (1 Kings 20)
Among the remarkable chapters of this book the present stands out distinctively, but we shall be unable to give it the consideration it should have if we forget Gods purpose in dealing with Israel. It has been reiterated that He is using that people as an instrument in the redemption of mankind, and especially as a witness to Himself before the nations. This explains everything in their history, and to ignore it is to make that history like a tale of the Arabian nights. We should remember also that what is written is ofttimes the barest outline of what was said and done, and while we are by no means to fill in what we please, yet the omissions should have a qualifying influence in our understanding of the record.
Ben-hadad means the son of Hadad, and is a general title for the kings of Syria of that period, like the Pharaohs of Egypt or the Caesars of Rome. He was a descendant of the king met with in Baashas reign (1Ki 15:20). The thirty-two kings with him (1Ki 20:1) were petty tributary princes, rulers over cities in his neighborhood.
His claim for tribute (1Ki 20:3) would have been acceded to had he not overreached himself (1Ki 20:5-6), and had not frightened Ahab been encouraged by his subjects (1Ki 20:7-11).
What an evidence we have of Gods goodness and providential purpose in Israel in 1Ki 20:13! Wine and panic explain the victory from the human side, but Gods interposition from the divine side (1Ki 20:19-21).
If this victory was great, that of the succeeding year was greater (1Ki 20:22-30). Note the relative size of the walls under the weight of those who there made a stand against Israel.
Ahabs clemency to Ben-hadad (1Ki 20:31-34) was repetition of Sauls disloyalty to God in the case of Agag (1 Samuel 15) and explains the circumstance following (1Ki 20:35-43). The parabolic manner of the prophet in announcing Ahabs judgment suggests Nathans dealing with David (2 Samuel 12).
HIS DEALINGS WITH NABOTH (1 Kings 21)
Note that Naboths refusal to Ahab was not disregard for him, nor for selfish reasons, but from obedience to God. (Compare 1Ki 21:3 with Lev 25:23, Num 36:7-8.) Sons of Belial (1Ki 21:10) means ungodly men.
For the fulfillment of 1Ki 21:19 compare the next chapter, 1 Kings 21:37-38. The phrase, sold thyself to work evil means that he allowed evil to get the mastery over him. (Compare Rom 7:11.) For the fulfillment of 1Ki 21:23, compare 2Ki 9:30-37. Note Gods mercy to the penitent (1Ki 21:27-29) and compare 2Ki 9:21-26.
HIS DEALINGS WITH JEHOSHAPHAT (1 Kings 22)
1Ki 22:3 indicates that Ben-hadad had not fulfilled the covenant with Ahab he had been so ready to make (compare 1Ki 20:34).
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, has not been met with before, but a history of his reign is reported in the concluding verses of the chapter. He makes a striking Old Testament type of the New Testament Christian who forms entangling alliances with the world, but more is said concerning him in 1 Chronicles 18.
Note the piety of Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:5), and observe that a good man is sometimes found voluntarily in bad company.
Micaiah (1Ki 22:9) was in prison because of his faithful testimony to God against Ahab. Zedekiah was one of the false prophets (1Ki 22:11), but what worship he represented, now that Baalism had been discredited, is difficult to say; but certainly not that of Jehovah.
Observe the temptation placed before Micaiah and the manner in which he met it (1Ki 22:13-14). His words in 1Ki 22:15 are ironical, but those of 1Ki 22:17 are a prediction of the defeat that followed. It is he who speaks in 1Ki 22:19-23, for a commentary on which see 1 Samuel 18, and also the first two chapters of Job. With 1Ki 22:24-25 compare Jer 20:1-6.
Observe that Jehoshaphats unholy alliance nearly cost him his life (1Ki 22:30-33), but it taught him a lesson (1Ki 22:49).
QUESTIONS
1. In what light are we to interpret the marvelous transactions in this book?
2. Who was Ben-hadad?
3. How does this lesson illustrate the cowardice and the courage of Ahab?
4. How does it illustrate the goodness and mercy of God?
5. How many of the marginal references have you examined?
6. What is the meaning of sons of Belial?
7. Of what is Jehoshaphat a type, and why?
8. With what prophet may Micaiah be compared?
1Ki 20:1. Gathered all his host To war against Israel: wherein his design was to enlarge the conquest which his father had made; but Gods design was to punish Israel for their apostacy and idolatry. There were thirty and two kings with him Petty kings, such as were in Canaan in Joshuas time, who indeed were no more than governors of cities or small territories: these were either subject or tributary to Ben-hadad, or hired by him. He were up and besieged Samaria He did not actually besiege it; for his army was routed before he could do it. But the sense is, He went up in order to besiege it.
