1 Kings 20:23-43

B. THE BATTLE OF APHEK 20:23-43

It was not long before the intelligence reports reaching Ahab's 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 (1 Kings 20:23-25); (2) the confrontation at Aphek (1 Kings 20:26-30 a); (3) the clemency granted Benhadad (1 Kings 20:30 b - 1 Kings 20:34); and (4) the prophetic condemnation of Ahab (1 Kings 20:35-43).

1. THE ARAMEAN WAR COUNSELS (1 Kings 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

Benhadad's 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 20:25).

2. THE CONFRONTATION AT APHEK (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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. 1 Kings 20:13; 1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 Yahweh's divinity.

[465] Hammond (PC, pp. 487-88) 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 20:30 b - 1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 20:33).

All of the details of the covenant worked out between Ahab and Benhadad are not recorded. One thing is certain, Ben-had ad's 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 Ahab's father, i.e., predecessor, Baasha[470] (cf. 1 Kings 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 Ahab's 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 Ahab's leniency was motivated by commercial considerations.

4. PROPHETIC CONDEMNATION OF AHAB (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 God's 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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] (1 Kings 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 debtor's 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 Exodus 21:32.

[475] The dramatic use of a parable through which the prophet forced Ahab to pass judgment upon himself is reminiscent of Nathan's censure of David (2 Samuel 12:1-12).

Ahab's 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 (1 Kings 20:42).

In spite of the clear condemnation of Ahab's 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 God's war in which God had given the victory. The Lord should have been consulted as to how to dispose of the prisoners.

(2) Ahab's previous dealings with Benhadad (cf. 1 Kings 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 prophet's 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 (1 Kings 20:43).