Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 20:23
And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods [are] gods 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.
23. their gods are gods ] R.V. their god is a god. The LXX. also renders by the singular. The Syrians would speak of the God of Israel as a national divinity, just as they would of their own god. The former battle had been fought in the hill country round about Samaria, and this may have given encouragement to the idea that in a level plain, like that in which their own Damascus lay, the Syrian forces would meet with more success. It was not unnatural, in the heathen ideas about the gods, that they should consider each divinity specially able, and suited, to protect the land over which he was supposed to have the charge.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Their gods are gods of the hills – The local power and influence of deities was a fixed principle of the ancient polytheism. Each country was considered to have its own gods; and wars were regarded as being to a great extent struggles between the gods of the nations engaged in them. This is apparent throughout the Assyrian inscriptions. Compare also 2Ki 18:33-35; 2Ki 19:12. The present passage gives an unusual modification of this view. The suggestion of the Syrian chiefs may have been a mere politic device – they being really anxious, an military grounds, to encounter their enemy on the plain, where alone their chariots would be of much service. In the plain the Israelites had always fought at a disadvantage, and had proved themselves weaker than on the hills (see Jdg 1:19, Jdg 1:27, Jdg 1:34).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. Their gods are gods of the hills] It is very likely that the small Israelitish army availed itself of the heights and uneven ground, that they might fight with greater advantage against the Syrian cavalry, for Ben-hadad came up against Samaria with horses and chariots, 1Kg 20:1. These therefore must be soon thrown into confusion when charging in such circumstances; indeed, the chariots must be nearly useless.
Let us fight against them in the plain] There our horses and chariots will all be able to bear on the enemy, and there their gods, whose influence is confined to the hills, will not be able to help them. It was a general belief in the heathen world that each district had its tutelary and protecting deity, who could do nothing out of his own sphere.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The servants of the king of Syria suppose that their gods were no better than the Syrian gods, (which the idolatry of the Israelites had given them too great cause to imagine,) and that there were many gods who had each his particular charge and jurisdiction; which was the opinion of all heathen nations, that some were gods of the woods, others of the rivers, and others of the mountains; and they fancied these to be the latter, because the land of Canaan was a mountainous land, Deu 12:2; and the great temple of their god at Jerusalem stood upon a hill, and so did Samaria, where they had received their last blow: or because the Israelites did generally chose high places for the worship of their gods. It is observable that they do not impute their ill success to their negligence, and drunkenness, and bad conduct, or cowardice, of which they were really guilty; nor to the valour of the Israelites; but to a Divine power, which indeed was visible in it.
Let us fight against them in the plain; wherein there was not only superstition, but policy, because the Syrians most excelled the Israelites in horses, which are most serviceable in plain ground.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him,…. His ministers of state, his privy counsellors:
their gods are gods of the hills, therefore they were stronger than we; and beat them in the last battle; this notion they might receive from what they had heard of Jehovah delivering the law on Mount Sinai to Moses, and of the miraculous things done lately on Mount Carmel, as well as of their worship being in high places, especially at Jerusalem, the temple there being built on an hill, as was Samaria itself, near to which they had their last defeat; and this notion of topical deities very much obtained among the Heathens in later times, some of which they supposed presided over rivers, others over woods, and others over hills and mountains e: so Nemestinus the god of woods, Collina the goddess of hills, and Vallina of valleys f; and Arnobins g makes mention of the god Montinus, and Livy h of the god Peninus, who had his name from a part of the Alps, so called where he was worshipped; and there also the goddess Penina was worshipped; and Lactantius i speaks of the gods of the mountains the mother of Maximilian was a worshipper of; and even Jupiter had names from mountains, as Olympius, Capitolinus, c. and such was the great god Pan, called mountainous Pan k:
but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they and prevail over them, and conquer them.
e “Dii fumus agrestes, et qui dominemur in altis montibus.—-” Ovid. Fast. l. 3. f Vid. D. Herbert de Cherbury de Relig. Gent. c. 12. p. 198, 112. g Adv. Gentes, l. 4. h Hist. l. 21. c. 38. i De Mort. Persecutor. c. 11. p. 22. Vid. Ovid. Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 8. ver. 320. “Et numina montis adorant”. See Ep. 4. ver. 171. k Sophoclis Oedipus Tyr. ver. 1110.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Second Victory. – 1Ki 20:23, 1Ki 20:24. The servants (ministers) of Benhadad persuaded their lord to enter upon a fresh campaign, attributing the defeat they had sustained to two causes, which could be set aside, viz., to the supposed nature of the gods of Israel, and to the position occupied by the vassal-kings in the army. The gods of Israel were mountain gods: when fighting with them upon the mountains, the Syrians had had to fight against and succumb to the power of these gods, whereas on the plain they would conquer, because the power of these gods did not reach so far. This notion concerning the God of Israel the Syrians drew, according to their ethnical religious ideas, from the fact that the sacred places of this God – not only the temple at Jerusalem upon Moriah, but also the altars of the high places – were erected upon mountains; since heathenism really had its mountain deities, i.e., believed in gods who lived upon mountains and protected and conducted all that took place upon them (cf. Dougtaei Analect. ss. i. 178,179; Deyling, Observv. ss. iii. pp. 97ff.; Winer, bibl. R. W. i. p. 154), and in Syrophoenicia even mountains themselves had divine honours paid to them (vid., Movers, Phniz. i. p. 667ff.). The servants of Benhadad were at any rate so far right, that they attributed their defeat to the assistance which God had given to His people Israel; and were only wrong in regarding the God of Israel as a local deity, whose power did not extend beyond the mountains. They also advised their lord (1Ki 20:24) to remove the kings in his army from their position, and appoint governors in their stead ( , see 1Ki 10:15). The vassal-kings had most likely not shown the desired self-sacrifice for the cause of their superior in the war. And, lastly (1Ki 20:25), they advised the king to raise his army to its former strength, and then carry on the war in the plain. “Number thyself an army, like the army which has fallen from thee.” , “from with thee,” rendered correctly de tuis in the Vulgate, at least so far as the sense is concerned (for the form see Ewald, 264 , b.). But these prudently-devised measures were to be of no avail to the Syrians; for they were to learn that the God of Israel was not a limited mountain-god.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
B. THE BATTLE OF APHEK 20:2343
It was not long before the intelligence reports reaching Ahabs military advisers confirmed the warnings of the man of God. Benhadad was massing new troops, reorganizing his forces, and obviously planning a new campaign against Israel. As the narrative of the second crisis unfolds, the historian discusses (1) the Aramean war counsels (1Ki. 20:23-25); (2) the confrontation at Aphek (1Ki. 20:26-30 a); (3) the clemency granted Benhadad (1Ki. 20:30 b 1Ki. 20:34); and (4) the prophetic condemnation of Ahab (1Ki. 20:35-43).
1. THE ARAMEAN WAR COUNSELS (1Ki. 20:23-25)
TRANSLATION
(23) And the servants of the king of Aram said unto him, Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they are stronger than we; but rather let us fight with them in the plain and we will surely be stronger than they. (24) And this thing do: Remove the kings each man from his position, and put captains in their place. (25) And as for you, number for yourself an army like the army that fell from you, even horse for horse and chariot for chariot. Then we will fight them in the plain, and surely we will be stronger than they. And he hearkened to their voice, and did thus.
COMMENTS
Benhadads advisers were not long in coming up with an explanation for the humiliating defeat at Samaria. They suggested that the Israelites had been successful because their gods were gods of the hills, whereas the Aramean gods were gods of the plains. If the armies of Israel could be lured out of the hilly terrain of Samaria and into the plains, the Arameans were convinced that they would prove to have the stronger army (1Ki. 20:23). It would appear that the Arameans depended heavily on their chariotry forces which could be used with crushing effectiveness in the plains region. In addition to the suggestion that the king pick his battlefield more carefully, the advisers also suggested that the thirty-two kings, with their diverse interests and lack of military expertise, be replaced with professional officers over the host (1Ki. 20:24). Finally, they suggested that Benhadad, if he would be assured of victory, would need to have an army at least as large as the one he had lost at Samaria. Benhadad listened to this advice, and at the appropriate time implemented it (1Ki. 20:25).
2. THE CONFRONTATION AT APHEK (1Ki. 20:26-30 a)
TRANSLATION
(26) And it came to pass at the return of the year, that Benhadad numbered Aram and went up to Aphek to fight with Israel. (26) And the children of Israel numbered themselves, and they were provided with food, and went to engage them. And the children of Israel pitched before them like two flocks of kids; but the Arameans filled the land. (28) And a man of God drew near and said unto the king of Israel: Thus says the LORD: Because the Arameans have said, A god of the hills is the LORD, and He is not a god of the valleys, therefore I will give all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD. (29) And they camped opposite one another for seven days. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the battle was joined, and the children of Israel smote the Arameans, a hundred thousand footmen in one day. (30) And those who remained fled to Aphek into the city, and the wall fell upon twenty-seven thousand of the men who were left.
COMMENTS
In the spring of the year Benhadad mustered his troops and went up to the Israelite fortress of Aphek (1Ki. 20:26). Several towns named Aphek are mentioned in the Old Testament, and it is not clear which particular Aphek is intended. Probably it was to Aphek located about six miles east of Galilee that Benhadad gathered his forces.[465] Emboldened by their previous victory, the Israelites went out to meet the invaders. The whole plain swarmed with Aramean legions, and in comparison the Israelites appeared like two bands of stragglers separated from the main body of the flock (1Ki. 20:27). Under these circumstances Ahab was more than cheered by the appearance of a man of Godperhaps the same prophet who had brought the prophecy of victory the year before (cf. 1Ki. 20:13; 1Ki. 20:22). Once again the message from the Lord was positive. Because these Arameans had relegated the Creator God to the level of a tribal deity, because they had said Yahweh was only a god of the hills, therefore the Lord would intervene again on behalf of Israel (1Ki. 20:28). Neighboring nations would learn of the power of the living God through this deliverance, and wavering Israel would be provided with another incontrovertible proof of Yahwehs divinity.
[465] Hammond (PC, pp. 48788) and Gray (OTL, p. 428). Keil opts for the Aphek located in the great plain of Esdraelon.
For seven days the two armies camped opposite one another. The Arameans waited for the Israelites to descend from the mountains; but Israel was reluctant to attack such a great host.[466] On the seventh day the men of Israel charged down the hillsides and into the plains. The reason for the delay of seven days is not stated, but it is entirely possible that the sacred number seven had come to be regarded superstitiously as the most advantageous time for attack. In any case, the historian reports that the men of Israel smote a hundred thousand Aramean infantry in that one day of battle. The term smote may include wounded as well as slain (1Ki. 20:29). Those who survived the slaughter took refuge in the fortress at Aphek, which at this time would appear to have been in the control of the Arameans. There a second tragedy befell the invading host. A city wall collapsed killing twenty-seven thousand men.[467] Probably these soldiers were manning the defenses of the city when an earthquake threw down the walls.[468]
[466] Perhaps both sides were waiting for some favorable omen before mounting the attack.
[467] Honor (JCBR, p. 290) thinks the meaning is that the Aramean survivors who fled to the city perished when the wall was captured. Another interpretation is that the Hebrew word al should be translated for instead of upon. The meaning would then be that the wall of the city fell cutting off all escape for the Aramean survivors.
[468] Less likely is the proposal of Gray (OTL, p. 429) that the wall collapsed because of undermining by the Israelites.
3. THE CLEMENCY FOR BENHADAD (1Ki. 20:30 b 1Ki. 20:34)
TRANSLATION
(30) Now Benhadad had fled and had come into the city, an inner chamber. (31) And his servants said unto him, Behold now we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. Let us put sackcloth now on our loins, and ropes on our heads, and let us go out unto the king of Israel; perhaps he will save your life. (32) So they girded sackcloth on their loins and ropes on their heads, and they came unto the king of Israel, and they said, Your servant Benhadad said, Let me live I pray you. And he said, Is he yet alive? He is my brother. (33) And the men diligently observed whether anything would come, and they hastily caught it and said, Your brother is Benhadad. And he said, Go, bring him. Then Benhadad went out unto him; and he caused him to go up upon his chariot.(34) And he said unto him, The cities which my father took from your father, I will return; and streets you shall make for yourself in Damascus as my father made in Samaria. And as for me, with this covenant I will send you away. So he made with him a covenant and sent him away.
COMMENTS
Following the defeat in the plains about Aphek, Benhadad had fled into the fortress and into an inner chamber (Heb., chamber within a chamber), which may refer to some secret hideaway, perhaps a subterranean chamber (1Ki. 20:30). There his counselors advised that he surrender to Ahab because, they argued, the kings of Israel had a reputation for showing mercy[469] to their enemies. If the king and his staff were to put on sackcloth as a token of humility and contrition and ropes on their heads, i.e., around their necks, to demonstrate complete submission, there was a good chance that Ahab would allow them all to live (1Ki. 20:31).
[469] In its primary meaning chesed refers to loyalty to a covenant. The secondary meaning embraces the idea of mercy or humane treatment. Either meaning would be appropriate in this context.
Benhadad had no alternative but to acquiesce in this suggestion, and so the counselors were dispatched so garbed to plead for the life of their master. Ahab seemed surprised to hear that Benhadad was alive, and upon receiving the news immediately declared his willingness to enter into a peace treaty with him by declaring, He is my brother (1Ki. 20:32). Seizing upon this favorable word, the messengers replied, Benhadad is your brother, by which they declared the willingness of the Aramean to accept the generous offer of a covenant. Then Ahab ordered that Benhadad be brought to him. When the Aramean king came forth from his place of hiding, Ahab invited him to come up with him into the royal chariot, this being a mark of great favor and reconciliation (1Ki. 20:33).
All of the details of the covenant worked out between Ahab and Benhadad are not recorded. One thing is certain, Ben-had ads utter defeat would necessitate the reconstitution of the territories of Aram and Israel. The Aramean agreed to return to Israelite control the territories his father had taken from Ahabs father, i.e., predecessor, Baasha[470] (cf. 1Ki. 15:20). Furthermore, Benhadad conceded to Ahab the right to establish Israelite bazaars or quarters in Damascus in which Israelites might live and trade. Apparently Aramean trading colonies had been established in Samaria for some time. Ahab was pleased with these concessions. After formalizing the agreement, the Israelite king dismissed his enemy.
[470] Baasha was not the father or even the ancestor of Ahab, but belonged to a separate dynasty. Benhadad is using the term father in the sense of predecessor. Others think the reference is to Ahabs literal father, Omri.
Historians are prone to think that Ahab must have had good reason for being so lenient with Benhadad. That reason may have been the rise of a new power in the ancient Near East, the power of Assyria. It is known from Assyrian texts that both Ahab and Benhadad contributed troops to a coalition army which successfully withstood the Assyrian advances in the famous battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C. Perhaps Ahab, anticipating a new and more frightening confrontation, felt that it would be better to have a friend and ally to the north than a belligerent. On the other hand, Ahab may not have been motivated by such political far-sightedness. It may be that Ahabs leniency was motivated by commercial considerations.
4. PROPHETIC CONDEMNATION OF AHAB (1Ki. 20:35-43)
TRANSLATION
(35) And a man from the sons of the prophets said unto his Mend in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray you; but the man refused to smite him. (36) And he said to him, Because you have not hearkened to the voice of the LORD, behold you are about to leave me, and a lion will smite you. And he went from his presence, and a lion found him and smote him. (37) And he found another man and said, Smite me, I pray you; and the man smote him, smiting and wounding. (38) Then the prophet went and waited for the king by the way, and he disguised himself with a bandage upon his face. (39) And it came to pass as the king was passing by, that he cried out unto the king and said, Your servant went out into the midst of battle, and behold a man turned aside and came unto me and said, Guard this man; if he surely escapes it shall be your life instead of his, or else you shall pay a talent of silver. (40) And it came to pass as your servant was busy here and there that he is gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall your judgment be; you yourself have determined it. (41) And he hastened and removed the bandage from his face, and the king of Israel recognized him that he was from the prophets. (42) And he said unto him, Thus says the LORD, Because you sent away a condemned man from your hand, your life shall be instead of his life, and your people instead of his people. (43) And the king of Israel went unto his house sullen and angry; and he came to Samaria.
COMMENTS
The prophets were not happy with the actions of Ahab, and a certain member of the sons of the prophets went about to bring rebuke to the king. The sons of the prophets are mentioned here for the first time.[471] These men were students of and assistants to the great prophets Elijah and Elisha. This group is in no way connected with the band of the prophets which appeared briefly in the days of Samuel (1 Samuel 10, 19).
[471] Subsequent to the Mt. Carmel contest the prophetic spirit and ministry gained a new foothold in Israel. Canaanite religion does not seem to have the same hold it once had, though Jezebel and her temple were still in Samaria.
The prophet directed his companion, i.e., one of his fellow prophets, to smite him, i.e., bruise and wound him. Naturally this command to smite a brother prophet, and that for no apparent reason, was abhorrent to this companion, and so he refused to comply (1Ki. 20:35). But because the companion prophet refused to do as God commanded, a severe judgment was pronounced against him. As soon as the two friends parted a lion would slay the recalcitrant prophet, and that is exactly what happened (1Ki. 20:36). This now is the second account of a prophet who violated an explicit commandment of God and paid for it with his life, in both cases by being slain by a lion (cf. 1 Kings 13).
The question may well be asked as to why the prophet needed to receive this physical wounding prior to confronting the king. Could not the wounds have been faked and the parable be just as meaningful? Not really. The great lesson which this prophet was illustrating was that of unquestioning obedience to the commands of God. It was a lesson which the king, the members of the prophetic order, and indeed the whole population in that lawless age needed to learn. Ahab had just transgressed the Law of God by allowing one to escape whom God had appointed to destruction. He had to be taught that he had no right to be generous at the expense of others, that Gods will must be done even when it goes against the grain and seems to contradict impulses of kindness. A prophet required to smite a brother, and that for no apparent reason, would no doubt find it repugnant to his feelings to do so. But the prophet who refused to do this, who followed his benevolent impulses in preference to the word of the Lord, died for his sin. It is hardly possible to conceive of a way in which the duty of unquestioning obedience could be more emphatically taught.[472]
[472] Another lesson being taught here is that Israel should not rely on foreign alliances.
When the prophet gave the command to another man, he instantly complied (1Ki. 20:37), probably because he had seen or heard of what had happened to the first man who had rejected that command. The prophet then went to wait for the return of the king with bandages upon his head which served the purpose of concealing his identity (1Ki. 20:38). As the king passed by, the prophet, playing the role of a wounded soldier, cried out to the king to render a judgment with regard to a penalty which had been assessed against him by a superior officer. In the heat of battle an important prisoner was committed to my hand, said the prophet, and I was told that if he escaped I would forfeit my life, or else be compelled to pay a talent of silver[473] (1Ki. 20:39). Now as common soldiers would never have so much as a talent of silver,[474] the penalty for the possible escape of the prisoner would automatically be death or debtors slavery. But, continued the feigning prophet, as I was busy with other duties, the prisoner escaped. Upon hearing the circumstances, Ahab declared the judgment against his soldier to be just (1Ki. 20:40). Then the prophet ripped away his bandage disguise, and the king recognized him immediately as one of the prophets with whom he was acquainted (1Ki. 20:41).[475]
[473] The value of a talent of silver has been computed to be approximately $2,000. The implication is that the prisoner he was asked to guard was a man of importance.
[474] A talent consisted of twenty-five hundred shekels of silver and possibly as many as three thousand. This would be one hundred times the price of a slave as set forth in Exo. 21:32.
[475] The dramatic use of a parable through which the prophet forced Ahab to pass judgment upon himself is reminiscent of Nathans censure of David (2Sa. 12:1-12).
Ahabs heart must have trembled as the man of God slowly and carefully pronounced his doom. God had appointed Benhadad to utter destruction; he was a condemned man. Yet the king to whom God had granted the victory had dismissed Benhadad instead of slaying him. Therefore Ahab would forfeit his life for that of Benhadad, and the lives of his people for those of Benhadad he had allowed to escape (1Ki. 20:42).
In spite of the clear condemnation of Ahabs conduct, some commentators seek to commend the king on his generous and merciful dealings with Benhadad. Those who might think that God dealt too harshly with Ahab need to remember three facts:
(1) Ahab was not free to do as he pleased with Benhadad. This was Gods war in which God had given the victory. The Lord should have been consulted as to how to dispose of the prisoners.
(2) Ahabs previous dealings with Benhadad (cf. 1Ki. 20:6) should have indicated to him the character of this king. In the interest of future peace and security, Ahab should have slain the Aramean. (3) In the light of numerous Old Testament prece dents, Ahab should have executed Benhadad. Surely the fate of Agag and Oreb and Zeeb as well as other aggressors against Israel was known to Ahab.
Under the divine threat and rebuke, Ahab returned to his campaign quarters sullen and angry. He realized that the prophets prediction regarding the outcome of the battle had been fulfilled; he was therefore filled with apprehension that this new prediction would also prove true. With all the joy of victory removed, he returned later to the capital in Samaria (1Ki. 20:43).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(23) Gods of the hills.The idea of tutelary gods, whose strength was greatest on their own soil, is naturally common in polytheistic religions, which, by the very multiplication of gods, imply limitation of the power of each. Now the greater part of the territory where Jehovah was worshipped was a hill-country. Samaria in particular, the scene of recent defeat, lay in the mountain region of Ephraim. The Israelite armies, moreover, being mostly of infantryhaving, indeed, few or no cavalry, except in the time of Solomonnaturally encamped and fought, as far as possible, on the hills; as Barak on Mount Tabor (Jdg. 4:6-14), Saul on Mount Gilboa (1Sa. 31:1), and Ahab himself (in 1Ki. 20:27). Perhaps the worship of Jehovah in the high places may have also conduced to this belief that the gods of Israel were gods of the hills, whose power vanished in the plains; where, of course, the Syrian armies of chariots and horsemen would naturally fight at advantage. Shrewd policy might, as so often is the case, lurk in the advice of Ben-hadads counsellors under the cover of superstition; as, indeed, it seems also to show itself in seizing the opportunity to increase the central power, by organising the troops of the tributary kings under officers of his own.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. Their gods are gods of the hills They speak after the manner of idolaters, and show their polytheistic notions of religion. They, perhaps, knew something of Israel’s receiving the law at Mount Sinai, and of the temple on Mount Moriah at Jerusalem and of the recent miracle on Mount Carmel, and had noticed the worship on the high places: and now, on their overwhelming defeat among the mountains of Samaria, they attribute the loss chiefly to those gods of the hills whom Israel worshipped. The heathen also had hill gods, and it seems to have been a prevalent belief that each district had its tutelary divinities. Compare 2Ki 17:26.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ki 20:23. Their gods are gods of the hills See Num 23:27 and Virgil, En. viii. ver. 698, &c. Bishop Warburton observes, that when Ben-hadad, whose forces consisted of chariots and horsemen, had warred with ill success against the king of Israel, his ministers, in a council of war, delivered their advice to him in the terms included in this verse. From this passage, says he, I collect, 1. That the army of Israel, consisting all of infantry, had chosen the situation of the hills; and this with proper military skill. 2. That their constant success with such a disposition of their forces occasioned this advice of the ministers of Ben-hadad. These men, possessed with the general notion of local tutelary deities, finding the arms of Israel always successful on the hills, took it for the eminent manifestation of the powers of their gods; Their gods, say they, are gods of the hills. Their superstition dictated the first part of their opinion, and their skill in war the second; Let us fight them in the plains. The operations of war had been hitherto most absurd: they had attacked an army of infantry with one of cavalry on hills and defiles. The advice of these ministers was truly good; but how to put it in execution was the question; for, they being the assailants, the Israelites were masters of the ground: so that, after all, there was no other way of bringing them into the plains, than by beating them from the hills; and there they must have stuck till famine and desertion had ended their quarrel. In this exigence, their blasphemy against the God of Israel enabled them to put their counsels against him into execution. They fancied, according to the superstition of that time, and so gave out, that he was God of the hills, but not of the vallies. His omnipotence being thus disputed, he placed his people in the plains, and sent his prophet, 1Ki 20:28 to predict the coming vengeance on his enemies; and their defeat was a singular and undeniable confirmation both of his divine omnipotence and veracity. Div. Leg. vol. 3: p. 290, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Ki 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods [are] gods 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.
Ver. 23. And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him. ] Nothing they said to him of his drunkenness, or their own dastardliness; but tell him a tale of their tutelary gods, that they were gods of the plains and valleys only, not of the mountains, as the Israelites’ gods were: and hence the miscarriage Augustine a telleth us of the Romans, that for the hill tops they had their deum Iugatinum; for their little hills, the goddess Collatina; and for the valleys, Valloma. Ovid also brings in those petty deities thus speaking,
“ Dii sumus agrestes, et qui dominantur in altis
Montibus; Imperium est in sua tecta Iovi. ” – Ovid, Fastor.,
a De Civ. Dei, lib. iv, cap. 8.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Their gods: It was the general belief in the heathen world, that each district had its tutelary and protecting deity, who could do nothing out of his own province. 1Ki 20:28, 1Ki 14:23, 1Sa 4:8, 2Ki 19:12, 2Ch 32:13-19, Psa 50:21, Psa 50:22, Psa 121:1, Psa 121:2, Isa 42:8
Reciprocal: Num 23:13 – unto 1Ki 20:31 – his servants 2Ki 5:13 – his servants 2Ki 6:8 – took Jer 23:23 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ki 20:23. Their gods are gods of the hills, &c. The heathen, in general, had no notion of the God of the universe, but only worshipped local and tutelary deities; who, they thought, ruled over particular countries, and distributed the several parts of those countries among them, some being gods of the woods, others of the rivers, and others of the mountains: and the Syrians fancied the gods of the Israelites, whom they thought to be no better than their own gods, to be of the latter kind, gods of the hills, because the land of Canaan was a mountainous land, and the great temple of their God, at Jerusalem, stood upon a hill, as did the city of Samaria, where they had received their last blow; or because the Israelites did generally choose high places for the places of their worship. It is observable, that the Syrians do not impute their ill success to their negligence, and drunkenness, and bad conduct, nor to the valour of the Israelites, but to a divine power, which was indeed visible in it. Let us fight against them in the plain In this counsel there was not only superstition, but policy; because the Syrians excelled the Israelites in horses and chariots, which were most serviceable on plain ground.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their {k} gods [are] gods 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.
(k) Thus the wicked blaspheme God in their fury, who nonetheless he does not permit to go unpunished.