1Ki 20:3. Thy goldthy wives are mine. The African princes still send similar messages to one another. Mungo Park mentions one who sent an order to a neighbouring prince to have the houses all made clean, because he was coming with an army to spend a fortnight in his city.
1Ki 20:11. Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast. A wise answer: no man can tell the events of a battle.
1Ki 20:13. There came a prophet to Ahab. Since the destruction of Baals prophets, religion had revived. The Lords altars, which Elijah complains had been destroyed, began again to smoke; and the holy prophets were active in labours and travels. Therefore the Lord now covered Israel with his defence.
1Ki 20:30. Fled to Aphek, in the tribe of Asher. Benhadads army being destroyed, he was now in fact a prisoner, begging his life. What a difference of tone from verse the third.
1Ki 20:36. A lion slew him. He knew the man was a prophet, speaking by the word of the Lord; this word was no doubt explained to him. He therefore despised the Lord, and lost his life for his sin. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.
REFLECTIONS.
The long famine had made all Israel a desolation. The people had perished by hunger and the sword; had fled for food to neighbouring nations, till the population was small. The elders who had taken refuge, with many of the people in Samaria, were yet few in number, though this was a second year after the famine. The army was only seven thousand, besides a yeomanry of two hundred and thirty. There were indeed seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee; but they had been so persecuted that few of them dared to appear in Samaria, though it is presumed that Baals altar was now neglected. How impolitic for kings to persecute good men, of whom in every view they always have need.
Mark next the pride and avarice of Benhadad, otherwise called Adadus. He saw all the desolation of Israel; yet he revered not the hand of God. He was apprized that Ahab and his princes had treasures of gold and silver, notwithstanding their long affliction; of these treasures he resolved to plunder all the cities during their weak and defenceless state. Here is the cause of the war; avarice and pride are sure destroyers whenever indulged.
We learn also the great mercy and compassion of God. Though he had almost consumed his rebellious people; yet being now humbled, and many most precious confessors having returned from their caves to pray for Israel, he would not suffer the enemy to add to the calamities. When they had no courage, he sent a prophet with counsel and a promise of victory. And the Syrians, finding courage where they expected fear, and slaughter where they expected booty, fled with a precipitation and disgrace greater than the insolence with which they had summoned Samaria. Let the christian take comfort from the same consideration, for his sorest afflictions are all proportioned by weight and measure.
God often forewarns those of approaching danger, whom he deigns peculiarly to protect. Strengthen thyself, said the prophet, for at the return of the year, the king of Syria will come up against thee. This was a gracious premonition that Ahab should abstain from idolatry, and keep his army in force; for prayers and arms, have under God, for the most part, been happily united for the safety of empire. The second expedition of the Syrians, proved infinitely more calamitous than the first. It originated in ignorance of God. They, as well as most of the heathens had a notion that the gods were local; that the hills, the valleys, and the seas, had distinct divinities. It originated also in a false sense of honour: they wished to recover the glory so terribly tarnished in the last campaign. But Israel in general, having still adhered to the covenant of their fathers renewed on mount Carmel, God again made bare his arm for their defence. Their little army kept their hill; and the immense invading multitude, not daring to make the attack, looked on for a whole week: and according to Xenophon it was not unusual for an Asiatic army patiently to look on, while an invader ravaged their country. Cyropdia lib. 1. In that time, the little courage they had was all vanished away. The Hebrews descended to slaughter; for a hundred thousand invaders fell on the plain. And taking refuge in Aphek, the angels of God, as in the case of Jericho, killed twenty seven thousand more by overturning the walls under which they were crouched for defence. What a carnage! equally designed to encourage Israel, and to instruct the heathen in the glorious perfections of God. Hence, from the advice of the prophet, let the christian, after victory, learn to keep his armour bright, and let him keep right with heaven, for his enemies will return to tempt him again.
We have next an astonishing reverse of human greatness. Benhadad, who addressed to Ahab a most insolent summons, and menaced Samaria with total destruction, we now find begging his life as the worst of criminals. But Ahab, who it is presumed was divinely instructed to destroy the wanton invader: but Ahab not only spared this Agag, but called him brother, and sent him away with a treaty, though he had twice commenced a war without any provocation. Thus to his folly and his fears, he sacrificed every advantage arising from victories peculiarly the gift of heaven.
By this conduct Ahab forfeited his life and his crown. The Holy Spirit by an obscure prophet led him, as Nathan had led David, to pronounce the sentence against himself. The young man disguised himself with bandages as a wounded soldier, for merit has claims to the notice of kings; and having drawn him to lay down a fair maxim, immediately replied, thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. This we shall presently find realized. Let my soul learn to profit by its victories, and never to make a covenant with its sins.
1Ki 20:1-34. Ahabs Victory over Ben-hadad.Chs. 20 and 22 come from another source. Elijah does not appear, the religious interest is less prominent, and Ahab is presented in a far less hostile light. He acts as a brave and chivalrous king, bold in the battle and merciful in victory. In the Book of Kings the kings of Israel are seldom represented in a hostile spirit when confronted by the common enemy, Syria (cf. 2 Kings 7).
Syria, we learn, had become a formidable power. Ben-hadads father had taken some of Omris cities, and had compelled him to allow his merchants to have streets, i.e. bazaars, in Samaria (1Ki 20:34). The power of Syria was such that the king could treat the Israelite sovereign as his despised vassal. When the Syrian army filled the valley, the Israelite forces appeared like two small flocks of goats (1Ki 20:27). Ahab, who is almost always called in this chapter the king of Israel, was helped by an unnamed prophet (1Ki 20:13) or man of God (1Ki 20:28). Ben-hadad behaved throughout with arrogance (1Ki 20:3-10), and Ahab with dignified calmness. His reply in three Hebrew words, Let not him that girdeth on his armour boast himself as he that putteth it off (1Ki 20:11), is as brave as it is terse. The first year Ben-hadad with his thirty-two subject kings was defeated (1Ki 20:20). The second he returned with a stronger army, led by his own captains instead of the kings. The Syrians believed that, because the Israelites were helped by mountain gods (1Ki 20:23; LXX, a god of the hills), they would not gain a victory on the level plain. Ever since the Judges the Israelites had failed, as a rule, in the plains, because of the chariots of iron (Jdg 1:19). Ahab, however, had a large force of chariots. A man of God announced that Israel would prevail because the Syrians boasted that Yahweh was not a god of the plain as well as of the hill. In the battle Ben-hadad was utterly defeated, and threw himself on Ahabs mercy. The kings of Israel had, it is interesting to know, the reputation of being merciful (1Ki 20:31), and Ahab (1Ki 20:32) declared that Ben-hadad was after all his brother. A highly advantageous treaty with Israel was the result.
1Ki 20:26. Aphek: there has been much discussion about the site; see EBi and G. A. Smiths Atlas pp. xviii., xx. Probably it was in the Plain of Sharon, near the Philistine border. The Syrians seem to have come down by the road through Megiddo to Aphek, and used it as the point from which to attack Samaria, or Philistia. Observe that in 2Ki 13:22 Lucians text of the LXX adds, and Hazael took the Philistine from his hand from the Western Sea to Aphek.A. S. P.]
AHAB DEFEATS SYRIA
(vs.1-22)
God’s care for His people Israel is still remarkably displayed in this chapter in spite of the unholy character of Ahab. Ben Hadad, king of Syria, marshaled a tremendous army, having 32 kings allied with him, and came to Samaria to besiege the city. Because he was so confident of his superior strength, he did not immediately begin battle, however, but sent messengers to Ahab to tell him, “Your silver and your gold are mine; your loveliest wives and children are mine” (v.3). Thus he was calling upon Ahab to submit to his authority.
Ahab knew his forces were no match for the formidable enemy, so he answered, in evident subservience, “My lord, 0 King, just as you say, I and all that I have are yours” (v.4). He would give in to the haughty demands of Ben Hadad.
However, Ben Hadad became still more demanding, requiring that Ahab allow Ben Had ad’s servants to search the houses of Ahab and his servants and take everything they desired (vs.5-6). This was too much for Ahab (though he might have been better off if Ben Hadad had taken his wife (Jezebel)! After consultation with his court officials he sent back word to Ben Hadad that, though he would agree to the first demand, he could not agree to the second (v.9).
Ben Hadad’s reply was course and arrogant. He sent word to Ahab, “The gods do so to me, and more also, if enough dust is left in Samaria for a handful for each of the people who follow me” (v.10). The haughtiness of Ben Hadad evidently emboldened Ahab to reply to him, “Let not the one who puts on his armor boast like the one who takes it off” (v.11). Of course these were fighting words just as those of Ben Hadad were, and Ben Hadad received the message as he and his cohorts were drinking in the command post, the place where sober, sound wisdom was called for. He gave orders to get ready to attack the city (v.12).
But Ben Hadad ignored the fact that the God of Israel cared for His people. In fact, Ahab himself had cause to be fearful because of his weak condition numerically and because he had little regard for the God of Israel. In spite of this, God intervened, sending a prophet to Ahab to tell him that this great multitude of the Syrians would be delivered into their hand that day. Notice however that God told him this with an object in view, – that Ahab would know that God is indeed the Lord (v.13).
Ahab seemingly wanted more direction, and God gave this, telling him that he was to use the young leaders of the provinces, while Ahab himself was to be in charge. He mustered these leaders and followed this with mustering the people, only 7000 strong.
This seemed a pathetically weak force against the formidable army of Syria, but Ben Hadad, totally self-confident, was becoming drunk together with the other 32 kings (v.16). Would a leader like that inspire his men in disciplined warfare? Certainly not! But when the young men of Israel went out of the city, Ben Hadad gave orders to take them alive, whether they had come out for peace or for war. He had no doubt of Syria’s total superiority.
But God’s intervention decided everything. Those who wanted to capture the young men of Israel found that they themselves were killed instead (vs.19-20). This spread confusion into Syria’s ranks and they fled from Israel. While Ben Hadad was able to escape on horseback, the army of Syria was left a prey to Israel, who attacked their horses and chariots and slaughtered a great number of the enemy (v.21).
However, the Lord sent the prophet again to Ahab to tell him not to relax, but strengthen himself, because Syria would in the Spring of the year return to attack Israel. The fact of God thus intervening on behalf of Ahab ought to have driven Ahab to turn from his evil ways and trust only the Lord, but sadly, the Word of God did not really penetrate his hard heart. The patience of God is wonderful, and this foolish king might have had a different end if only he had turned to the Lord.
A SECOND VICTORY FOR ISRAEL
(vs.23-30)
The Syrians had no concept of a sovereign God, but assumed that each nation had certain ‘gods’ of various kinds who were all subject to the weakness and failure seen in humans. Ben Hadad’s servants conceived the notion that Israel’s God was a God of the hills because Israel bad triumphed in the hill country (v.23). Therefore they thought they would win if they were to fight Israel in the plain. Such is the stupidity of unbelief! They made careful plans as to how they would engage in another battle, and Ben Hadad was persuaded to accept these plans (vs.24-25).
As the Lord had warned Ahab, Ben Hadad returned in the Spring of the year with another tremendous army, going to Aphek, away from the hill country. Their arms filled the countryside, while Israel’s forces resembled two little flock of goats (v.27).
The Lord again intervened on behalf of Israel, sending a man of God to Ahab to tell him that because the Syrians had said that God is not a God of the valleys, therefore God would deliver the multitude of the Syrians into the hand of the small Israelitish army (v.28). Again the Lord clearly declares that He has an object in doing this, that Ahab might know that God is the Lord. How often did God bear witness to His grace and power for Ahab’s benefit! Yet all this had little lasting effect on Ahab’s attitude toward God.
For seven days the armies remained opposite each other, each as it were taking measure of the other. Thus there was no element of surprise involved in the battle, except that when they attacked, the Israelites were able to kill 100,000 foot soldiers of the Syrians in one day The rest fled to Aphek, but found no security there, for God caused a wall to fall on 27,000 men. Thus there was a tremendous slaughter of Syria, and the king, Ben Hadad, found a hiding place in an inner chamber.
AN ILL – ADVISED TREATY
(vs.31-34)
Ben Hadad’s servants then advised their master to go out to seek the leniency of Ahab, for they had heard that Israel’s kings were merciful. Ben Hadad would certainly not have spared Ahab if the tables had been turned, but of course he would take advantage of any possibility to remain alive. They put on the outward signs of repentance and came to Ahab, telling him “Your servant Ben Hadad says, “Please let me live” (v.32).
Ahab, self-complacent now that he was in the driver’s seat, could be magnanimous, and told them, since Ben Hadad was still alive, “He is my brother.” Sadly, this attitude compares with that of many Christians who consider it gracious to act as though even unbelievers were brothers, thus identifying themselves with the enemies of the Lord under the specious plea of toleration. But this is treachery against the Lord.
Ahab invited Ben Hadad into his chariot and Ben Hadad told him that the cities his father had taken from Ahab’s father he would restore, and also that Ahab could set up market places for Israel in Damascus. On this basis they made a treaty and no doubt Ahab felt he had done good work in making Ben Hadad more friendly toward him in an outward way But Ahab was ignorant of God’s thoughts.
GOD’S SENTENCE AGAINST AHAB
(vs.35-43)
Ahab now needed a serious lesson. The Lord chose a striking way to teach him this. He had one of the sons of the prophets ask another man to wound him by striking. The man refused this, and was told a lion would kill him because he had refused to obey the Lord. This prophecy came to pass immediately after (v.36). Then the prophet asked the same of another man, who obliged him, inflicting a visible wound (v.37).
The prophet then waited for Ahab by the roadside, disguising himself with a bandage over his face (v.38). As the king passed by, he called out to him, saying that in the battle a man had brought to him a captive, telling him to guard the captive with the stipulation that if the captive escaped, either he would die or pay a tribute of silver. Then he said that while he had been busy the captive had disappeared.
Ahab responded that the man should be judged by his own admission, but Ahab was not prepared for the message the prophet then gave him, when the prophet took off his disguise and the king recognized him. He told Ahab that because he had let slip out of his hand the king that God had appointed to destruction, therefore the Lord would require Ahab’s life for the life of Ben Hadad and Ahab’s people for Ben Hadad’s people. Not only would Ahab die, but his people, Israel, would suffer because of Ahab’s wickedness. This was fulfilled by the raging conquest of Jehu (2Ki 9:14-37; 2Ki 10:1-28).
Sadly, this message to Ahab did not turn him back to the Lord, but caused him only to become sullen and displeased (v.43). Such is the attitude of foolish unbelief. Ahab is a sad witness to the truth of Pro 29:1, “He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.”
20:1 And Benhadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and [there were] thirty and two {a} kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it.
(a) That is, governors and rulers of provinces.
God’s deliverance of Samaria 20:1-25
God dealt gently (cf. 1Ki 19:12) with the Northern Kingdom at this time in the Divided Monarchy to continue to move His people back to Himself. This pericope records the first of three battles the writer recorded in 1 Kings between Ahab and the kings of Aram, Israel’s antagonistic neighbor to the northeast. The first of these evidently took place early in Ahab’s reign (ca. 874). Ahab’s adversary would have been Ben-Hadad I (900-860 B.C.). [Note: See D. D. Luckenbill, "Benhadad and Hadadezer," American Journal of Semitic Languages 27 (1911):279; and Julian Morgenstern, "Chronological Data of the Dynasty of Omri," Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):392.] The political reasons for these encounters were of no interest to the writer of Kings, but we know what they were. [Note: See Merrill Unger, Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus; and Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., pp. 346-47.]
The danger Ben-Hadad posed, as his demands on Ahab continued to escalate, made the Israelite king receptive to the directives of Yahweh’s prophet. The prophet presented Yahweh as Israel’s real deliverer (1Ki 20:13). The deliverance would demonstrate Yahweh’s power and superiority over Baal (1Ki 20:13). Ahab willingly followed God’s orders since he had no other hope (1Ki 20:14). God’s strategy resulted in victory for Israel (1Ki 20:21). The Lord further directed Ahab to prepare for the Aramean army’s return the next spring (1Ki 20:22). Late spring and early summer were seasons for military expeditions, because at that time of year in the Middle East, grass was readily available for the horses. Victory was certain, though perhaps not known to Ahab, because of the Arameans’ limited view of Yahweh’s power (1Ki 20:23; 1Ki 20:28).
AHAB AND BENHADAD
1Ki 20:1-30
IN the Septuagint and in Josephus the events narrated in the twentieth chapter of the Book of Kings are placed after the meeting of Elijah with Ahab at the door of Naboths vineyard, which occupies the twenty-first chapter in our version. This order of events seems the more probable, but no chronological data are given us in the long but fragmentary details of Ahabs reign. They are, in fact, composed of different sets of records, partly historical, partly prophetic, and partly taken from some special monograph on the career of Elijah. Here, too, we may observe that some most important details are altogether omitted, and that we only learn them,
(1) from the inscription of King Mesha, and
(2) from the clay tablets of Assyria.
1. As regards King Mesha, the monument containing his very interesting annals is generally known as The Moabite Stone. It is a stele of black basalt, 3 feet 10 inches high, 2 feet broad, 14 1-2 inches thick, rounded at the top and bottom almost into a semicircle. The Phoenician inscription is of capital importance both for philology and history. It was first discovered by Mr. Klein, the German missionary of an English society at Dibon, east of the Dead Sea, and it is now at the Louvre. Dibon is now Dibban.
Mr. Klein in 1868, at Jerusalem, informed Professor Petermann of Berlin of the existence of this ancient relic, and from a few letters of the thirty-four lines which he had copied the Professor at once pronounced that the language employed was Phoenician. When M. Clermont Ganneau, the French consul at Jerusalem, endeavored to get possession of it, the Bedawin discovered that it was regarded with deep interest by European scholars. They immediately began to quarrel over its possession, and the Arab who had been sent to copy it barely escaped with his life. In their greed and jealousy these modern Moabites “sooner than give it up, put a fire under it, and threw cold water on it, and so broke it, and then distributed the bits among the different families to be placed in the granaries and to serve as blessings upon the corn; for they said that without the stone (or its equivalent in hard cash) a blight would fall upon their crops.” Squeezes had been previously taken from it by M. Ganneau and Captain Warren, from which the text has been restored.
It records three great events in the reign of Mesha.
(1) Lines 1-21. Wars of Mesha with Omri and his successors.
(2) Lines 21-31. Public works of Mesha after his deliverance from his Jewish oppressors.
(3) Lines 31-34. His successful wars against the Edomites (or a people of Horonaim), undertaken by command of his god Chemosh. The date of the erection of the monolith is about B.C. 890.
It begins thus:-
(1) I, Mesha, am son of Chemosh-Gad, King of Moab,
(2) the Dibonite. My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned
(3) after my father. And I erected this Stone to Chemosh (a stone of salvation) {Comp. 1Sa 7:12}
(4) for he saved me from all despoilers, and let me see my desire upon all my enemies.
(5) Now Omri, King of Israel, he oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his
(6) land. His son succeeded him, and he also said, I will oppress Moab. In my days he said (Let us go)
(7) and I will see my desire on him and his house, and Israel said, I shall destroy it for ever. Now Omri took the land
(8) Medeba, and (the enemy) occupied it (in his days and in) the days of his sons, forty years. And Chemosh (had mercy)
(9) on it in my days.
He goes on to tell how he built Bael Meon and Kirjathaim; captured Ataroth, and killed all its warriors, and devoted its spoil to Chemosh. “And Chemosh said to me, Go take Nebo against Israel.” He took it, slew seven thousand men, devoted the women and maidens to Ashtar-Chemosh, and offered Jehovahs vessels to Chemosh. Then he took Jahas which the king of Israel had fortified, and annexed it to Dibon; built Korcha, its palaces, prisons, etc., Aroer, Bethbamoth, and other towns which he colonised with poor Moabites; and took Horonaim by assault.
There the inscription ends, but not until it has given us some details of a series of bloody wars about which the Scripture narrative is almost entirely silent, though in 2Ki 3:4-27 it narrates Meshas desperate resistance of Israel, Judah, and Edom (B.C. 896).
On this inscription we may briefly remark that for Chemosh-Gad, Dr. Neubauer reads Chemosh-melech, and makes various other changes and suggestions.
2. From the annals of Assyria we learn the altogether unexpected fact that Ahabu Sirlai, i.e., “Ahab of Israel,” was acting as one of the allies, or more probably as one of the vassals, of Syria in the great battle fought at Karkar, B.C. 854, against Shalmanezer II, by Hittites, Hamathites, and Syrians. Whether this was before the invasion of Benhadad, or after his defeat, is uncertain.
The twentieth chapter of the Book of Kings tells us that Benhadad, the Aramaean king, accompanied by thirty-two feudatory princes of Hittites, Hamathites, and others, gathered together all his host with his horses and chariots, and proclaimed war against Israel. Unable to meet this vast army in the field, Ahab shut himself up in Samaria, and Benhadad went up and besieged it. We do not know which Benhadad this was. It could not have been the grandson of Rezon, whom, fourteen years earlier, King Asa had bribed to attack Baasha in order to divert him from building Ramah. It may have been his son or grandson bearing the same religious dynastic name. In any case the policy of attacking Israel was suicidal. If the kings had possessed the prescient glance of the prophets they could not have failed to see on the northern horizon the cloud of Assyrian power, which menaced them all with cruel extinction at the bands of that atrocious people. Their true policy would have been to form an offensive and defensive league, instead of coveting one anothers dominions. Although Assyria had not yet risen to the zenith of her empire, she was already formidable enough to convince the King of Damascus that he would never be able single-handed to prevent Syria from being crushed before her. Instead of inflicting ruinous losses and humiliations on the tribes of Israel, the dynasty of Rezon if it had been wise in its day, would have insured their friendly aid against the horrible common enemy of the nations.
When Benhadad had succeeded in reducing Ahab to hopeless straits, he sent him a herald to demand the admission of ambassadors. Their ultimatum was couched in language of the deadliest insult. Benhadad laid insolent claim to everything which Ahab possessed-his silver, his gold, his wives, and the fairest of his children. To save his people from ruin, Ahab-it is strange that throughout the narrative we do not hear one word either about Jezebel or Elijah-sent an answer of the humblest submission. Tyre gave him no help, nor did Judah. He seems at this time to have been entirely isolated and to have sunk to the nadir of his degradation. “It is true,” he said, “my lord, and king; I, and all that I possess, is thine.” The depth of humiliation involved in such a concession is the measure of the utter straits to which Ahab was reduced. When an Eastern king had to give up to his conqueror even his seraglio-yes, even his queen-all his power must have been humbled to the very dust. And at the head of Ahabs seraglio was Jezebel. How frenzied must have been the thoughts of that terrible woman, when she saw that her Baal, and the Astarte to whom her father was a priest, in spite of the temple which she had built, and her eight hundred and fifty priests of Baal and Asherah with all their vestments and pompous ceremonies and blood-stained invocations, had wholly failed to save her-a great kings daughter and a great kings wife-from drinking to the very dregs this cup of shame!
Encouraged by this abject demeanor into yet more outrageous insolence, Benhadad sent back his ambassadors with the further menace that he would himself send his messengers next day into Samaria, who should search and rifle not only the palace of Ahab, but the houses of all his servants, from which they should take away everything that was pleasant in their eyes.
The merciless demand kindled in the breast of the wretched king one last spark of the courage of despair. Nothing could be worse than such a pillage. Death itself seemed preferable. He summoned together all the elders of the land to a great council, to which the people also were invited, and he set the state of things before them. The fact gives us an interesting glimpse into the constitution of the kingdom of Israel. It greatly resembled that of the little Greek states in the days of the Iliad. Under ordinary circumstances of prosperity the king was within certain limits despotic; but he might easily be reduced to the necessity of consulting a sort of senate, composed of his greatest subjects, and at these open-air deliberations the people were present as assessors on whose will depended the ultimate decision.
Ahab put before his council the desperate condition to which he had been reduced by the Syrian leaguer. He recounted the cruel terms to which he had submitted in order to save his people from destruction. From the second embassage of Benhadad it was clear that the first demand had only been made in the hope that its refusal would give the Syrians an excuse for pressing on the siege, and delivering the city to ravage and slaughter. Was it their will that the insolent foreign tyrant should have his way, and be permitted without let or hindrance to rifle their houses, and carry away their goodliest sons as eunuchs and their fairest wives as concubines? He asked their advice how to overcome this dire calamity;
“What reinforcement we may gain from hope, If not what resolution from despair.”
The elders saw that even massacre and pillage could hardly be worse than a tame submission to such demands. They plucked up courage and said to Ahab, “Hearken not to him, nor consent” and the people shouted their applause to the heroic refusal. {Comp. Jos 9:18; Jdg 11:11} The king seems in this instance to have been more despondent than his subjects, perhaps because he was better able than they to gauge the immense military superiority of his invader. Even his second message, though it rejected Benhadads demand was almost pusillanimous in its submission. With bated breath and whispering humbleness Ahab said to the Syrian ambassadors, quite in the tone of a vassal: “Tell my lord the king, I will submit to his first demands; I may not consent to his final ones.” The ambassadors went to Benhadad, and returned with the fierce menace that in the name of his god their king would shatter Samaria into dust, of which the handfuls would not suffice for each of his soldiers. Ahab replied firmly in a happy proverb, “Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off.”
The warning proverb was reported to the Aramaean king, whilst in the insolent confidence of victory he was drinking himself drunk in his war-booths. It nettled him to fury. “Plant the engines,” he exclaimed. The catapults and battering-rams, with all the engines which constituted the siege-train of the day, were at once set in motion, the scaling ladders brought up, and the archers set in position, just as we see in the Assyrian Kouyunjik sculptures of the siege of Lachish and other cities by Sennacherib.
Ahabs heart must have sunk within him, for he knew his impotence, and he knew also the horrors which befell a city taken after desperate resistance. But he was not left unencouraged. The characteristic of the prophets was that dauntless confidence in Jehovah which so often made a prophet the Tyrtaeus of his native land, unless the land had sunk into utter apostasy. In this extreme of peril a nameless prophet-the Rabbis, who always guess at a name when they can, say it was Micaiah ben Imlah-came to Ahab. As though to emphasize the supernatural character of his communication, he pointed to the chariots and archers and the Syrian host – which, if the subsequent numbers be accurate, must have reached the astounding total of one hundred and thirty thousand men-and said, in the name of Jehovah:-
“Hast thou seen all this great multitude? Lo! I will deliver it into thine hand today: And thou shalt know that I am the Lord.”
“By whom?” was the astonished and half-despairing question of the king; and the strange answer was:-
“By the young servants of the provincial governors.”
It was to be made clear that this was a victory due to the intervention of God, and not won by the power nor the might of man, lest the warriors of Israel should be able to boast of the arm of flesh.
“Who shall lead the assault?” asked the king. “Thou!” answered the prophet.
Nothing could be wiser than this counsel, now that the nation was brought to the extreme edge of hazard. The veterans, perhaps, were intimidated. They would see more clearly the hopelessness of attempting to cope with that colossal host under its five-and-thirty kings. But now the nation, whose veterans had been driven back, evoked the battle-brunt of its youths. The two hundred and thirty-two pages of the district governors were ready to obey orders, ready, like an army of Decii to devote their lives to the cause of their country. They were put in the forefront of the battle, and so pitiable was the depression of the capital that Ahab could only number a paltry army of seven thousand soldiers to stand behind their desperate undertaking.
Their plan was well laid. They went out at noon. At that burning hour, under the intolerable glare and heat of the Syrian sun-and campaigns were only undertaken in spring and summer-it is almost impossible to bear the weight of armor, or to sit on horseback, or to endure the fierce heat of iron chariots. The first little army which issued from the gates of Samaria might rely on the effects of a surprise. Thousands of the Syrian soldiers expecting nothing less than a battle would be unarmed, and taking their siesta. Their chariots and war steeds would be unharnessed and unprepared.
Benhadad was still continuing his heavy drinking bout with his vassal princes, and not one of them was in a condition to give coherent commands. A messenger announced to the band of royal drunkards that “men” were come out of Samaria. They were too few to call them “an army,” and the notion of an attack from that poor handful seemed ridiculous. Benhadad thought they were coming to sue for peace, but whether peace or war were their object he gave the contemptuous order to “take them alive.”
It was easier said than done. Led by the king at the head of his valorous youths the little host clashed into the midst of the unwieldly, unprepared, ill-handled Syrian host, and by their first slaughter created one of those fearful panics which have often been the destruction of Eastern hosts. The Syrians, whose army wag made up of heterogeneous forces, and which could not be managed by thirty-four half-intoxicated feudatories of differing interests and insecure allegiance, was doubtless afraid that internal treachery must have been at work. Like the Midianites, like Zerahs Ethiopian host, like the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, like the Ammonites and Moabites in the wilderness of Tekoa, like the army of Sennacherib, like the enormous and motley hosts of Persia at Marathon, at Plataea, and at Arbela, they were instantly flung into irremediable confusion which tended every moment to be more fatal to itself. The little band of the youths and horses of Israel had nothing to do but to slay, and slay, and slay. No effective resistance was even attempted. Long before evening the hundred and thirty thousand Syrians. with the entangled mass of their chariots and horsemen, were in headlong flight, while Ahab and the people of Israel slaughtered their flying rear. The defeat became an absolute rout. Benhadad himself had a most narrow escape. He could not even wait for his war chariot. He had to fly with a few of his horsemen, and apparently, so the words may imply, on an inferior horse.
What effect was produced on the national mind and on the social religion by this immense deliverance we are not told. Never, certainly, had any nation deeper cause for gratitude to its religious teachers, who alone had not despaired of the commonwealth when everything seemed lost. We would fain know where was Elijah at this crisis and whether he took any part in it. We cannot tell, hut we know that as a rule the sons of the prophets acted together under their chiefs, and that individual impulses were rarely encouraged. The very meaning of the “Schools of the Prophets” was that they were all trained to adopt the same principles and to move together as one body.
The service rendered by this prophet, whose very name has been buried in undeserved oblivion, did not end here. Perhaps he saw signs of carelessness and undue exultation. He went again to the king, and warned him that his victory, immense as it had been, was not final. It was no time for him to settle on his lees. The Syrians would assuredly return the following year probably with increased resources and with the burning determination to avenge their defeat. Let Ahab look well to his army and his fortresses, and prepare himself for the coming shock!
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary