And the king of Israel said unto Jehoahaphat [At Ramoth-Gilead, on the eve of the battle], I will disguise himself." [same word 1 Kings 20:38] and enter [The margin," when he was to disguise himself," etc; is quite mistaken. The Hebrew has two infinitives; lit; to disguise oneself and enter; a construction which is frequently employed to indicate an absolute command. Cf. Genesis 17:10; Exodus 20:8; Isaiah 14:31; and see Ewald, 828 c. "The infinitive absolute is the plainest and simplest form of the voluntative for exclamations" (Bähr). It agrees well with the excitement under which Ahab was doubtless labouring] into the battle. [It is not necessary to suppose with Ewald, Rawlinson, el; that he had heard of Ben-hadad's command to his captain, (verse 81). It is hardly likely that such intelligence could be brought by spies, and there would be no deserters from the Syrian army to that of the Jews. It is enough to remember that Micaiah's words, "these have no master," could not fail to awaken come alarm in his bosom, especially when connected with the prophecy of 1 Kings 20:42. He will not betray his fear by keeping out of the fray—which, indeed, he could not do without abdicating one of the principal functions of the king (1 Samuel 8:20), and without exposing himself to the charge of cowardice; but under the circumstances he thinks it imprudent to take the lead of the army, as kings were wont to do (2 Samuel 1:10), in his royal robes. He hopes by his disguise to escape all clanger]: but put thou on thy robes [LXX. τὸν ἱματισμόν μου. "My robed" "We can neither imagine Ahab's asking nor Jehoshaphat's consenting to such a procedure. Jehoshaphat had his own royal robes with him, as appears from 1 Kings 20:10" (Rawlinson). If this LXX. interpretation could be maintained it would lend some colour to the supposition, otherwise destitute of basis, that Ahab by this arrangement was plotting the death of Jehoshaphat in order that he might incorporate Judah into his own kingdom. It is clear, however, that Ahab then had other work on his hands, and it is doubtful whether even he was capable of such a pitch of villainy. What he means is, either
1 Kings 22:31
But the king of Syria commanded [rather, had commanded. These words are of the nature of a parenthesis. "Now the king," etc. צִוָּה is so rendered in 2 Chronicles 18:30] his thirty and two captains [mentioned in 1 Kings 20:24. It does not follow, however (Wordsworth), that these very men had been spared by Ahab] that had rule over his chariots [Heb. chariotry. Another indication that the chariots were regarded as the most important arm of the Syrian service], saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel. [This Orientalism, translated into Western ideas, means, "Direct your weapons against the king." What Ahab had done to provoke such resentment is not quite clear. Rawlinson supposes that Ben-hadad's "defeat and captivity were still rankling in his mind, and he wished to retaliate on Ahab the humiliation which he considered himself to have suffered." But it is impossible to see in Ahab's generous conduct towards him a sufficient reason for the fierce hatred which these words disclose. It is much more probable that some affront had subsequently been offered to the Syrian monarch, possibly in the shape of the reproaches which Ahab may have addressed to him on account of his retention of Ramoth-Gilead, and the gross violation of the treaty of 1 Kings 20:34. It is also possible that he hoped that the death of Ahab would terminate the war (Bähr).]
1 Kings 22:32
And it came to pass when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely [ אַךְ, not only (Bähr, Keil), but certainly; cf. Genesis 44:28; 3:24; 2 Kings 24:3] it [Heb. he] is the king of Israel. And they turned aside [Cf. 1 Kings 20:39, same word. The Hebrew inserts עָלָיו. The chronicler reads יָסֹבוּ they surrounded him, instead of יָסֻרוּ; and the LXX. has ἐκύκλωσεν, in both places. But the Syrians can hardly have actually closed round the king, and the alteration might easily be made in the course of transcription] to fight against him [according to their instructions]: and Jehoshaphat cried out. [This cry has been very variously interpreted. According to some, it was his own name that he ejaculated, which is possible, if the command of 1 Kings 20:31 was known in the allied army. According to others, it was the battle cry of Judah, which, it is said, would be familiar to the Syrians, and which would rally his own soldiers round him. The Vulgate, no doubt influenced by the words of 2 Chronicles 18:31, "And the Lord helped him, and God moved them to depart from him," interprets, clamavit ad Dominum. That it was a cry for Divine help is the most probable, because it is almost an instinct, especially with a pious soul like Jehoshaphat, to cry to God in the moment of danger. That he had doubts as to whether the course he was pursuing was pleasing to God, would make him all the more ready to cry aloud for mercy the moment he found himself in peril. But it may have been merely a cry of terror. It must be carefully observed that the Scripture does not say that it was this cry led to his being recognized and spared.]
1 Kings 22:33
And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots perceived [in what way we are not told. But Ahab would be known to some of them, 1 Kings 20:1-43:81] that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him
1 Kings 22:34
And a certain man [Heb. a man. It was natural for some of the Rabbins to identify this archer with Naaman—the tradition is found in Josephus. But it is directly contrary to the spirit of the narrative to attempt to identify him. As it was a chance arrow, so it was by an unknown archer] drew a bow at a venture [Heb. in his simplicity, i.e; with no intention of shooting Ahab: not knowing what he was doing. That this is the meaning is clear from the use of the words in 2 Samuel 15:11], and smote the king of Israel between the Joints of the harness [The marg; joints and the breastplate, comes nearer the Hebrew. But it is clear that the rendering joints, notwithstanding that it has the support of Gesenius and others, is a mistaken one. "In the joints" we can understand, but "between the joints and the coat of mail," gives no sense. It is obvious that הַדְּבָקִים like הַשִּׁרְיָן following, must signify, some portion of the armour, and the meaning of the verb דָבַק, adhaesit, leads us to conclude that "the hanging skirt of parallel metal plates—hence the plural"—(Bähr) is intended. The coat of mail only covered the breast and ribs. To this a fringe of movable plates of steel was attached or fastened, hence called דְבָקִים. So Luther, Zwischen den Panzer und Hengel. One is reminded here of the Parthian arrow which wrung from Julian the Apostate the dying confession, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean." Cf. Psalms 7:13, Psalms 7:14]: wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand [or, according to the Chethib, hands. The charioteers of Palestine, like those of Egypt and Assyria, or those of modern Russia, held a rein in each hand. Same expression 2 Kings 9:23. The meaning is "turn round"] and carry me Out of the host; for I am wounded, [Heb. made sick. The king probably felt his wound to be mortal, as a wound in such a part, the abdomen (cf. 2 Samuel 2:23; 2 Samuel 3:27; 2 Samuel 20:10), would be Vulgate, graviter vulneratus sum. How far an arrow in such a place could penetrate, we may gather from 2 Kings 9:24; cf. Job 16:13. And he was seemingly anxious that the army should not know it, lest would soon discover it if he remained with the host; he can fight no longer; his wound needs attention; hence this command. It is quite possible that the charioteer, in the din and confusion of battle, may not have observed that his master was wounded. The arrow had not struck any part of the armour.]
1 Kings 22:35
And the battle increased [Heb. went up. Marg. ascended. The tide of warfare rose higher and higher. Both Keil and Bähr think that the image is taken from a swelling river and cite Isaiah 8:7. The object of this verse is to explain how it was that the king's request was not complied with] that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot [Heb. made to stand. LXX. ἠν ἐστηκώς. He was supported in his chariot by some of his servants, and maintained in an erect posture. Chariots were destitute of seats. According to Thenius and Keil, he maintained himself erect, by his own strength. But the word is passive] against the Syrians [Heb. in the face of the Syrians. נֹכַח, coram. His back was not turned to them, as he had desired. The idea that he was in any way fighting against the Syrians is altogether foreign to the text. It is at first sight somewhat difficult to reconcile this statement with the direction given to the charioteer in the preceding verse, and some have been led, though without sufficient warrant, to conclude that Ahab left the field, had he wound bound up, and then returned to take his part in the battle. But the explanation is very simple. As the battle increased, it became impossible to comply with the king's desire. So thick was the fight that retreat was impossible. Hence the wounded king, who would otherwise have sunk down to the bottom of the chariot, had to be "stayed up in the presence of the Syrians." This circumstance may also account for the fact that he died at even. Had it been possible to remove him and staunch his wounds, he might have lingered for some time. As it was, he bled to death. It is not clear, therefore, that "his death was kingly" (Kitto), or that we must concede to Ahab "the credit of right princely fortitude on this occasion" (Rawlinson). He would have left the host could he have done so. It was his set-rants propped up the dying man in his chariot, to encourage the army. What a picture for an artist—the king with the pallor of death spreading over his face, the anxious faces of the attendants, the pool of blood, the sun sinking to the horizon, etc.], and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound [Heb. the blood of the wound poured] into the midst [Heb. bosom; LXX. κόλπον, the hollow part, or "well." The same word is used of the concave part of the altar] of the chariot.
