Now the men did diligently observe whether anything would come from him and did hastily catch it [Heb. and the men augured— נִחֵשׁ divinavit. Cf. Genesis 44:15; Le Genesis 19:26; 2 Kings 17:17. LXX. οἰωνίσαντο. Vulgate acceperunt pro omine—and 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 וַיַּחְלְטוּ which is ἄπαξ 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 חָלַט as the equivalent of חָלָץ rapuit. The former has ἀνελέξαντο τὸν λόγον ἐκ τοῦ οτόματος αὐτοῦ, and the latter rapuerunt verbum ex ore ejus. They would seem also to have read instead of הַדָּבָר מ חֲמֵמֶּנוּ (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 Genesis 41:43), and of reconciliation and concord (cf. 2 Kings 10:15).]
1 Kings 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 1 Kings 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 אָב had a very extended signification.] Keil and Bähr, however, think that we have a reference to some war in the reign of Omri (cf. 1 Kings 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 [ חצוֹת 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.
1 Kings 20:35
And a certain man [Heb. one man; of. 1 Kings 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 בּנֵי הָןּ are of course not the children, but the pupils of the prophets. For this use of "son," cf. 1 Samuel 20:1-42:81 ("a son of death"); 2 Samuel 12:5; Deuteronomy 25:2; Matthew 23:15; 1 Kings 4:30; Ezra 2:1; John 17:12, and Amos 7:14. Gesenius refers to the Greek ἱατρῶν υἱοί ῥητόρων υἱοί, 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 2 Kings 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" (1 Samuel 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 1 Kings 13:1], Smite me, I pray thee. [Why the prophet, in order to the accomplishment of his mission—which was to obtain from Ahab's own lips a confession of his deserts—why 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 him—or that he might foreshadow in his own person the wounding which Ahab would receive (1 Kings 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 sin—died forthwith by the visitation of God. What a lesson was this to king and country—for 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.
1 Kings 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 1 Kings 13:24, where see note], and slew him [For the same sin as that of "the man of God (1 Kings 13:21, 1 Kings 13:26), viz; disobedience (Deuteronomy 32:24; Jeremiah 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 same—that God's commands must be kept, whatever the cost, or that stern retribution will inevitably follow.]
1 Kings 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.]
1 Kings 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. אֲפֵר there can be no doubt, denotes some sort of covering (LXX. τελαμών), and is probably the equivalent of עֲפֵר. 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.]
1 Kings 20:39
And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king [in his capacity of supreme judge; see on 1 Kings 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 [ סָר; cf. 1 Kings 22:43; Exodus 3:3; Exodus 32:8. But Ewald, al. would read, סַר prince or captain (properly שַׂר), 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 sum—about £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.]
1 Kings 20:40
And as thy servant was busy [Heb. doing. The LXX. περιεβλέψατο ὁ δοῦλός σου, and the Vulgate dum ego turbatus hue illucque me verterem, have led some critics to urge the substitution of פֹּגֶה turning, or שֹׁעֶה looking, for עֹשֵׂה doing, in the text. But no alteration is needed] here and there [or hither and thither—the הis generally local—as in Joshua 8:20. But sometimes it is merely demonstrative, "here and there," as in Genesis 21:29, Daniel 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. 2 Samuel 12:5-7, Ahab has himself pronounced that his judgment is just, and what it shall be.]
1 Kings 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.]
1 Kings 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 hand—same idiom in 1 Samuel 26:23—i.e; power, possession. Cf. Genesis 32:12; Exodus 18:9; Numbers 35:25] a man whom I appointed to utter destruction [Heb. a man of my devoting. Cf. Isaiah 34:5; Zechariah 14:11. It is the word used of the Canaanites and their cities, Deuteronomy 2:34; Deuteronomy 7:2; Joshua 8:26; Joshua 10:28; and it gave a name to the city Hormah, Numbers 21:3; Numbers 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. 1 Kings 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 1 Kings 22:9, 1 Kings 22:26. For the fulfilment o! this prediction see 1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 asked—as prophets constantly were in that age (1 Kings 22:5, 1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 22:21, 1 Kings 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 1 Kings 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 (Joshua 10:26; 7:25; 1 Samuel 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.]
1 Kings 20:43
And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased [Heb. sullen and angry; same words 1 Kings 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 battle—on which this interview, therefore, followed closely—and that shortly afterwards he left it for his capital.]
HOMILETICS
1 Kings 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 (Hebrews 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 exception—and this is the second consideration—to 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 (Colossians 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" (Joel 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 (1 Kings 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. (1 Kings 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 (2 Kings 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 Lord—one 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 (1 Kings 15:18, 1 Kings 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" (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (Exodus 12:12). It was to altars, hecatombs, incantations that Balak looked for help (Numbers 22:23.) It was the mighty gods of Israel that the Philistines feared (1 Samuel 4:7, 1 Samuel 4:8). And we know how Goliath (1 Samuel 17:45) and Sennacherib alike (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 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 3:1-31.; 4:8, 4:22; 6:1; cf. 7:25; 2 Chronicles 32:21; Isaiah 10:5-12, Isaiah 10:24 sqq.; Isaiah 14:4 sqq.; Obadiah 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 (Obadiah 1:8, Obadiah 1:6, Obadiah 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 (Obadiah 1:8, Obadiah 1:6), in his scorn of his adversaries (Obadiah 1:16-18), in the passionate outburst with which he receives Ahab's reply (Obadiah 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 (Proverbs 16:18; Proverbs 29:23; cf. 2 Chronicles 32:26; Isaiah 16:6, Isaiah 16:7; Obadiah 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 (Habakkuk 2:5; cf. Daniel 5:2, Daniel 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 (Obadiah 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 army—for 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 Obadiah 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" (Psalms 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.
1 Kings 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.
1 Kings 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?
1 Kings 20:4