1 Kings 22:36
And there went a proclamation throughout the host [Heb. And the shouting passed over in the camp. Gesenius will have it that רִנָּה must mean a "joyful cry," and would see the cause of joy in the cessation of hostilities and the permission to return home] about the going down of the sun [According to the chronicler (1 Kings 18:34), it was at sunset that the king died. It seems natural, therefore, to connect this shout with his death. But the approach of night would of itself put an end to the battle. It does not appear that Israel had been utterly defeated, or had suffered great loss. But "they had no master"], saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country [or land].
1 Kings 22:37
So the king died [The LXX. makes this to be a part of the proclamation ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν… γῆν ὅτι τέθνηκεν ὁ βασιλεύς, which involves a very slight change in the Hebrew text, כי מת המלךְ instead of וימת המלךְ and gives a better sense. It has already been stated that the king died. Such repetitions however are common in Hebrew, and this reading has almost the look of an emendation] and was brought [Heb. came. The A.V. is against the grammar. As "came" would be a strange word to use of a dead man, it is highly probable that instead of ויבזא we should read ויבואו with the LXX. καὶ ἧλθον] to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria ["with his father," 1 Kings 16:28].
1 Kings 22:38
And one washed the chariot in [or at; Heb. עַל] the pool of Samaria. [Nearly all Eastern cities had their tanks or pools, often outside the city gate. Jerusalem has several of these, and we read of one at Hebron (2 Samuel 14:12) and Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:13). Cf. Song of Solomon 7:4. The Hebrew word בְּרֵכָה is preserved in the modern Arabic Birkeh]; and the dogs [The LXX. has the swine and the dogs. The mention of swine is hardly likely to have been omitted, had it formed part of the original text] licked up his blood [cf. 1 Kings 21:19, note. According to Josephus, the chariot was washed "in the fountain of Jezreel." The alteration would appear to have been made to avoid the difficulty occasioned by the discrepancy between the statement of the text, and that of 1 Kings 21:19], and they washed his armour [So the Chaldaic and the Syriac. But this translation is now abandoned,
1 Kings 22:39
Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made [So called because it was adorned with ivory. See on 1 Kings 11:1-43.; and cf. Amos 3:15; Psalms 45:8; Song of Solomon 7:5. Rawlinson cites several passages from Greek and Latin authors to prove that ivory was anciently applied, not only to furniture, but to the doors and walls of houses], and an the cities that he built [Probably Jezreel was one, but we have no information concerning them. The fact that he did build cities, however, is one proof of Ahab's enterprize. He was not weak in all particulars], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
1 Kings 22:40
So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah ["Whom Jehovah upholds." The name suggests that, notwithstanding his idolatries, Ahab cannot have completely abandoned the worship of the Lord] his son reigned in his stead.
Reign of Jehoshaphat.
1 Kings 22:41
And Jehoahaphat ["Whom Jehovah judges"] the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel. [The historian now resumes for a moment the history of Judah, which has dropped out of notice since 1 Kings 15:24, where the accession of Jehoshaphat was mentioned. His reign, which is here described in the briefest possible way, occupies four chapters (17-20.) of 2 Chronicles]
1 Kings 22:42
Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi.
1 Kings 22:43
And he walked in an the ways of Asa his father [Apart from his alliance with the house of Ahab, and the troubles in which it involved him, his reign was alike pious and prosperous. Like Asa's, it was distinguished by internal reforms, and By signal deliverances from foreign enemies]; he turned not aside from it [as Asa was tempted to do in his old age], doing [Heb. to do] that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away [Heb. departed not, as in 1 Kings 15:14; 2 Chronicles 15:17; 2 Kings 12:4, Hebrews; 14:4, Hebrews But see 2 Chronicles 18:6. The discrepancy is the exact parallel of that between 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 14:3; or between this latter passage and 2 Chronicles 15:17. And the explanation is the same, viz; that an effort was made to remove the high places, which was partially, and only partially, successful]; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places [cf. 1 Kings 3:2].
1 Kings 22:44
And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. [One great feature of his reign was this: that the hostility which had lasted, even if it sometimes slumbered, between the two kingdoms for seventy years, from the date of their separation to the time of Asa's death, gave way to peace and even alliance. Judah now recognized the division of the kingdom as an accomplished fact, and no longer treated Israel, even theoretically, as in rebellion. It is probable that the marriage of Jehoram and Athaliah was at once the fruit of, and was intended to cement, this good understanding (2 Chronicles 18:1). It is hardly likely (Bähr) that the peace was the result of the union of the two families. From the analogy of 2 Chronicles 19:2; 2 Chronicles 20:37; cf. 1 Kings 16:31; 2 Kings 3:14, we should conclude that the marriage at any rate was ill advised and displeasing to God. Bähr sees in it a step on the part of Jehoshaphat towards realizing the union of the two kingdoms under the supremacy of Judah. He thinks that we cannot otherwise account for this complete change of front.]
1 Kings 22:45
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might [as in 1 Kings 15:23, 1 Kings 16:27, etc. It is noticeable that this word is not used of Ahab, notwithstanding his wars and victories] that he showed [see 2 Kings 3:9 sqq.; 2 Chronicles 17:12 sqq. His judicial reforms are hardly referred to here], and how he warred [2 Chronicles 18:1-34; 2 Chronicles 20:1-37.], are they not written in the book of he chronicles of the kings of Judah?
1 Kings 22:46
And the remnant of the Sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa [It appears hence that Asa's removal of the religious prostitutes (1 Kings 15:12), like that of the high places, had been but partial], he took [Heb. exterminated] out of the land.
1 Kings 22:47
There was then no king in Edom: a deputy [ נִצָב, same word as in 1 Kings 4:7. It is implied that this officer was appointed by the king of Judah (Wordsworth)] was king. [This fact is mentioned to show how it was that Jehoshaphat was able to build a fleet at Ezion-Geber, in the territory of Edom (1 Kings 9:26). That country would seem to have regained its independence very soon after Solomon's death (1 Kings 11:14), but would also appear from the text, and from 2 Kings 8:20, 2 Kings 8:22, to have been again made subject to Judah, probably by Jehoshaphat himself; see 2 Chronicles 17:10, 2 Chronicles 17:11.]
1 Kings 22:48
Jehoshaphat made [The Chethib has עשר ten, obviously a clerical error for עשה made] ships of Tharshish [see note on 1 Kings 10:22] to go to Ophir [In 2 Chronicles 20:36, Tharshish is read for Ophir. Wordsworth holds that two separate fleets are intended, but this is most improbable] for gold [Evidently the great prosperity of his reign had suggested to him the idea of emulating Solomon's naval exploits, and of reviving the commerce of his people with the East]: but they went not [Heb. it went not]: for the ships were broken [Probably they were dashed by a storm against the rocks which "lie in jagged ranges on each side," Stanley] at Ezion-Geber.
1 Kings 22:49
Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants In the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not. [But we are told in 2 Chronicles 20:37 that the ships were broken, according to a prophecy of Eliezer, the son of Dodavah, because Jehoshaphat had joined himself with Ahaziah. The explanation is that the fleet had been built by the two kings conjointly, and manned by the subjects of Jehoshaphat exclusively; and that, after the disaster, Ahaziah proposed either to repair the injured vessels, or to construct a second fleet, which should then be partly manned by sailors of the northern kingdom, "men probably accustomed to the sea, perhaps trained at Tyre" (Rawlinson). This proposal was declined by the king of Judah, not so much on account of the "reflection on his subjects' skill contained in it," as because of the prophecy of Eliezer, and the evidently judicial disaster which had befallen the fleet already built.]
1 Kings 22:50
And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead [2 Chronicles 21:1-20.]
Reign of Ahaziah.
1 Kings 22:51
Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel. [Parts of two years; 2 Kings 3:1; and of. 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16. It is suggested that Jehoram was associated with his father in the government of Judah from the date of the expedition against Ramoth-Gilead, and this is not improbable. But it has been already remarked that these chronological notices appear to have undergone a revision which has sometimes resulted in confusion.]
1 Kings 22:52
And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father [1 Kings 16:30-33; cf. 2 Kings 3:2] and in the way of his mother [The powerful influence of Jezebel, even after Ahab's death, is hinted at here. It was to her that idolatry owed its position in Israel], and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [the calf worship and idolatry existed side by side], who made Israel to sin.
1 Kings 22:53
For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger [or vexed] the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done. [The termination of this book at this point could hardly be more arbitrary if it had been made by accident. These verses are closely connected with 2 Kings 2 Kings 1:1-18. The division here obscures the connexion between the sin of Ahaziah and the judgments which it provoked.]
HOMILETICS
1 Kings 22:1-40
The Death of Ahab and the Defeat of Israel.
This chapter is almost entirely occupied with an account of the death of Ahab, and of the circumstances which preceded and attended it. The earlier portion of the chapter, which contains the prophesyings of the false prophets and the vision of Micaiah, is only recorded because of its bearing on the death of the king, and the dispersion of his army.
And the prominence accorded to Ahab's end only corresponds with the space assigned to his reign. That reign was so full of evil for Israel that it occupies a fourth part of this entire book. It was meet, therefore, that the death which avenged it should be recorded with proportionate detail. For the battle of Ramoth-Gilead was the final payment—so far as this world is concerned—for the sins of two and twenty years.
But it is to be observed in the first place that Ahab's repentance (1 Kings 21:29), as the penitence begotten of fear often is, was but shortlived. Had it lasted, we had not read of this tragical death. How soon the king shook off his impressions we know not, but we do know that—thanks to the natural weakness of his character, still further enfeebled by years of self indulgence and submission to a stronger will than his own; thanks to the evil genius (1 Kings 21:25) ever at his side to stifle good resolves and to steel his heart against the true religion; thanks to the impious system to which he found himself committed, and the toils of which he found it impossible to break, this unhappy king steadily lapsed into his old sins. It "happened unto him according to the true proverb, "The dog is turned to his vomit again" (2 Peter 2:22).
And it is also to be considered here that Israel had gone hand in hand with him in his downward course. Had the king's career been one of steadily increasing demoralization? so had that of the people. The death of Naboth affords sufficient proof of this. The ready compliance of the elders, the alacrity with which they perpetrated that judicial murder, shows to what a moral depth the example of the court and the idolatry around them had plunged the holy nation. No; king and queen had not sinned alone, and justice required they should not suffer alone. Nations and their rulers, as we have already seen, receive a reckoning in this life; how much more the covenant people and the Lord's anointed? Placed as they were under a direct law of temporal punishments and rewards, it would have been strange, indeed, if such a reign as this had gone unrecompensed. But so far from that, they have already received part reckoning for their sin. The three years drought, the famine, the terrible Syrian invasions, have avenged a part of their idolatries and immoralities; but there still remains a long score of guilt to be expiated in shame and suffering and blood.
And here it may be well to remind ourselves what were the sins which awaited a settlement under the walls of Ramoth-Gilead. They were five in number.
Now there are two principles which underlie all God's retributive dealings with his ancient people. First, that sin is left, or made to bring its own penalties. Per quod quis peccat per idem quoque plectitur idem. Secondly, that the penalty is ever correspondent with the sin. This latter is what we commonly call the lex talionis. We have had instances of the working of both of these laws, but especially of the latter, in the earlier portions of this history. We shall find the same laws in operation here.
For consider—
I. By what means Ahab was led to death and Israel to defeat.
II. By what instruments these punishments were inflicted.
III. In what way they were signalized as the chastisements of sin.
I. In considering the INFLUENCES which moved Ahab to war, and which led to his destruction, we must assign the first place to—
1. The perfidy of Ben-hadad. No doubt it rankled in Ahab's breast that, after he had dealt so magnanimously with a prostrate foe, after he had treated an insolent invader with unexampled generosity, and after a solemn covenant had been made betwixt them, it rankled in his soul that a Syrian garrison, in spits of all embassies and remonstrances, should hold the Jewish fortress of Ramoth-Gilead and thus offer a standing menace to Israel and Judah alike. But did it never occur to him that the conduct of Ben-hadad was but the counterpart of his own? He too had forgotten his benefactor and deliverer, to whom he was bound by solemn covenant; he still maintained a garrison of idolatrous priests in the heart of Immanuel's land. Ben-hadad's breach of faith was no greater than his own. Probably, he never thought of this when he debated whether he should go up against Ramoth-Gilead. He would remember, however, that he had only himself to blame for this act of perfidy, and he would devoutly wish he had dealt with the oppressor as he had deserved; he would perhaps think that it only served him right for his weakness and sin. We see, however, that he is paid back in his own coin, that the measure he has meted to God is measured to him again. The sin of three years before gave the first impulse to war and death.
2. The lies of the false prophets. It is hardly likely that Ahab would have engaged in this war but for the unanimous verdict of the four hundred prophets in its favour. We see in Micaiah's vision that a "lying spirit" was the principal means employed to procure his fall (verse 22). But what were these prophets, and how came they to prophesy thus? One thing is certain, that they were not prophets of Jehovah, and another thing is also clear, that whether they were prophets of Baal, or, as is most probable, prophets of the calves, the false system which Ahab had supported became through them a means of his destruction. The schism or the idolatry, as the case may be, is bearing its bitter fruit. He has sown to lies, he reaps to delusions. It is a conspicuous instance of the just judgment of heaven that Ahab is lured to his death by the impostors he had cherished and patronized. "He that hates truth shall be the dupe of lies." The sin of the calves too brings its own retribution.
But how was it, it is worth asking, that these four hundred sycophants came to, counsel him thus? Was it not that they took their cue from him, and prophesied what they knew would please? They saw that the king had already made up his mind—for his resolution was taken before they were summoned (1 Kings 19:4, 1 Kings 19:5), and they thought it wisest to swim with the stream. It may be they were guided by other and inscrutable impulses (verse 23), and were constrained, they knew not how, to prophesy as they did; it may be they honestly mistook the vox populi for the vox Dei, but probably the working of their minds was this: "The king wishes it. Jehoshaphat assents to it. The people are set upon it. We should be going against common sense and our own interests to resist it."
And so the king was a second time paid in his own coin. Those martial prophecies had been minted in his own brain. He wished for lies and he had them. His own passions and pride were reflected, were echoed, in the voices of his four hundred soothsayers. It is the case of which both sacred and profane history supply so many examples, Homo vult decipi et decipiatur. It is thus God deals with deceivers still. He leaves them to be deceived, to be the prey of their own disordered fancies. It is notorious how men find in the Bible what they wish to find there; how all unsuspectingly they read their own meanings into the words of Scripture; how they interpret its injunctions by the rule of their own inclinations. "He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isaiah 44:20). "Ephraim is joined unto idols: let him alone" (Hosea 4:17).
3. The silence of the Lord's prophets. Why was it, we cannot help asking here, why was it that there were no true prophets present, at this crisis in the history of Israel, to step forth and warn the king against this undertaking? Why were the four hundred deceivers left to have their own way? We see here the fruit of persecution, the recompense of those fierce dragonnades which Jezebel had maintained against the prophetic order. Of the men who might have interposed to prevent this disastrous expedition, some were dead, others were banished; king and queen had wickedly silenced them. They now reap the fruit of those repressive measures. Their curses come home to roost. Elijah might have saved king and country, but he is hiding from the wrath of Jezebel, or is withdrawn by God from the arena of history. Micaiah the son of Imlah foresaw the end, but Ahab had imprisoned him, and could not brook to take his advice, and had persuaded himself that his admonitions were the outcome of personal enmity. It is true this prophet was not silent, but plainly foretold defeat and death; but Ahab was in a manner bound not to regard his warnings. He had told Jehoshaphat it would be so. It would look like cowardice to be influenced by his vaticinations. And so he is left to the prophets of his choice: no hand is raised to stop him: he goes straight into the jaws of death, the victim of his own folly and cruelty and sin.
II. The INSTRUMENTS of retribution were—
1. The king whom Ahab had wickedly spared. We have already seen in what the sin of sparing the tyrant Ben-hadad consisted. It is now for us to observe that this foolish and impious deed brought its own peculiar Nemesis. It was Ben-hadad himself who said, "Fight neither with small nor great, but with the king of Israel only." Ahab's ill-advised clemency procures his own destruction. With base natures, it only needs that we should put them under obligations which they cannot possibly discharge, in order to provoke their bitter enmity. But it is much more material to observe here that in Ben-hadad's conduct we may see a parable of the cruel revenge which a cherished sin will often take on those who have once conquered and then trifled with it. The devil that was cast out returns bringing with him seven other devils more wicked than himself (Matthew 12:45). We are constantly as tender to the sins which tyrannized over us as was Ahab to Ben-hadad. Instead of slaying them—hewing them in pieces before the Lord—we leave the roots of bitterness in the heart's soil, and they spring up and trouble us. It is like that peasant of whom we have all read, who found a viper in the field, benumbed with the winter's cold, and put the venomous beast into his bosom to warm it back into life. The first use it made of its restored power was to wound and destroy its benefactor. How dearly have we often paid for our pleasant vices!
2. The Syrians who were once subjects of Israel. It is well to remember here that these enemies who gave Ahab his death wound at Ramoth were once under the heel of Israel (2 Samuel 8:6). Now we see their relations reversed. Syria has now become the standing oppressor of the chosen people. We have already pointed out some of the steps which led to this result. The sin of Solomon and the unfaithfulness of Asa alike were factors in the change. But the most influential reason was the godlessness of Ahab. But three years ago Syria lay at his mercy; its power was completely broken. But Ahab, so far from learning that the Lord was God (1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:28), had ignored the Lord, and acted as if his own might had gotten him the victory. How fitting that these same Syrians should be the instruments to scourge him.
3. An unknown, unconscious archer. The arrow that pierced Ahab's corselet was shot "in simplicity," without deliberate aim, with no thought of striking the king. It was an unseen Hand that guided that chance shaft to its destination. It was truly "the arrow of the Lord's vengeance." (Cf. 2 Kings 12:17.) It would be deeply instructive could we know the thoughts of that unhappy king, as with the arrow in his side, and the blood draining from his wound, and forming a sickening pool in the well of the chariot, he was stayed up those wretched weary, hours until the sunset against the Syrians. Surely he knew at last that "the Lord was God" (1 Kings 18:39; 1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:28). His cry would now be, "Thou hast found me, O my enemy." He would think, it may be, of Elijah's and Micaiah's prophecies; he would think of Naboth's bleeding and mangled corpse; he would think, above all, that his sin had found him out, and that Jehovah had conquered. He had fought all his life for Baal, but it was in vain; he had been kicking against the pricks; he had been wrestling not with flesh and blood, but with an Invisible, Irresistible, Omnipotent God, and now he is thrown, east down never to rise again.
III. It now only remains for us to consider the CIRCUMSTANCES of Ahab's death. These were of so portentous and exceptional a character as to mark it—
1. As a direct visitation of God. The army, that clay defeated, the contingent of Judah, the citizens of Samaria, the subjects of both kingdoms, could not think that a mere chance had happened to Ahab when they remembered
2. As God's appropriate recompense for the sins of that age. We have already seen how this history puts its stamp of reprobation on
And this ignominious death—in what sharp contrast it stands with the indolent, luxurious, sensual life! "The ivory house that he made," what an irony we may see in those words! "Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar....