There is also water in the neighbourhood, as is assumed in ver. 3 4. " Nowhere does the Kishon run so close to Mount Carmel as just beneath el Mohraka," which is "1635 feet above the sea, and perhaps 1000 feet above the Kishon. This height can be gone up and down in the short time allowed by the Scripture (vers. 40—44)." But it was possible to find water even nearer than this, to pour upon the burnt-offering in the manner described in vers. 34, 35. Close by the steep rocky wall of the height, just where you can descend to the Kishon through a steep ravine, you find, "250 feet it might be beneath the altar plateau, a vaulted and very abundant fountain built in the form of a tank, with a few steps leading down into it, just as one finds elsewhere in the old wells or springs of the Jewish times." — " From such a fountain alone could Elijah have procured so much water at that time. And as for the distance between this spring and the supposed site of the altar, it was every way possible for men to go thrice thither and back again to obtain the necessary supply." Lastly, el Mohraka is so situated, that the circumstances mentioned in vers. 42-44 also perfectly coincide (Van de Velde, pp.
Vers. 20-46. Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal. — Ahab sent through all Israel and gathered the prophets (of Baal) together upon Mount Carmel. According to vers. 21, 22, and 39, a number of the people ("all the people") had also come with them. On the other hand, not only is there no further reference in what follows to the 400 prophets of Asherah (cf. vers. 25 and 40), but in ver. 22 it is very obvious that the presence of the 450 prophets of Baal alone is supposed. We must therefore assume that the Asherah prophets, foreboding nothing good, had found a way of evading the command of Ahab and securing the protection of Jezebel.1 King Ahab also appeared upon Carmel (cf. ver. 41), as he had no idea of
1 It is true that in ver. 22 the LXX. haye this clause, xul oi TrpoQ^rou rov &>.oov; (i.e. m^Sil) Terpocxootoi, which Thenius regards as an original portion of the text, though without observing the character of the LXX. If the Asherah prophets had also been present, Elijah would not only have commanded the prophets of Baal to be seized and slain (ver. 40), but the Asherah prophets also. From the principle a potiori Jit, etc., it may be possible to explain the omission of the Asherah prophets in ver. 25, but not in ver. 40.
jmijuiis intention, wnicn was oy no means "to prove to tne king that he (Ahab) and not Elijah had brought Israel into trouble " (Vat., Seb. Sclim.), but to put before the eyes of the whole nation a convincing practical proof ot the sole deity ol Jehovah and of the nothingness of the Baals, that were regarded as gods, and by slaying the priests of Baal to give a death-blow to idolatry in Israel. — Ver. 21. Elijah addressed the assembled people as follows: u How long do ye limp upon both sides? Is Jehovah God, then go after Him; but if Baal be God, then go after him" — and the peorjle answered him not a word. They wanted to combine the worship of Jehovah and Baal, and not to assume a hostile attitude towards Jehovah by the worship of Baal; and were therefore obliged to keep silence under this charge of infatuated halving, since they knew very well from the law itself that Jehovah demanded worship with a whole and undivided heart (Deut. vi. 4, 5). This dividing of the heart between Jehovah and Baal Elijah called limping?V nrsyDn w? « upon the two parties (of Jehovah and Baal)." For D*3yp the meaning " divided opinions, parties," is well established by the use of &pyo in Ps. cxix. 113; and the rendering of the LXX. lyvvcu, the hollow of the knee, is only a paraphrase of the sense and not an interpretation of the word. — Vers. 22-25. As the people adhered to their undecided double-mindedness, Elijah proposed to let the Deity Himself decide who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The prophets of Baal were to offer a sacrifice to Baal, and he (Elijah) would offer one to Jehovah. And the true God should make Himself known by kindling the burnt-offering presented to Him with fire from heaven, and in this way answering the invocation of His name. This proposal was based upon the account in Lev. ix. As Jehovah had there manifested Himself as the God of Israel by causing fire to fall from heaven upon the first sacrifice presented in front of the tabernacle and to consume it, Elijah hoped that in like manner Jehovah would even now reveal Himself as the living God. And the form of decision thus proposed would necessarily appear all the fairer, because Elijah, the prophet of Jehovah, stood alone in opposition to a whole crowd of Baal's prophets, numbering no less than 450 men. And for that very reason the latter could not draw back, without publicly renouncing their pretensions, whether they believed that Baal would really do what was desired, or hoped that they might be able to escape, through some accident or stratagem, from the difficult situation that had been prepared for them, or fancied that the God of Elijah would no more furnish the proof of His deity that was desired of Him than Baal would. In order, however, to cut off every subterfuge in the event of their attempt proving a failure, Elijah not only yielded the precedence to them on the occasion of this sacrifice, but crave them the choice of the two oxen brought to be offered; which made the fairness of his proposal so much the more conspicuous to every one, that the people willingly gave their consent.
Vers. 26-29. The prophets of Baal then proceeded to the performance of the duty required. They prepared (/OT?) the sacrifice, and called solemnly upon Baal from morning to noon: " 0 Baal, hear us," limping round the altar; " but there was no voice, and no one to hear (to answer), and no attention." nsa is a contemptuous epithet applied to the pantomimic sacrificial dance performed by these priests round about the altar,1 1S*X nfcfW (" which one had made "). — Yer. 2 7. As no answer had been received before noon, Elijah cried out to them in derision: " Call to him with a loud voice, for he is God (sc. according to your opinion), for he is meditating, or has gone aside ( *&, secessio), or is on the journey (T)J}.1, on the way); perhaps he is sleeping, that he may wake up." The ridicule lies more especially in the wn DWK *3 (for he is a god), when contrasted with the enumeration of the different possibilities which may have occasioned their obtaining no answer, and is heightened by the earnest and threefold repetition of the *3. With regard to these possibilities we may quote the words of Clericus: " Although these things when spoken of God are the most absurd things possible, yet idolaters could believe such things, as we may see from Homer." The priests of Baal did actually begin therefore to cry louder than before, and scratched themselves with swords and lances, till the blood poured out, " according to their custom " (DlpBBta). Movers describes this as follows (Phonizier, i. pp. 682, 683), from statements made by ancient authors concerning the processions of the strolling
1 The following is the description which Herodian (hist. v. 3), among others, gives of Heliogabalus when dancing as chief priest of the Emesinian
bands of the Syrian goddess: " A discordant howling opens the scene. They then rush wildly about in perfect confusion, with their heads bowed down to the ground, but always revolving in circles, so that the loosened hair drags through the mire; they then begin to bite their arms, and end with cutting themselves with the two-edged swords which they are in the habit of carrying. A new scene then opens. One of them, who surpasses all the rest in frenzy, begins to prophesy with sighs and groans; he openly accuses himself of the sins which he has committed, and which he is now about to punish by chastising the flesh, takes the knotted scourge, which the Galli generally carry, lashes his back, and then cuts himself with swords till the blood trickles down from his mangled body." The climax of the Bacchantic dance in the case of
the priests of Baal also was the prophesying (K23nn)^ and it was for this reason, probably, that they were called prophets (DW3?). This did not begin till noon, and lasted till about the time of the evening sacrifice (TO$£ l$t not ni?y IV, ver. 29). nmDH r\Sbv, " the laying on (offering) of the meat-offering," refers to the daily evening sacrifice, which consisted of a burnt-offering and a meat-offering (Ex. xxix. 38 sqq.; Num. xxviii. 3-8), and was then offered, according to the Rabbinical observance (see at Ex. xii. 6), in the closing hours of the afternoon, as is evident from the circumstances which are described in vers. 40 sqq. as having taken place on the same day and subsequently to Elijah's offering, which was presented at the time of the evening sacrifice (ver. 36).
Vers. 30—39. Elijah's sacrifice. — As no answer came from Baal, Elijah began to prepare for his own sacrifice. Ver. 30. He made the people come nearer, that he might have both eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses present at his sacrifice, and restored the altar of Jehovah which was broken down. Consequently there was already an altar of Jehovah upon Carmel, which either dated from the times anterior to the building of the temple, when altars of Jehovah were erected in different places throughout the land (see at ch. iii. 2), or, what is more probable, had been built by pious worshippers belonging to the ten tribes since the division of the kingdom (Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 183, transl.), and judging from ck xix. 10, had been destroyed during the reign of Ahab, when the worship of Baal gained the upper hand. — Vers. 31, 32.
Eliiah took twelve stones, " according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come (Gen. xxxii. 29, xxxv. 10), Israel shall be thy name," and built these stones into an altar. The twelve stones were a practical declaration on the part of the prophet that the division of the nation into two kingdoms was at variance with the divine calling of Israel, inasmuch as according to the will of God the twelve tribes were to form one people of Jehovah, and to have a common sacrificial altar; whilst the allusion to the fact that Jehovah had given to the forefather of the nation the name of Israel, directs attention to the wrong which the seceding ten tribes had done in claiming the name of Israel for themselves, whereas it really belonged to the whole nation, njn* DC>3 (in the name of Jehovah) belongs to r03* (built), and signifies by the authority and for the glory of Jehovah. " And made a trench as the space of two seahs of seed {i.e. so large that you could sow two seahs1 of seed upon the ground which it covered) round about the altar." The trench must therefore have been of considerable breadth and depth, although it is impossible to determine the exact dimensions, as the kind of seed-corn is not defined. He then arranged the sacrifice upon the altar, and had four Kad (pails) of water poured three times in succession upon the burnt-offering which was laid upon the pieces of wood, so that the water flowed round about the altar, and then had the trench filled with water.2 Elijah adopted this course for the purpose of precluding all suspicion of even the possibility of fraud in connection with the miraculous burning of the sacrifice. For idolaters had carried their deceptions to such a length, that they would set fire to the wood of the sacrifices from
2 Thenius throws suspicion upon the historical character of this account, on the ground that " the author evidently forgot the terrible drought, by which the numerous sources of the Carrael and the Nachal Kishon must have been dried up;" but Van de Velde has already answered this objection, which has been raised by others also, and has completely overthrown it by pointing out the covered well of el Mohraka, in relation to which he makes the following
remark: tk In such springs the water remains always cool, under the shade of a vaulted roof, and with no hot atmosphere to evaporate it. While all other fountains were dried up, I can well understand that there might have been found here that superabundance of water which Elijah poured so profusely over the altar " (vol. i. p. 325, transl.). But the drying up of the
Kishon is a mere conjecture, which cannot be historically proved.
hollow spaces concealed beneath the altars, in order to make the credulous people believe that the sacrifice had been miraculously set on fire by the deity. Ephraem Syrus and Joh. Chrysostom both affirm this; the latter in his Oratio in Petrum Apost. d Eliam proph. t. ii. p. 737, ed. Montf., the genuineness of which, however, is sometimes called in question. — Vers. 36, 37. After these preparations at the time of the evening sacrifice, Elijah drew near and prayed: " Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (this name is used with deliberate purpose instead of Jacob: see at ver. 31), let it be known this day that Thou art God in Israel, and I am Thy servant, and do all these things through Thy word. Hear me, Jehovah, hear me, that this people may know that Thou Jehovah art God, and turnest back their hearts!" (i.e. back from idols to Thyself.) This clearly expresses not only the object of the miracle which follows, but that of miracles universally. The perfects Wfettf and ^2pn are used to denote not only what has already occurred, but what will still take place and is as certain as if it had taken place already. Wbjf refers not merely to the predicted drought and to what Elijah has just been doing (Thenius), but to the miracle which was immediately about to be performed; and?3Dn to the conversion of the people to the Lord their God, for which Elijah's coming had already prepared the way, and which was still further advanced by the following miracle. — Ver. 38. Then fire of Jehovah fell and consumed the burntoffering and the pieces of wood, etc. njrp wx, the fire proceeding from Jehovah, was not a natural flash of lightning, which could not produce any such effect, but miraculous fire falling from heaven, as in 1 Chron. xxi. 26, 2 Chron. vii. 1 (see at Lev. ix. 24), the supernatural origin of which was manifested in the fact, that it not only consumed the sacrifice with the pile of wood upon the altar, but also burned up (in calcem redegit — Cler.) the stones of the altar and the earth that was thrown up to form the trench, and licked up the water in the trench. Through this miracle Jehovah not only accredited Elijah as His servant and prophet, but proved Himself to be the living God, whom Israel was to serve; so that all the people who were present fell down upon their faces in worship, as they had done once before, viz. at the consecration of the altar in Lev. ix. 24, and confessed " Jehovah is God:" BWan, the true or real God.
Vers. 40-46. Elijah availed himself of this enthusiasm of the people for the Lord, to deal a fatal blow at the prophets of Baal, who turned away the people from the living God. He commanded the people to seize them, and had them slain at the brook Kishon, and that not so much from revenge, i.e. because it was at their instigation that queen Jezebel had murdered the prophets of the true God (ver. 13), as to carry out the fundamental law of the Old Testament kingdom of God, which prohibited idolatry on pain of death, and commanded that false prophets should be destroyed (Deut. xvii. 2, 3, xiii. 1 3 sqq.).1 — Ver. 41. Elijah then called upon the king, who had eaten nothing from morning till evening in his eagerness to see the result of the contest between the prophet and the priests of Baal, to come up from the brook Kishon to the place of sacrifice upon Carmel, where his wants were provided for, and to partake of meat and drink, for he (Elijah) could already hear the noise of a fall of rain. b\\> is without a verb, as is often the case {e.g. Isa. xiii. 4, lii 8, etc.); literally, it is the sound, the noise. After the occasion of the curse of drought, which had fallen upon the land, had been removed by the destruction of the idolatrous priests, the curse itself could also be removed. " But this was not to take place without the prophet's saying it, and by means of this gift proving himself afresh to be the representative of God " (0. v. Gerlach). — Vers. 42 sqq. While the king was refreshing himself with food and drink, Elijah went up to the top of Carmel to pray that the Lord would complete His work by fulfilling His promise (ver. 1) in sending rain; and continued in prayer till the visible commencement of the fulfilment of his prayer was announced by his servant, who, after looking out upon the sea seven times, saw at last a small cloud ascend from the sea
1 It was necessary that idolatry and temptation to the worship of idols should be punished with death, as a practical denial of Jehovah the true God and Lord of His chosen people, if the object of the divine institutions was to be secured. By putting the priests of Baal to death, therefore, Elijah only did what the law required; and inasmuch as the ordinary administrators of justice did not fulfil their obligations, he did this as an extraordinary messenger of God, whom the Lord had accredited as His prophet before all the people by the miraculous answer given to his prayer. — To infer from this act of Elijah the right to institute a bloody persecution of heretics, would not only indicate a complete oversight of the difference between heathen idolaters and Christian heretics, but the same reprehensible confounding of the evangelical standpoint of the New Testament with the legal standpoint of the Old, which Christ condemned in His own disciples in Luke ix. 55, 56.
about the size of a man's hand.1 The peculiar attitude assumed by Elijah when praying (Jas. v. 18), viz. bowing down even to the earth p?^.) and putting his face between his knees, probably the attitude of deep absorption in God, was witnessed by Shaw and Chardin in the case of certain dervishes [yid. Harmar, Beobachtiingcn, iii. pp. 373-4). — Ver. 44. As soon as the small cloud ascended from the sea, Elijah sent his servant to tell the king to set off home, that he might not be stopped by the rain. Tj, go down, sc. from Carmel to his chariot, which was standing at the foot of the mountain.2 — Ver. 45. Before any provision had been made for it ('I3"iyi nb'iy; hither and thither, i.e. while the hand is being moved to and fro, "very speedily;" cf. Ewald, § 105, b) the heaven turned black with clouds and wind, i.e. with storm-clouds (Thenius), and there came a great fall of rain, while Ahab drove along the road to Jezreel. It was quite possible for the king to reach Jezreel the same evening from that point, namely, from the foot of Carmel below el Mohraka: but only thence, for every halthour farther west would have taken him too far from his capital for it to be possible to accomplish the distance before the rain "Overtook him (V. de Velde, i. p. 326). Jezreel, the present Zerin (see at Josh. xix. 18), was probably the summer residence of Ahab (see at Josh. xxi. 1). The distance from el Mohraka thither is hardly 2^ German geographical miles (? 14 Engl, miles — Tit.) in a straight line. — Ver. 46. When Ahab drove off, the hand of the Lord came upon Elijah, so that he ran before Ahab as far as Jezreel, — not so much for the purpose of bringing the king to his residence unhurt (Seb. Schm.), as to give him a proof of his humility, and thus deepen the impression already made upon his heart, and fortify him all the more against the strong temptations of his wife, who abused his weakness to support the cause of ungodliness. This act of Elijah, whom Ahab had hitherto only
1 V. de Velde has shown how admirably these circumstances (vers. 43 and 44) also apply to the situation of el Mohraka: " on its west and north-west
side the view of the sea is quite intercepted by an adjacent height. That height may be ascended, however, in a few minutes, and a full view of the sea obtained from the top " (i. p. 326).
2 " After three years' drought all herbage must have disappeared from the plain of Jezreel, and the loose clay composing its soil must have been changed into a deep layer of dust. Had time been allowed for the rain to convert that dust into a bed of mud, the chariot- wheels might have stuck fast in it." — V. de Velde, i. pp. 326-7.
known as a stern, imperious, and powerful prophet, by which he now showed himself to he his faithful subject and servant, was admirably adapted to touch the heart of the king, and produce the conviction that it was not from any personal dislike to him, but only in the service of the Lord, that the prophet was angry at his idolatry, and that he was not trying to effect his ruin, but rather his conversion and the salvation of his soul. nSjV Ta the hand (i.e. the power) of the Lord, denotes the supernatural strength with which the Lord endowed him, to accomplish superhuman feats. This formula is generally applied to the divine inspiration by which the prophets were prepared for their prophesying (cf. 2 Kings iii. 15; Ezek. i. 3, iii. 15, etc.).
CHAP. XIX. ELIJAH'S FLIGHT INTO THE DESERT, THE REVELATION OF GOD AT HOREB, AND ELISHA'S CALL TO BE A PROPHET.
The hope of completing his victory over the idolaters and overthrowing the worship of Baal, even in the capital of the kingdom, with which Elijah may have hastened to Jezreel, was frustrated by the malice of the queen, who was so far from discerning any revelation of the almighty God in the account given her by Ahab of what had occurred on Carmel, and bending before His mighty hand, that, on the contrary, she was so full of wrath at the slaying of the prophets of Baal as to send to the prophet Elijah to threaten him with death. This apparent failure of his ministry wTas the occasion of a severe inward conflict, in which Elijah was brought to a state of despondency and fled from the land. The Lord allowed His servant to pass through this conflict, that he might not exalt himself, but, being mindful of his own impotence, might rest content with the grace of his God, whose strength is mighty in the weak (2 Cor. xii. 8, 9), and who would refine and strengthen him for the further fulfilment of his calling.
Vers. 1-8. Elijah's flight into the desert and guidance to Horcb. — Vers. 1, 2. When " Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and all, how he had slain all the prophets (of Baal)," she sent a messenger to Elijah in her impotent wrath, with a threat, which she confirmed by an oath (see at ch. ii. 2 3), that in the morning she would have him slain like the prophets whom he had put to death. The early commentators detected in this threat the impotcntia muliebris iracundio3) and saw that all that
Jezebel wanted was to get rid of the man who was so distressing and dangerous to her, because she felt herself unable to put him to death, partly on account of the people, who wrere enthusiastic in his favour, and partly on account of the king himself, upon whom the affair at Carmel had not remained without its salutary effect. — Vers. 3, 4. But when Elijah saw (^1^), sc. how things stood, or the audacity of Jezebel, from which the failure of his work was evident, he rose up and went to Beersheba in Judah, i.e. Bir-seba on the southern frontier of Canaan (see at Gen. xxi. 31). The expression rmvb neto, "which to Judah," i.e. which belonged to the kingdom of Judah, for Beersheba wras really allotted to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. xix. 2), is appended not merely as a geographical indication that Elijah went outside the land, but to show that he meant to leave the kingdom of Israel, the scene of his previous labours, just as Jeremiah in a similar internal conflict gave utterance to the wish that he could leave his people, if he had but a lodging-place in the wilderness (Jer. ix. 2). K"H is not to be altered into KV3, et timuit, after the LXX. and Vulg., notwithstanding the fact that some Codd. have this reading, which only rests upon an erroneous conjecture. For it is obvious that Elijah did not flee from any fear of the vain threat of Jezebel, from the fact that he did not merely withdraw into the kingdom of Judah, where he would have been safe under Jehoshaphat from all the persecutions of Jezebel, b.ut went to Beersheba, and thence onwards into the desert, there to pour out before the Lord God his weariness of life (ver. 4). i$?S3 vtf TJT, he went upon his soul, or his life, i.e. not to save his life (as I once thought, with many other commentators), for his wish to die (ver. 4) is opposed to this; but to care for his soul in the manner indicated in ver. 4, i.e. to commit his soul or his life to the Lord his God in the solitude of the desert, and see what He would determine concerning him.1 — He left his servant in Beersheba, while he himself went a day's journey farther into the desert (Paran), not merely because he was so filled with weari-
1 G. Menken (christl. Homil. ub. den Proph. Elias, p. 231) has given the following admirable explanation of 1£>£} *}$, so far as the sense is concerned: " For conscience sake, from conviction, out of obligation, not from fear. After all his former experience, and from the entire relation in which Elijah stood to God, it was impossible that he should be afraid, and not be firmly convinced that the God who had shut up heaven at his word, who had supplied him with bread and flesh for a whole year in the desert through the medium of ravens, who had supported him miraculously for years in a foreign land through the ness of life in his dark oppression, that he thought he should have no further need of his servant, and therefore left him behind in Beersheba, but that he might pour out his heart before God alone in the desert and yield himself up to His guidance. For however unquestionably his lamentation in ver. 4, for example, expresses a weariness of life, this merely indicates the feeling which had taken possession of his soul after a day's journey in the barren desert. And even there he lays his wish to die before God in prayer; so that this feeling is merely to be regarded as one result of the spiritual conflict, which his bodily exhaustion had now raised to a height that it cannot have reached when he was in Beersheba. If, therefore, he did not start with the intention of making a pilgrimage to Horeb, he had certainly gone into the desert for the purpose of seeing whether the Lord would manifest His mercy to him, as He had formerly done to His people under Moses, or whether He would withdraw His hand entirely from him. After a day's journey he sat down under a Dni (construed here as a feminine, in ver. 5 as a masculine), a species of broom {genista Retem in Forskal), which is the finest and most striking shrub of the Arabian desert, growing constantly in the beds of streams and in the valleys, where places of encampment are frequently selected for the sake of the shelter which they afford by night from the wind and by day from the sun (Rob. Pal. i. 299). niob.... bxf?_: and wished that his soul might die (a kind of accusative with infinitive; see Ewald, § 336, b), and said, nny y]f " Enough now; take, Lord, my soul, for I am not better than my fathers;" i.e. I have worked and endured enough, and deserve no longer life than my fathers. From this it appears that Elijah was already of a great age. — Vers. 5 sqq. In this disturbed state of mind he lay down and slept under a broom-tree. Then the Lord came with His power to the help of the despairing man. " An angel touched him (wakened him out of his sleep), and said to him: Arise, eat." And behold he saw at his head D^Vi nay, a bread cake baked over red-hot stones, a savoury article of food which is still a great favourite with the Bedouins (see at Gen. xviii. 6, xix. 3), and a pitcher of water, medium of a poor widow, who had concealed and rescued him for three years and a half from the search of the king, who had accredited and honoured him in the sight of all the people as His servant, who had given an immediate answer to his prayer for rain, could also defend him in this extremity, and rescue him from this danger, if such should be His will."
and ate and drank, and lay down again. — Ver. 7. But the angel wakened him a second time, and called upon him to eat witli these words: " for the way is too far for thee " (TH? 1W? ^1 iter est majus quam pro virions tuis — Vat.). — Ver. 8. " Then he arose, ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to the mount of God at Horeb." As the angel did not tell him whither he was to go, and Elijah wandered to Horeb in consequence of this strengthening, it appears to have been his intention from the very beginning to go into the desert, and see whether the Lord would still further acknowledge him and his work; so that in the support and strength imparted by the angel he saw an indication that he was to follow the footsteps of the divine grace still farther into the desert, and make a pilgrimage to Horeb, with the hope that there perhaps the Lord would reveal to him His counsel concerning the further guidance of the people of His covenant, as He had formerly done to His servant Moses, and give him the necessary instruction for the continuance of his prophetic service. Horeb is called the mount jf God here, as it was proleptically in Ex. iii. 1, as the place where the Lord confirmed the covenant, already made with the patriarchs, to their descendants, and adopted the tribes of Israel as His people and made them into a kingdom of God. The distance from Beersheba to Horeb is about 200 miles. Consequently Elijah would not have required forty days to travel there, if the intention of God had been nothing more than to cause him to reach the mountain, or " to help him on his way " (Thenius). But in the strength of the food provided by the angel Elijah was not only to perform the journey to Horeb, but to wander in the desert for forty days and forty nights, i.e. forty whole days, as Moses had formerly wandered with all Israel for forty years; that he might know that the Lord was still the same God who had nourished and sustained His whole nation in the desert with manna from heaven for forty years. And just as the forty years' sojourn in the desert had been to Moses a time for the trial of faith and for exercise in humility and meekness (Num. xii. 3), so was the strength of Elijah's faith to be tried by the forty days' wandering in the same desert, and to be purified from all carnal zeal for the further fulfilment of His calling, in accordance with the divine will. What follows shows very clearly that this was the object of the divine guidance of Elijah <c£ Hengstenberg, Diss, on the Pentateuch, vol. i. 171, 172).
Vers. 9-18. Appearance of God at Hot eh. — Ver. 9. When Elijah arrived at Horeb, he went into the cave (the definite article in nnytsrr, with the obvious connection between the appearance of God, which follows here, and that described in Ex. xxxiii. 1 2 sqq., points back to the cleft in the rock, "fflfn n"]j?J) in which Moses had stood while the glory of Jehovah passed by (see at Ex. xxxiii. 22), and there he passed the night. And behold the word of the Lord came to him (in the night): " What doest thou here, Elijah? " This question did not involve a reproof, as though Elijah had nothing to do there, but was simply intended to lead him to give utterance to the thoughts and feelings of his heart. — Ver. 10. Elijah answered: " I have striven zealously for Jehovah the God of hosts, for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, destroyed Thine altars, and killed Thy prophets with the sword; and I only am left, and they seek my life." In these words there was not only the greatest despair expressed as to the existing condition of things, but also a carnal zeal which would gladly have called down the immediate vengeance of the Almighty upon all idolaters. The complaint contained, on the one hand, the tacit reproof that God had looked on quietly for so long a time at the conduct of the ungodly, and had suffered things to come to such an extremity, that he, His prophet, was the only one left of all the true worshippers of God, and, on the other hand, the indirect appeal that He would interpose at last with His penal judgments. Because Elijah had not seen the expected salutary fruits of his zeal for the Lord, he thought that all was lost, and in his gloomy state of mind overlooked what he had seen a short time before with his own eyes, that even in the neighbourhood of the king himself there lived a pious and faithful worshipper of Jehovah, viz. Obadiah, who had concealed a hundred prophets from the revenge of Jezebel, and that the whole of the people assembled upon Carmel had given glory to the Lord, and at his command had seized the prophets of Baal and put them to death, and therefore that the true worshippers of the Lord could not all have vanished out of Israel, njrpp ^riNaj? N3j? recalls to mind the zeal of Phinehas (Num. xxv. 1 1 sqq.), which put an end to the whoredom of the sons of Israel with the daughters of Moab. But whereas Phinehas received the promise of an everlasting priesthood for his zeal, Elijah had seen so little fruit from his zeal against the worshippers of Baal, that they actually sought his life. I^nsrp are altars, which pious Israelites in the kingdom of the ten tribes had built in different places for the worship of Jehovah (see at ch. xviii. 30). — Vers. 11 sqq. The Lord replied to the prophet's complaint first of all by the manifestation of His control of the phenomena of nature (vers. 11-13), and then by a verbal explanation of His design (vers. 15-18).
In this divine revelation men have recognised from the very earliest times a repetition of the appearance of God which was granted to Moses upon Sinai. As God, in token of His grace, granted the prayer of Moses that he might see His glory, after he had striven zealously for the honour of the Lord when the people rebelled by worshipping the golden calf; so did He also display His glory upon Horeb to Elijah as a second Moses for the purpose of strengthening his faith, with this simple difference, that He made all His goodness pass by Moses, and declared His name in the words, " Jehovah, a gracious and merciful God," etc. (Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7), whereas He caused Elijah first of all to behold the operation of His grace in certain phenomena of nature, and then afterwards made known to him His will with regard to Israel and to the work of His prophets. This difference in the form of the revelation, while the substance and design were essentially the same, may be explained from the difference not only in the historical circumstances, but also in the state of mind of the two servants to whom He manifested His glory. In the case of Moses it was burning love for the welfare of his people which impelled him to offer the prayer that the Lord would let him see His glory, as a sign that He would not forsake His people; and this prayer was granted him, so far as a man is ever able to see the glory of God, to strengthen him for the further discharge of the duties of his office. Hidden in the cleft of the rock and shielded by the hand of God, he saw the Lord pass by him, and heard Him utter in words His inmost being. Elijah, on the other hand, in his zeal for the honour of God, which was not quite free from human passion, had been led by the want of any visible fruit from his own labour to overlook the work of the Lord in the midst of His people; so that he had fled into the desert and wished to be released from this world by death, and had not been brought out of his despair by the strengthening with meat and drink which he had received from the angel, and which enabled him to travel for forty days to the mount of
God without suffering from want, a fact which was intended to remind him of the ancient God of the fathers, to whose omnipotence and goodness there is no end; so that it was in a most gloomy state of mind that he reached Horeb at last. And now the Lord designed not only to manifest His glory as the love in which grace and righteousness are united, but also to show him that his zeal for the honour of the Lord was not in harmony with the love and grace and long-suffering of God. * The design of the vision was to show to the fiery zeal of the prophet, who wanted to reform everything by means of the tempest, the gentle way which God pursues, and to proclaim the long-suffering and mildness of His nature, as the voice had already done to Moses on that very spot; hence the beautiful change in the divine appearance " (Herder, Geist der hcbr. Poesie, 1788, ii. p. 52). — Vers. 11, 12. After God had commanded him to come out of the cave and stand upon the mountain (that part of the mountain which was in front of the cave) before Him, " behold Jehovah went by (the participle "i?'V is used to give a more vivid representation of the scene); and a great and strong tempest, rending mountains and breaking rocks in pieces, before Jehovah — it was not in the tempest that Jehovah was; and after the tempest an earthquake — it was not in the earthquake that Jehovah was; and after the earthquake fire — it was not in the fire that Jehovah was; and after the fire a still, gentle rustling." Hf5T nDD'n?Sp} literally the tone of a gentle blowing. On the change of gender in Ptni rpna tW)i see Ewald, § 174, e. — Tempest, earthquake, and fire, which are even more terrible in the awful solitude of the Horeb mountains than in an inhabited land, are signs of the coming of the Lord to judgment (cf. Ps. xviii. 8 sqq.). It was in the midst of such terrible phenomena that the Lord had once come down upon Sinai, to inspire the people who were assembled at the foot of the mountain with a salutary dread of His terrible majesty, of the fiery zeal of His wrath and love, which consumes whatever opposes it (see at Ex. xix. 16 sqq.). But now the Lord was not in these terrible phenomena; to signify to the prophet that He did not work in His earthly kingdom with the destroying zeal of wrath, or with the pitiless severity of judgment. It was in a soft, gentle rustling that He revealed Himself to him. — Vers. 13, 14. When Elijah heard this, he covered up his face in his cloak (JVJJK; see at 2 Kings i. 8) and went out to the entrance to the cave. And behold he heard the question a second time, " What doest thou here, Elijah?" and answered with a repetition of his complaint (see vers. 9 and 10). — While the appearance of God, not in the tempest, the earthquake, and the fire, but in a gentle rustling, revealed the Lord to him as a merciful and gracious God, long-suffering, and of great goodness and truth (Ex. xxxiv. 6), the answer to his complaint showed him that He did not leave guilt unpunished (Ex. xxxiv. 7), since the Lord gave him the following command, vers. 1 5 sqq.: " Go back in thy way to the desert of Damascus, and anoint Hazael king over Aram (see 2 Kings viii. 12, 13), and Jehu the son of Nimshi king over Israel (see 2 Kings ix. 2), and Elisha the son of Shaphat prophet in thy stead " (see ver. 19); and then added this promise, which must have quieted his zeal, that was praiseworthy in the feelings from which it sprang, although it had assumed too passionate a form, and have given him courage to continue his prophetic work: " And it will come to pass, that whoever escapeth the sword of Hazael, him will Jehu slay, and whoever escapeth the sword of Jehu, him will Elisha slay." — Ver. 18. But in order that he might learn, to his shame, that the cause of the Lord in Israel appeared much more desperate to his eye, which was clouded by his own dissatisfaction, than it really was in the eye of the God who knows His own by number and by name, the Lord added: " I have seven thousand left in Israel, all knees that have not bent before Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him." Ptyfl n"i?"]?, into the desert of Damascus (with the He loc. with the construct state as in Deut. iv. 41, Josh. xii. 1, etc.; cf. Ewald, § 216, b), i.e. the desert lying to the south and east of the city of Damascus, which is situated on the river Barady; not per desertum in Damascitm (Vulg.^ Luth., etc.); for although Elijah would necessarily pass through the Arabian desert to go from Horeb to Damascus, it was superfluous to tell hiin that he was to go that way, as there was no other road. The words " return by thy way... and anoint Hazael," etc., are not to be understood as signifying that Elijah was to go at once to Damascus and anoint Hazael there, but simply that he was to do this at a time which the Spirit would more precisely indicate. According to what follows, all that Elijah accomplished immediately was to call Elisha to be his successor; whereas the other two commissions were fulfilled by Elisha after Elijah's ascension to heaven
(2 Kings viii. and ix.). The opinion that Elijah also anointed Hazael and Jehu immediately, but that this anointing was kept secret, and was repeated by Elisha when the time for their public appearance arrived, has not only very little probability in itself, but is directly precluded by the account of the anointing of Jehu in 2 Kings ix. The anointing of Hazael and Jehu is mentioned first, because God had chosen these two kings to be the chief instruments of His judgments upon the royal family and people for their idolatry. It was only in the case of Jehu that a real anointing took place (2 Kings ix. 6); Hazael was merely told by Elisha that he would be king (2 Kings viii. 1 3), and Elisha was simply called by Elijah to the prophetic office by having the cloak of the latter thrown upon him. Moreover, the Messianic passage, Isa. lxi. l,is the only one in which there is any allusion to the anointing of a prophet. Consequently n^D must be taken figuratively here, as in Judg. ix. 8, as denoting divine consecration to the regal and prophetic offices. And so, again, the statement that Elisha would slay those who escaped the sword of Jehu is not to be understood literally. Elisha slew by the word <of the Lord, which brought judgments upon the ungodly, as we see from 2 Kings ii. 24 (cf. Jer. i. 10, xviii. 7). The " seven thousand," who had not bowed the knee before Baal, are.a round number for the i/c\oyrj of the godly, whom the Lord had preserved for Himself in the sinful kingdom, which was really very large in itself, however small it might be in comparison with the whole nation. The number seven is the stamp of the works of God, so that seven thousand is the number of the " remnant according to the election of grace " (Eom. xi. 5), which had then been preserved by God. Kissing Baal was the most usual form in which this idol was worshipped, and consisted not merely in throwing kisses with the hand (cf. Job xxxi. 27, and Plin. h. n. 28,.8), but also in kissing the images of Baal, probably on the feet (cf. Cicero in Verr. 4, 43).
Vers. 19-21. Call of Elisha to be a prophet. — Ver. 19. As he went thence (viz. away from Horeb), Elijah found Elisha the son of Shaphat at Abel-Meholah, in the Jordan valley (see at Judg. vii. 22), occupied in ploughing; " twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he himself with the twelfth " (a very wealthy man therefore), and threw his cloak to him as he passed by. The prophet's cloak was a sign of the prophet's vocation, so that throwing it to him was a symbol of the call to the prophetic otlice. — Ver. 20. Elisha understanding the sign, left the oxen standing, ran after Elijah, and said to him, " Let me kiss my lather and my mother," i.e. take leave of my parents, and then I will follow thee. For the form rt{jerc see Ewald, § 228, b. As he has ploughed his earthly field with his twelve pair of oxen, he was now to plough the spiritual field of the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke ix. 62). Elijah answered, " Go, return, for what have I done to thee?" 3*0 7|!? belong together, as in ver. 15; so that Elijah thereby gave him permission to return to his father and mother. *2 signifies for, not yet (Thenius); for there is no antithesis here, according to which *3 might serve for a more emphatic assurance (Ewald, § 330, b). The words "what have I done to thee? " can only mean, I have not wanted to put any constraint upon thee, but leave it to thy free will to decide in favour of the prophetic calling. — Ver. 21. Then Elisha returned, took the pair of oxen with which he had been ploughing, sacrificed, i.e. slaughtered them (nnj used figuratively), boiled the flesh with the plough, gave a farewell meal to the people (of his place of abode), i.e. his friends and acquaintance, and then followed Elijah as his servant, i.e. his assistant. The suffix in tw3 refers to ^P^n TOV, and is more precisely defined by the apposition "rtPan^ " namely, the flesh of the oxen."
Even if the impression which the miracle upon Carmel had made upon Ahab, who was weak rather than malevolent, remained without any lasting fruit, the Lord did very quickly manifest His mercy towards him, by sending a prophet with a promise of victory when the Syrians invaded his kingdom, and by giving the Syrians into his power. This victory was a fruit of the seven thousand who had not bent their knee before Baal. Elijah was also to learn from this that the Lord of Sabaoth had not yet departed from the rebellious kingdom.
Vers. 1-22. The First Victory. — Ver. 1. Benhadad, the son of that Benhadad who had conquered several cities of Galilee in the reign of Baasha (ch. xv. 20), came up with a great army — there were thirty- two kings with him, with horses and chariots — and besieged Samaria. The thirty-two kings with him (^) were vassals of Benhadad, rulers of different cities and the territory belonging to them, just as in Joshua's time almost every city of Canaan had its king; they were therefore bound to follow the army of Benhadad with their troops. — Vers. 2 sqq. During the siege Benhadad sent messengers into the city to Ahab with this demand: " Thy silver and thy gold are mine, and the best of thy wives and thy sons are mine; " and Ahab answered with pusillanimity: " According to thy word, my lord king, I and all that is mine are thine." Benhadad was made still more audacious by this submissiveness, and sent messengers the second time with the following notice (ver. 6): " Yea, if I send my servants to thee to-morrow at this time, and they search thy house and thy servants' houses, all that is the pleasure of thine eyes they will put into their hands and take." BN *3 does not mean " only = certainly " here (Ewald, § 356, 6), for there is neither a negative clause nor an oath, but DK signifies if and *3 introduces the statement, as in ver. 5; so that it is only in the repetition of the *3 that the emphasis lies, which can be expressed by yea. The words of Ahab in ver. 9 show unquestionably that Benhadad demanded more the second time than the first. The words of the first demand, " Thy silver and thy gold," etc., were ambiguous. According to ver. 5, Benhadad meant that Ahab should give him all this; and Ahab had probably understood him as meaning that he was to give him what he required, in order to purchase peace; but Benhadad had, no doubt, from the very first required an unconditional surrender at discretion. He expresses this very clearly in the second demand, since he announces to Ahab the plunder of his palace and also of the palaces of his nobles. ^yy *ipnD-?3, all thy costly treasures. It was from this second demand that Ahab first perceived what Benhadad's intention had been; he therefore laid the matter before the elders of the land, i.e. the king's counsellors, ver. 7: " Mark and see that this man seeketh evil," i.e. that he is aiming at our ruin, since he is not contented with the first demand, which I did not refuse him. — ■ Ver. 8. The elders and all the people, i.e. the citizens of Samaria, advised that his demand should not be granted. naNfl fc6l yi2vrrtet " heaiken not (to him), and thou wilt not be willing" (101 is stronger than?K; yet compare Ewald, § 350, a); whereupon Ahab sent the messengers away with this answer, that he would submit to the first demand, but that the second he could not grant. — Ver. 10. Benhadad then attempted to overawe the weak-minded Ahab by strong threats, sending fresh messengers to threaten him with the destruction of the city, and confirming it by a solemn oath: " The gods do so to me — if the dust of Samaria should suffice for the hollow hands of all the people that are in my train." The meaning of this threat was probably that he would reduce the city to ashes, so that scarcely a handful of dust should be left; for his army was so powerful and numerous, that the rubbish of the city would not suffice for every one to fill his hand. — Ver. 11. Ahab answered this loud boasting with the proverb: " Let not him that girdeth himself boast as he that looseneth the girdle," equivalent to the Latin, ne triumphum canas ante victoriam. — Ver. 12. After this reply of Ahab, Benhadad gave command to attack the city, while he was drinking with his kings in the booths, nirp are booths made of branches, twigs, and shrubs, such as are still erected in the East for kings and generals in the place of tents (vid. Rosenmuller, A. u. N. Morgenl. iii. pp. 198-9). Wb: take your places against the city, sc. to storm it (for D^fr in the sense of arranging the army for battle, see 1 Sam. xi. 11 and Job i. 17); not olfcoSo/uLrjaaTe yapatca (LXX.), or place the siege train. — Vers. 13, 14. While the Syrians were preparing for the attack, a prophet came to Ahab and told him that Jehovah would deliver this great multitude (of the enemy) into his hand that day, " that thou may est know that I am Jehovah," and that through the retainers of the governors of the provinces (nfrnon nb*, who had fled to Samaria), i.e. by a small and weak host. In the appearance of the prophet in Samaria mentioned here and in vers. 28 and 35 sqq. there is no such irreconcilable contradiction to ch. xviii. 4, 22, and xix. 10, as Thenius maintains; it simply shows that the persecution of the prophets by Jezebel had somewhat abated, and therefore Elijah's labour had not remained without fruit, 'on ">b^ *D, who shall open the battle? "JDK answers to the German anfadeln (to string, unite; Eng. join battle — Tit.); cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 3. — Vers. 15, 16. Ahab then mustered his fighting men: there were 232 servants of the provincial governors; and the rest of the people, all the children of Israel, i.e. the whole of the Israelitish fighting men that were in Samaria (W??, ver- 19), amounted to 7000 men. And at noon, when Benhadad and his thirty-two auxiliary kings were intoxicated at a carousal in the booths (ni3^ nrib> as in ch. xvi. 9), he ordered his men to advance, with the servants of the provincial governors taking the lead. The 7000 men are not to be regarded as the 7000 mentioned in ch. xix. 18, who had not bowed their knee before Baal, as Rashi supposes, although the sameness in the numbers is apparently not accidental; but in both cases the number of the covenant people existing in Israel is indicated, though in ch. xix. 18 the 7000 constitute the efcKoyn of the true Israel, whereas in the verse before us they are merelv the fighting men whom the Lord had left to Ahab for the defence of his kingdom. — Vers. 17, 18. When Benhadad was informed of the advance of these fighting men, in his drunken arrogance he ordered them to be taken alive, whether they came with peaceable or hostile intent. — Vers. 19, 20. But they — the servants of the governors at the head, and the rest of the army behind — smote every one his man, so that the Aramaeans fled, and Benhadad, pursued by the Israelites, escaped on a horse with some of the cavalry. D^ is in apposition to *H'Ti?, " he escaped, and horsemen," sc. escaped with him, i.e. some of the horsemen of his retinue, whilst the king of Israel, going out of the city, smote horses and chariots of the enemy, who were not prepared for this sally of the besieged, and completely defeated them. — Ver. 22. After this victory the prophet came to Ahab again, warning him to be upon his guard, for at the turn of the year, i.e. the next spring (see at 2 Sam. xi. 1), the Syrian king would make war upon him once more.
Vers. 23-34. The Second Victory. — Vers. 23, 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. Dougtsei Analect. ss. i. 178, 179; Deyling, Observv. ss. iii. pp. 97 sqq.; Winer, hill. /?. W. i. p. 154), and in Syropho?nicia even mountains themselves had divine honours paid to them (vid. Movers, Phdniz. i. p. 667 sqq.). 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 (ver. 24) to remove the kings in his army from their position, and appoint governors in their stead (nins, see ch. x. 15). The vassal-kings had most likely not shown the desired self-sacrifice for the cause of their superior in the war. And, lastly (ver. 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." *I™89, " 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 prudentlydevised 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. — Ver. 26. With the new year (see ver. 22) Benhadad advanced to Aphek again to fight against Israel. Aphek is neither the city of that name in the tribe of Asher (Josh, xix. 30 and xiii. 4), nor that on the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 53), but the city in the plain of Jezreel not far from Endor (1 Sam. xxix. 1 compared with xxviii. 4); since Benhadad had resolved that this time he would fight against Israel in the plain. — Ver. 27. The Israelites, mustered and provided for (v3?3: supplied with ammunition and provisions), marched to meet them, and encamped before them " like two little separate flocks of goats " (i.e. severed from the great herd of cattle). They had probably encamped upon slopes of the mountains by the plain of Jezreel, where they looked like two miserable flocks of goats in contrast with the Syrians who filled the land. — Ver. 28. Then the man of God (the prophet mentioned in vers. 13 and 22) came again to Ahab with the word of God: " Because the Syrians have said Jehovah is a mountain-God and not a God of the valleys, I will give this great multitude into thy hand, that ye may know that I am Jehovah." — Vers. 29, 30. After seven days the battle was fought. The Israelites smote the Syrians, a hundred thousand men in one day; and when the rest fled to Aphek, into the city, the wall fell upon twenty-seven thousand men, Iva Se Kaicelvot koX ovtoi fiaOwcrLv, w? Oen'fKaros rf 7r\T]yrj (Theodoret). The flying Syria as had probably some of them climbed the wall of the city to offer resistance to the Israelites in pursuit, and some of them sought to defend themselves by taking shelter behind it. And during the conflict, through the special interposition of God, the wall fell and buried the Syrians who were there. The cause of the fall is not given. Thenius assumes that it was undermined, in order to remove all idea of any miraculous working of the omnipotence of God. Benhadad himself lied into the city " room to room," i.e. from one room to another (cf. ch. xxii. 25, 2 Chron. xviii. 24). — Vers. 31, 32. In this extremity his servants made the proposal to him, that trusting in the generosity of the kings of Israel, they should go and entreat Ahab to show favour to him. They clothed themselves in mourning apparel, and put ropes on their necks, as a sign of absolute surrender, and went to Ahab, praying for the life of their king. And Ahab felt so flattered by the fact that his powerful opponent was obliged to come and entreat his favour in this humble manner, that he gave him his life, without considering how a similar act on the part of Saul had been blamed by the Lord (1 Sam. xv. 9 sqq.). " Is he still alive? He is my brother!" was his answer to Benhadad's servants.— Ver. 33. And they laid hold of these words of Ahab as a good omen (^BW), and hastened and bade him explain (i.e. bade him quickly explain); wzvn, whether (it had been uttered) from himself, i.e. whether he had said it with all his heart (Maurer), and said, " Benhadad is thy brother." The air. \ey. t&n, related to Y?ftf exuere, signifies abstrahcre, nudare, then figuratively, aliquid facer e nude, i.e. sine prcetextw, or aliquid nude, i.e. sine fuco atque ambagibus tcstari, covfirmare (cf. Fiirst, Concord. p. 398); then in the Talmud, to give an explanation (vid. Ges. thes. p. 476). This is perfectly applicable here, so that there is no necessity to alter the text, even if we thereby obtained a better meaning than Thenius with his explanation, " they tore it out of him," which he takes to be equivalent to " they laid hold of him by his word " (!!). Ahab thereupon ordered Benhadad to come and get up into his chariot. — Ver. 3 4. Benhadad, in order to keep Ahab in this favourable mood, promised to give him back at once the cities which his father had taken away from Ahab's father, and said, " Thou mayest make thyself roads in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria." There is no account of any war between Omri and Benhadad L; it is simply stated in ch. xv. 20 that Benhadad I. had taken away several cities in Galilee from the Israelites during the reign of Baasha. This cannot be the war intended here, however, not indeed because of the expression T?x riso, since 3K might certainly be taken in a broader sense as referring to Baasha as an ancestor of Ahab, but chiefly on account of the statement that Benhadad had made himself roads in Samaria. This points to a war between Omri and Benhadad, after the building of Samaria into the capital of the kingdom, of which no account has been preserved, ii? nfrn D^ " to make himself roads," cannot be understood as referring either to fortifications and military posts, or to roads for cattle and free pasturage in the Syrian kingdom, since Samaria and Damascus were cities; nor can it signify the establishment of custom-houses, but only the clearing of portions of the city for the purpose of trade and free intercourse (Cler., Ges., etc.), or for the establishment of bazaars, which would occupy a whole street (Bottcher, Thenius; see also Movers, Phonizier, ii. 3, p. 135). — "And I," said Ahab, "will let thee go upon a covenant " (a treaty on oath), and then made a covenant with him, giving him both life and liberty. Before *JW we must supply in thought 2snx ">ensi. This thoroughly impolitic proceeding on the part of Ahab arose not merely from a natural and inconsiderate generosity and credulity of mind (G. L. Bauer, Thenius), but from an unprincipled weakness, vanity, and blindness. To let a cruel and faithless foe go unpunished, was not only the greatest harshness to his own subjects, but open opposition to God, who had announced to him the victory, and delivered the enemy of His people into his hand.1 Even if Ahab had no express command from God to put Benhadad to death, as Saul had in 1 Sam. xv. 3, it was his duty to punish this bitter foe of Israel with death, if only to secure quiet for his own subjects; as it was certainly to be foreseen that Ben-
1 Clericus is correct- in the explanation which he has given: " Although, therefore, this act of Ahab had all the appearance of clemency, it was not an act of true clemency, which ought not to be shown towards violent aggressors, who if released will do much more injury than before, as Benhadad really did. God had given the victory to Ahab, and delivered the guilty king into his hands, that he might inflict punishment upon him, not that he might treat him kindly. And Ahab, who had allowed so many prophets to be slain by his wife Jezebel, had no great clemency at other times."
hadad would not keep the treaty which had been wrung from him by force, as wTas indeed very speedily proved (see ch. xxii. 1).
Vers. 35—43. The verdict of God wpon Ahab's conduct towards Benhadad. — Vers. 35, 36. A disciple of the prophets received instructions from God, to announce to the king that God would punish him for letting Benhadad go, and to do this, as Nathan had formerly done in the case of David (2 Sam. xii. 1 sqq.), by means of a symbolical action, whereby the king was led to pronounce sentence upon himself. The disciple of the prophets said to his companion, " in the word of Jehovah," i.e. by virtue of a revelation from God (see at ch. xiii. 2), " Smite me;" and when the friend refused to smite him, he announced to him that because of this disobedience to the voice of the Lord, after his departure from him a lion would meet him and smite him, i.e. would kill him; a threat which was immediately fulfilled. This occurrence shows with how severe a punishment all opposition to the commandments of God to the prophets was followed, as a warning for others; just as in the similar occurrence in ch. xiii. 24. — Ver. 27. The disciple of the prophets then asked another to smite Trim, and he smote him, " smiting and wounding," i.e. so that he not only smote, but also wounded him (vid. Ewald, § 280, a). He wished to be smitten and wounded, not to disguise himself, or that he might be able to appeal loudly to the king for help to obtain his rights, as though he had suffered some wrrong (Ewald), nor merely to assume the deceptive appearance of a warrior returning from the battle (Thenius), but to show to Ahab symbolically wThat he had to expect from Benhadad whom he had released (C. a Lap., Calm., etc.). — Ver. 38. With these wounds he placed himself in the king's path, and disguised himself (V%nn\ as in 1 Sam. xxviii. 8) by a bandage over his eyes, "iss does not mean ashes (Syr., Vulg., Luth., etc.), but corresponds to the Chaldee N"£VO, head-band, reXa/xcov (LXX.). — Vers. 39, 40. When the king passed by, he cried out to him and related the following fictitious tale: He had gone to the war, and a man had come aside to him ("HD as in Ex. iii. 3, Judg. xiv. 8, etc.), and had given a man (a prisoner) into his care with this command, that he was to watch him, and if he should be missing he was to answer for his life with his own life, or to pay a talent of silver (as a punishment). The rest may be easily imagined, namely the request to be saved from this punishment. Ahab answered (ver. 40), |3 ^]t22C'p, " thus thy sentence, thou hast decided/' i.e. thou hast pronounced thine own sentence, and must endure the punishment stated. — Vers. 41, 42. Then the disciple of the prophets drew the bandage quickly from his eyes, so that the king recognised him as a prophet, and announced to him the word of the Lord: " Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man of my ban (i.e. Benhadad, who has fallen under my ban), thy life shall stand for his life, and thy people for his people," i.e. the destruction to which Benhadad was devoted will fall upon thee and thy people. The expression *D"in"BfrK (man of my ban) showed Ahab clearly enough what ought to have been done with Benhadad. A person on whom the ban was pronounced was to be put to death (Lev. xxvii. 29). — Ver 43. The king therefore went home, and returned sullen ("•?, from "no) anci morose to Samaria.
After these events Ahab was seized with such a desire for a vineyard which was situated near his palace at Jezreel, that when Naboth, the owner of the vineyard, refused to part with his paternal inheritance, he became thoroughly dejected, until his wife Jezebel paved the way for the forcible seizure of the desired possession by the shameful execution of Naboth (vers. 1-15). But when Ahab was preparing to take possession of the vineyard, Elijah came to meet him with the announcement, that both he and his wife would be visited by the Lord with a bloody death for this murder and robbery, and that his idolatry would be punished with the extermination of all his house (vers. 16-26). Ahab was so affected by this, that he humbled himself before God; whereupon the Lord told Elijah, that the threatened judgment should not burst upon his house till after Ahab's death (vers. 27-29).
Vers. 1—15. — Ahab wanted to obtain possession of the vineyard of Naboth, which was in Jezreel 0^^ refers to &"].?), near the palace of the king, either in exchange for another vineyard or for money, that he might make a vegetable garden of it. From the fact that Ahab is called the king of Samaria we may infer that Jezreel, the present Zerin (see at Josh. xix. 18), was only a summer residence of the king. — Ver. 3. Naboth refused to part with the vineyard, because it was the inheritance of his fathers, that is to say, on religious grounds (pwo ^ H^s n), hecause the sale of a paternal inheritance was forbidden in the law (Lev. xxv. 23-28; Num. xxxvi. 7 sqq.). He was therefore not merely at liberty as a personal right to refuse the king's proposal, but bound by the commandment of God. — Ver. 4. Instead of respecting this tender feeling of shrinking from the transgression of the law and desisting from his coveting, Ahab went home, i.e. to Samaria (cf. ver. 8), sullen and morose (*1}W ^D as in ch. xx. 43), lay down upon his bed, turned his face (viz. to the wall; cf. 2 Kings xx. 2) — " after the manner of sorrowful persons, who shrink from and refuse all conversation, and even the sight of others " (Seb. Schmidt) — and did not eat. This childish mode of giving expression to his displeasure at Naboth's refusal to comply with his wish, shows very clearly that Ahab was a man sold under sin (ver. 2 0), who only wanted the requisite energy to display the wickedness of his heart in vigorous action. — Vers. 5—7. When Jezebel learned the cause of Ahab's ill-humour, she said to him, " Thou, dost thou now exercise royal authority over Israel? " nriK is placed first for the sake of emphasis, and the sentence is to be taken as an ironical question, as it has been by the LXX. " I (if thou hast not courage enough to act) will procure thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite." — Vers. 8, 9. The shameless woman then wrote a letter in the name of Ahab, sealed it below with the royal seal, which probably bore the king's signature and was stamped upon the writing instead of signing the name, as is done at the present day among Arabs, Turks, and Persians (vid. Paulsen, Beg. der Morgenl. p. 295 sqq.), to give it the character of a royal command (cf. Esther viii. 13, Dan. vi. 17), and sent this letter (the ChetMb cnsDn is correct, and the Keri has arisen from a misunderstanding) to the elders and nobles of his town (i.e. the members of the magistracy, Deut. xvi. 18), who lived near Naboth, and therefore had an opportunity to watch his mode of life, and appeared to be the most suitable persons to institute the charge that was to be brought against him. The letter ran thus: " Proclaim a fast, and set JSTaboth at the head of the people, and set two worthless men opposite to him, that they may give evidence against him: Thou hast blasphemed God and king; and lead him out and stone him, that he may die." Jezebel ordered the fasting for a sign, as though some public crime or heavy load of guilt rested upon the city, for which it was necessary that it should humble itself before God (1 Sam. vii. 6). The intention was, that at the very outset the appearance of justice should be given to the legal process about to be instituted in the eyes of all the citizens, and the stamp of veracity impressed upon the crime of which Naboth was to be accused. Dyn i>;n-q... tytfn, " seat him at the head of the people," i.e. bring him to the court of justice as a defendant before all the people. The expression may be explained from the fact, that a sitting of the elders was appointed for judicial business, in which Naboth and the witnesses who were to accuse him of blasphemy took part seated. To preserve the appearance of justice, two witnesses were appointed, according to the law in Deut. xvii. 6, 7, xix. 15, Num. xxxv. 30; but worthless men, as at the trial of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 60). T}?: DTO, to bless God, i.e. to bid Him farewell, to dismiss Him, as in Job ii. 9, equivalent to blaspheming God. God and king are mentioned together, like God and prince in Ex. xxii. 27, to make it possible to accuse Naboth of transgressing this law, and to put him to death as a blasphemer of God, according to Deut. xiii. 11 and xvii. 5, where the punishment of stoning is awarded to idolatry as a practical denial of God. Blaspheming the king is not to be taken as a second crime to be added to the blasphemy of God; but blaspheming the king, as the visible representative of God, was eo ipso also blaspheming God. — Vers. 11—13. The elders of Jezreel executed this command without delay; a striking proof both of deep moral corruption and of slavish fear of the tyranny of the ruthless queen. — Vers. 14, 15. When the report of Naboth's execution was brought to her, she called upon Ahab to take possession of his vineyard (vh = vnt Deut. ii. 24). As Naboth's sons were put to death at the same time, according to 2 Kings ix. 26, the king was able to confiscate his property; not, indeed, on any rule laid down in the Mosaic law, but according to a principle involved in the very idea of high treason. Since, for example, in the case of blasphemy the property of the criminal was forfeited to the Lord as cherem (Deut. xiii. 16), the property of traitors was regarded as forfeited to the king.
Vers. 16-26. But when Ahab went down to Jezreel to take possession of the vineyard of Naboth, Elijah came to meet him by the command of God; with the word of the Lord,
" Hast thou murdered and also taken possession? " The question served to sharpen his conscience, since Ahab was obliged to admit the fact. |ito#a "»B>K means " who lives at Samaria," for when Elijah came to meet him, Ahab was in Jezreel. Elijah then said to him still further: " Thus saith the Lord: In the place where the dogs have licked the blood of Naboth, will they also lick thine, yea, thy blood." nnx D3 serves as an emphatic repetition of the suffix (cf. Ges. § 121, 3). This threat was only so far fulfilled upon Ahab, from the compassion, of God, and in consequence of his humbling himself under the divine judgment (vers. 27—29), that dogs licked his blood at Samaria when the carriage was washed in which he had died (ch. xxii. 38); but it was literally fulfilled in the case of his son Joram, whose corpse was cast into Naboth's piece of ground (2 Kings ix. 25, 26). — Ver. 20. Ahab answered, "Hast thou found me (met with me), 0 mine enemy 1 " (not, hast thou ever found me thine enemy? — Vulg., Luth.) i.e. dost thou come to meet me again, mine enemy? He calls Elijah his enemy, to take the sting from the prophet's threat as an utterance caused by personal enmity. But Elijah fearlessly replied, " I have found (thee), because thou sellest thyself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord." He then announced to him, in vers. 21, 22, the extermination of his house, and to Jezebel, as the principal sinner, the most ignominious end (ver. 2 3). inn JWj6 n3Dnn, to sell one's self to do evil, i.e. to give one's self to evil so as to have no will of one's own, to make one's self the slave of evil (cf. ver. 25, 2 Kings xvii. 17). The consequence of this is TTeTrpaaOcu viro ttjv afxaprlav (Kom. vii. 14), sin exercising unlimited power over the man who gives himself up to it as a slave. Eor vers. 21, 22, see ch. xiv. 10, 11, xv. 29, 30, xvi. 3, 12, 13. The threat concerning Jezebel (ver. 23) was literally fulfilled, according to 2 Kings ix. 3 0 sqq.?n, written defectively for 7*n, as in 2 Sam. xx. 15, is properly the open space by the town- wall, pomcerium. Instead of?nn we have P^na in the repetition of this threat in 2 Kings ix. 10, 36, 37, and consequently Thenius and others propose to alter the bn here. But there is no necessity for this, as?/$?, on the portion, i.e. the town-land, of Jezreel (not, in the field at Jezreel), is only a more general epithet denoting the locality, and?n is proved to be the original word by the LXX. — Vers. 2 5 and 2 6 contain a reflection on the part of the historian concerning Ahab's ungodly conduct, whereby he brought such an ignominious end upon himself and his house. 'W FWJ N<> PI, " only there has not been (one) like Ahab," i.e. there was no one else like Ahab, " who sold himself," etc. n^pn for 'WDn, from niD, to entice, to seduce or lead astray (cf. Ewald, § 114, a, and Ges. § 72, Anm. 6). 3yn»^ and he acted abominably. Amorites: for Canaan ites, as in Gen. xv. 16, etc.
Vers. 27-29. This terrible threat made such an impression upon Ahab, that he felt deep remorse, and for a time at least was sincerely penitent. Bending the clothes, putting on the mourning garment of hair (PP), and fasting, are frequently mentioned as external signs of humiliation before God or of deep mourning on account of sin. BK *|?n*, he walked about lightly (slowly), like one in deep trouble. This repentance was neither hypocritical, nor purely external; but it was sincere even if it was not lasting and produced no real conversion. For the Lord Himself acknowledged it to be humiliation before Him (ver. 29), and said to Elijah, that because of it He would not bring the threatened calamity upon Ahab's house in his own lifetime, but only in the days of his son. *?K for N^N, as in ver. 21.
CHAP. XXII. WAR OF AHAB AND JEHOSHAPHAT AGAINST THE SYRIANS, AND DEATH OF AHAB. REIGNS OF JEHOSHAPHAT OF JUDAH AND AHAZIAH OF ISRAEL.
AGAINST THE SYRIANS AT KAMOTH, AND DEATH OF AHAB (compare 2 Chron. xviii. 2-34). — Ver. 1. "And they rested three years; there was no war between Aram and Israel." 2®\ here is to keep quiet, to undertake nothing, as in Judg. v. 17, etc. The subject to 13^*1 is Aram and Israel mentioned in the second clause. The length of time given here points back to the end of the war described in ch. xx. — Vers. 2-4. In the third year (not necessarily " towards the end of it," as Thenius supposes, for Jehoshaphat's visit preceded the renewal of the war) Jehoshaphat visited the king of Israel, with whom he had already formed a marriage alliance by marrying his son to Ahab's daughter (2 Chron. xviii. 1; 2 Kings viii. 18). Ahab then said to his servants that the king of Syria had kept the city of Ramoth in Gilead (probably situated on the site of the present Szalt: see at
Deut. iv. 43), which he ought to have given up, according to the conditions of the peace in ch. xx. 34, and asked Jehoshaphat whether he wrould go with him to the war against Kamoth, which the latter promised to do. " I as thou, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses;" i.e. I am at thy service with the whole of my military power. In the place of the last words we have therefore in the Chronicles norroa "Wi " I am with thee in the war," i.e. I will assist thee in the war. — Vers. 5, 6. But as Jehoshaphat wished also to inquire the word of the Lord concerning the war, Ahab gathered together about 400 prophets, who all predicted as out of one mouth a prosperous result to the campaign. These 400 prophets are neither the 400 prophets of Asherah who had not appeared upon Carmel when Elijah was there (ch. xviii. 19, 20), nor prophets of Baal, as some of the earlier commentators supposed, since Ahab could not inquire of them njrp "^"nx. On the other hand, they were not " true prophets of Jehovah and disciples of the prophets " (Cler., Then.), but prophets of the Jehovah worshipped under the image of an ox, who practised prophesying as a trade without any call from God, and even if they were not in the pay of the idolatrous kings of Israel, were at any rate in their service. For Jehoshaphat did not recognise them as genuine prophets of Jehovah, but inquired whether there was not such a prophet still in existence (ver. 7), that they might inquire the will of the Lord of him (initfD). — Ver. 8. Ahab then named to him one, but one whom he hated, because he never prophesied good concerning him, but only evil,1 namely, Micah the son of Jimlah. Josephus and the Eabbins suppose him to have been the prophet, whose name is not given, who had condemned Ahab in the previous war for setting Benhadad at liberty (ch, xx. 3 5 sqq.). But there is no foundation for this, and it is mere conjecture. At any rate, Ahab had already come to know Micah as a prophet of evil, and, as is evident from ver. 26, had had him imprisoned on account of an unwelcome prophecy. Ahab's dislike to this prophet had its root in the belief, which was connected with heathen notions of prophecy and conjuring, that the prophets stood in such a relation to the Deity that the latter necessarily fulfilled their will; a belief which had arisen from the fact that the predictions of true prophets always came to pass (see at Num. xxii. 6 and 1 7). 1 Just as Agamemnon says to Calchas in 77. iv. 10G: /x.xvtj kclkuv, ov xuTiori
— Ver. 9. By Jehoshaphat's desire, Ahab nevertheless sent a chamberlain (D*"|D; see at 1 Sam. viii. 15 and Gen. xxxvii. 36) to fetch Micah (n")np, bring quickly). — Vers. 10-12. In the meantime the prophets of the calves continued to prophesy success before the two kings, who sat upon thrones " clothed in robes," i.e. in royal attire, upon a floor in front of the gate of Samaria. ]"}), a threshing-floor, i.e. a levelled place in the open air. In order to give greater effect to their announcement, one of them, named Zedekiyah the son of Cnaanah, made himself iron horns, probably iron spikes held upon the head (Thenius), and said, " With these wilt thou thrust down Aram even to destruction." This symbolical action was an embodiment of the figure used by Moses in the blessing of Joseph (Deut. xxxiii 17): "Buffalo horns are his (Joseph's) horns, with them he thrusts down nations" (yid. Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii p. 131), and was intended to transfer to Ahab in the case before them that splendid promise which applied to the tribe of Ephraim. But the pseudo-prophet overlooked the fact that the fulfilment of the whole of the blessing of Moses was dependent upon fidelity to the Lord. All the rest of the prophets adopted the same tone, saying, " Go to Kamoth, and prosper," i.e. and thou wilt prosper. (On this use of two imperatives see Ges. § 130, 2). — Vers. 13, 14. The messenger who fetched Micah tried on the way to persuade him to prophesy success to the king as the other prophets had done; but Micah replied with a solemn oath, that he would only speak what Jehovah said to hinx
Vers. 15—28. Micatis prophecy concerning the war, and his testimony against the lying prophets. — Vers. 15, 16. When Micah had come into the presence of the king, he replied to his question, " Si all we go against Kamoth? " etc., in just the same words as the pseudo-prophets, to show the king how he would speak if he were merely guided by personal considerations, as the others were. From the verbal agreement in his reply, and probably also from the tone in which he spoke, Ahab perceived that his words were ironical, and adjured him to speak only truth in the name of Jehovah. Micah then told him what he had seen in the spirit (ver. 17): "I Saw all Israel scatter itself upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd;" and then added the word of the Lord: " These have no master; let them return every one to his house in peace." That is to say, Ahab would fall in the war against Eamoth in Gilead, and bis army scatter itself without a leader upon the mountains of Gilead, and then every one would return home, without being pursued and slain by the enemy. Whilst Zedekiyah attempted to give greater emphasis to his prophecy by symbolically transferring to Ahab's enterprise the success predicted by Moses, Micah, on the other hand, showed to the king out of the law what would really take place in the intended war, namely, that very state of things which Moses before his departure sought to avert from Israel, by the prayer that the Lord would set a man over the congregation to lead them out and in, that the congregation might not become as sheep that have no shepherd (Num. xxvii. 16, 17). — Ver. 18. But although Ahab had asked for a true word of the Lord, yet he endeavoured to attribute the unfavourable prophecy to Micah' s personal enmity, saying to Jehoshaphat, " Did I not tell thee that he prophesies nothing good concerning me, but only evil (misfortune)? " — Vers. 1 9 sqq. Micah was not led astray, however, by this, but disclosed to him by a further revelation the hidden ground of the false prophecy of his 400 prophets. '131 Vp^ \At "therefore, sc. because thou thinkest so, hear the word of Jehovah: I saw the Lord sit upon His throne, and all the army of heaven stand around Him ("l£*y lyjJ as in Gen. xviii. 8, etc.) on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, Who will persuade Ahab to go up and fall at Kamoth in Gilead? and one spake so, the other so; and the spirit came forth (from the ranks of the rest), stood before Jehovah, and said, I will persuade him... I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He (Jehovah) said, Persuade, and thou wilt also be able; go forth and do so. And now Jehovah has put a lying spirit into the mouth of all his prophets; but Jehovah (Himself) has spoken evil (through me) concerning thee." The vision described by Micah was not merely a subjective drapery introduced by the prophet, but a simple communication of the real inward vision by which the fact had been revealed to him, that the prophecy of those 400 prophets was inspired by a lying spirit. The spirit (0*1$) which inspired these prophets as a lying spirit is neither Satan, nor any evil spirit whatever, but, as the definite article and the whole of the context show, the personified spirit of prophecy, which is only so far a Trvevfia afcdOaprov T77? TrXdvrjs (Zech. xiii. 2; 1 John iv. 6) and under the influence of Satan as it works as "15? 5*1 in accordance with the will of God. For even the predictions of the false prophets, as we may see from the passage before us, and also from Zech. xiii. 2 and the scriptural teaching in other passages concerning the spiritual principle of evil, were not mere inventions of human reason and fancy; but the false prophets as well as the true were governed by a supernatural spiritual principle, and, according to divine appointment, were under the influence of the evil spirit in the service of falsehood, just as the true prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit in the service of the Lord. The manner in which the supernatural influence of the lying spirit upon the false prophets is brought out in Micah's vision is, that the spirit of prophecy (nsiajn nn) offers itself to deceive Ahab as "^ rvn in the false prophets. Jehovah sends this spirit, inasmuch as the deception of Ahab has been inflicted upon him as a judgment of God for his unbelief. But there is no statement here to the effect that this lying spirit proceeded from Satan, because the object of the prophet was simply to bring out the working of God in the deception practised upon Ahab by his prophets. — The words of Jehovah, " Persuade Ahab, thou wilt be able," and " Jehovah has put a lying spirit," etc., are not to be understood as merely expressing the permission of God, as the fathers and the earlier theologians suppose. According to the Scriptures, God does work evil, but without therefore willing it and bringing forth sin. The prophet's view is founded upon this thought: Jehovah has ordained that Ahab, being led astray by a prediction of his prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, shall enter upon the war, that he may find therein the punishment of his ungodliness. As he would not listen to the word of the Lord in the mouth of His true servants, God had given him up {irapehcDKev, Eom. i. 24, 26, 28) in his unbelief to the working of the spirits of lying. But that this did not destroy the freedom of the human will is evident from the expression nfi£fi, " thou canst persuade him," and still more clearly from *>3Vi 01, "thou wilt also be able," since they both presuppose the possibility of resistance to temptation on the part of man.
Zedekiah was so enraged at this unveiling of the spirit of lying by which the pseudo-prophets were impelled, that he smote Micah upon the cheek, and said (ver. 24): "Where did the Spirit of Jehovah depart from me, to speak to thee?" To npw the Chronicles add as an explanation, TJjn: " by what way had he gone from me V (cf. 2 Kings iii. 8, and Ewald, § 326, a.) Zedekiah was conscious that he had not invented his prophecy himself, and therefore it was that he rose up with such audacity against Micah; but he only proved that it was not the Spirit of God which inspired him. If he had been inspired by the Spirit of the Lord, he would not have thought it necessary to try and give effect to his words by rude force, but he would have left the defence of his cause quietly to the Lord, as Micah did, who calmly replied to the zealot thus (ver. 25): " Thou wilt see it (that the Spirit of Jehovah had departed from thee) on the day when thou shalt go from chamber to chamber to hide thyself" (n?nn for K3ljt}, see Ges. § 75, Anm. 21). This was probably fulfilled at the close of the war, when Jezebel or the friends of Ahab made the pseudo-prophets suffer for the calamitous result; although there is nothing said about this in our history, which confines itself to the main facts. — Vers. 26, 27. But Ahab had Micah taken back to Amon the commander of the city, and to Joash the king's son, with the command to put him in prison and to feed him with bread and water of affliction, till he came safe back (DW3) from the war. From the expression VUHWT, " lead him back," it evidently follows that Micah had been fetched from the commander of the city, who had no doubt kept him in custody, as the city-prison was probably in his house. The opposite cannot be inferred from the words " put him into the prison;" for this command, when taken in connection with what follows, simply enjoins a more severe imprisonment. — Ver. 28. In his consciousness of the divine truth of his announcement, Micah left the king with these words: " If thou come back safe, Jehovah has not spoken by me. Hear it, all ye nations." &®¥ does not mean people, for it is only in the antique language of the Pentateuch that the word has this meaning, but nations; and Micah thereby invokes not only the persons present as witnesses of the truth of his words, but the nations generally, Israel and the surrounding nations, who were to discern the truth of his word from the events which would follow (see at Mic. i. 2).
Vers. 29—40. The issue of the war, and death of Ahab. — Ver. 29. Ahab, disregarding Micah's prophecy, went on with the expedition, and was even joined by Jehoshaphat, of whom we should have thought that, after what had occurred, he at any rate would have drawn back. He was probably deterred by false shame, however, from retracting the unconditional promise of help which he had given to Ahab, merely in consequence of a prophetic utterance, which Ahab had brought against his own person from Micah's subjective dislike. But Jehoshaphat narrowly escaped paying the penalty for it with his life (ver. 32), and on his fortunate return to Jerusalem had to listen to a severe reproof from the prophet Jehu in consequence (2 Chron, xix. 2). — Vers. 30, 31. And even Ahab could not throw off a certain fear of the fulfilment of Micah's prophecy. He therefore resolved to £0 to the battle in disguise, that he might not be recognised by the enemy. tf3J i-M3r]nn ("disguise myself and go into the battle," i.e. I will go into the battle in disguise): an infin. absoi, — a broken but strong form of expression, which is frequently used for the imperative, but very rarely for the first person of the voluntative (cf. Ewald, § 328, c), and which is probably employed here to express the anxiety that impelled Ahab to take so much trouble to ensure his own safety. (Luther has missed the meaning in his version; in the Chronicles, on the contrary, it is correctly given.) Bto? nriW, " but do thou put on thy clothes." These words are not to be taken as a command, but simply in this sense: " thou mayest (canst) put on thy (royal) dress, since there is no necessity for thee to take any such precautions as I have to take." There is no ground for detecting any cunning, vafrities, on the part of Ahab in these words, as some of the older commentators have done, as though he wished thereby to divert the predicted evil from himself to Jehoshaphat. But we may see very clearly that Ahab had good reason to be anxious about his life, from the command of the Syrian king to the captains of his war-chariots (ver. 31) to fight chiefly against the king of Israel. We cannot infer from this, however, that Ahab was aware of the command. The measure adopted by him may be sufficiently accounted for from his fear of the fulfilment of Micah's evil prophecy, to which there may possibly have been added some personal offence that had been given on his part to the Syrian king in connection with the negotiations concerning the surrender of Eamoth, which had no doubt preceded the war. The thirty-two commanders of the war-chariots and cavalry are, no doubt, the commanders who had taken the place of the thirtytwo kings (ch. xxi. 24). " Fight not against small and great, but against the king of Israel only," i.e. endeavour above all others to fight against the king of Israel and to slay him. — Vers. 32, 33. And when the leaders of the war-chariots saw Jehoshaphat in the battle in his royal clothes, they took him for the king of Israel (Ahab), and pressed upon him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out; and from this they perceived that he was not the king of Israel, and turned away from him. nem 'Ui T]x viox, " and they thought, it is only {i.e. no other than) the king of Israel." ivy npj, " they bent upon him." Instead of this we have in the Chronicles V?y *3bj, " they surrounded him," and Thenius proposes to alter our text to this; but there is no necessity for doing so, as tid also occurs in a similar sense and connection in ch. xx. 39. How far Jehoshaphat was saved by his crying out, is not precisely stated. He probably cried out to his followers to come to his aid, from which the Syrians discovered that he was not the king of Israel, whom they were in search of. The chronicler adds (ch. ii. 18, 31): "and the Lord helped him and turned them off from him;" thus believingly tracing the rescue of the king to its higher causality, though without our having any right to infer from this that Jehoshaphat cried aloud to God for help, which is not implied in the words of the Chronicles. — Yer. 34. But notwithstanding the precaution he had taken, Ahab did not escape the judgment of God. " A man drew his bow in his simplicity " (ton? as in 2 Sam. xv. 11), i.e. without trying to hit any particular man, " and shot the king of Israel between the skirts and the coat of mail." B'Pf7! are " joints by which the iron thorax was attached to the hanging skirt, which covered the abdomen " (Cler.). The true coat of mail covered only the breast, to somewhere about the last rib; and below this it had an appendage (skirts) consisting of moveable joints. Between this appendage and the true coat of mail there was a groove through which the arrow passed, and, entering the abdomen, inflicted upon the king a mortal wound; so that he said to his charioteer: ^bn T"^, verte manus tuas, i.e. turn round (cf. 2 Kings ix. 23). The Chcthib VJ (plural) is the only correct reading, since the driver held the reins in both his hands. Wpnn *3: for I am wounded.
— Ver. 35. "And the conflict ascended," i.e. became more violent. The use of the verb *VV in this sense may be accounted for on the supposition that it is founded upon the figure of a rising stream, which becomes more and more impetuous the higher it rises {vid. Isa. viii. 7). " And the king was stationed {i.e. remained or kept himself in an upright posture) upon the chariot before the Syrians," that he might not dishearten his soldiers, " and died in the evening, and poured the blood of the wounds in the middle hollow (P*p) of the chariot." — Ver. 36. Towards sunset the cry went through the army (runBR, the army drawn up in battle array), " Every one into his city and into his land!" — In ver. 37 the historian shows how the word of the Lord was fulfilled in the case of Ahab. " Thus the king died and came to Samaria: " equivalent to, thus the king reached Samaria dead; and he was buried there. — Ver. 38. When they washed the chariot at the pool of Samaria, the dogs licked his blood, while the harlots were bathing (in the pool), wrn nfajrn is a circumstantial clause, and PCn means to bathe, as in Ex. ii. 5. This explanation, which is sustained by the grammar and is the only tenable one, disposes of the several arbitrary interpretations of these words, together with the emendations of the text of which Thenius is so fond. In this way was the word of the Lord through Elijah (ch. xxi. 19) and the unknown prophet (ch. xx. 42) fulfilled; also the prediction of Micah (ver. 17). Ahab had paid the penalty with his own life for sparing the life of Benhadad (ch. xx. 42), and his blood was licked up by the dogs (ch. xxi. 19). The fact that the dogs licked up the blood and the harlots were bathing in the pool, when the chariot that was stained with the blood of Ahab was being washed, is mentioned as a sign of the ignominious contempt which was heaped upon him at his death. — Vers. 39, 40. Close of Ahab's history. We have no further account of his buildings. " The ivory palace," i.e. the palace inlaid with ivory, he had probably built in his capital Samaria (cf. Amos iii. 15).
Vers. 41-50. Reign of Jehoshaphat of Judah. — The account of this in the books before us is a very condensed one. Beside the two campaigns in which he joined with Ahab and Joram of Israel against the Syrians and Moabites, and which are described in the history of the kingdom of Israel (ch. xxii. 1-35 and 2 Kings iii.), we have simply a short notice of his attempt to restore the trade with Ophir, and a general statement of the spirit of his reign; whereas we learn from the extract preserved in the Chronicles from the annals of the kings, that he also carried on a victorious war against the Edomites and Ammonites (2 Chron. xx.), and did a great deal to promote the spread of the knowledge of the law among his people, and to carry out the restoration of a better administration of justice, and to improve the condition of the army (2 Chron. xvii. and xix.}. — Vers. 41—44, which give the age of Jehoshaphat when he ascended the throne, and the duration and character of his reign, are also found with slight deviations in 2 Chron. xx. 31-33, in the closing summary of the history of his reign. — Ver. 43. " He walked entirely in the way of his father Asa and departed not from it, to do what was well-pleasing to the Lord," whereas Asa's heart had become more estranged from the Lord in the last years of his reign (see ch. xv. 18 sqq.). — On the worship of the high places (ver. 43), see at ch. xv. 14. — Ver. 44. He maintained peace with the king of Israel, i.e. with every one of the Israelitish kings who were contemporaneous with him, viz. Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram, whereas hitherto the two kingdoms had assumed an attitude of hostility towards each other. Even if this friendly bearing towards Israel was laudable in itself, Jehoshanhat went beyond the bounds of what was allowable, since he formed a marriage alliance with the house of Ahab, by letting his son Joram marry a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 Chron. xviii. 1). — Ver. 45. The brave deeds (rrviznn) which he performed include both his efforts to strengthen his kingdom, partly by raising fortifications and organizing the military force, and partly by instructing the people in the law and improving the administration of justice (2 Chron. xvii. 7-19 and xix. 4-11), and also the wars which he waged, viz. the expeditions already mentioned. — For ver. 46 see ch. xv. 12. — Ver. 47. "There was (then) no (real) king in Edom; a vicegerent was king," i.e. governed the country. This remark is introduced here merely on account of what follows, namely, to show how it was that Jehoshaphat was able to attempt to restore the maritime trade with Ophir. If we observe this connection between the verse before us and what follows, we cannot infer from it, as Ewald does (Gesch. iii. pp. 464 and 474 sqq.), that the Edomites with Egyptian help had forced from Eehoboam both their liberty and also their right to have a king of their own blood, and had remained in this situation till Jehoshaphat completely subjugated them again. (See the remarks on ch. xi. 21, 22.) All that can be gathered from 2 Chron. xx. is, that the Edomites, in league with the Ammonites and other desert tribes, made an incursion into Judah, and therefore tried to throw off the supremacy of Judah, but did not succeed in their attempt. — Vers. 48, 49. The brief notice concerning Jehoshaphat's attempt to build Tarshish ships (for the word, see p. 150) for the voyage to Ophir is expanded in 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37, where we learn that Jehoshaphat had allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel for this purpose, and that the prophet Eliezer predicted the destruction of his ships on account of this alliance. When the ships had been broken in pieces in Eziongeber, no doubt by a storm, Ahaziah made this fresh proposal to him: " Let my people sail with thy people;" but Jehoshaphat would not. Ahaziah evidently wanted to persuade Jehoshaphat to make another attempt, after the destruction of the ships which were first built; but Jehoshaphat did not agree to it any more, because it was impossible for him, after the fulfilment of Eliezer's prediction, to expect a more favourable result. Thus the two accounts can be harmonized in a very simple manner, with the exception of the words " to go to Tarshish," which we find in the Chronicles in the place of " to go to Ophir," the reading in our text, and which sprang from an erroneous interpretation of the expression "ships of Tarshish" (see above, p. 150). The Chcthib "OT is an error of the pen for n'wy (Kcri); but ^y^} (Chethib) is not to be altered into *"I21K0, since the construction of a singular verb with the subject following in the plural is by no means rare (vid. Ewald, § 317, a). On Eziongeber and Ophir, see at ch. ix. 26 and 28.
Vers. 51-53. Eeign of Ahaziah of Israel. — Ver. 51. For the datum " in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat," see at 2 Kings i. 17. — Vers. 52, 53. Ahaziah walked in the way of his father and his mother, who had introduced the worship of Baal into the kingdom, and in the way of Jeroboam, who had set up the calves (cf. ch. xvi. 30—33). — In ver. 53 it is again expressly added, that he adored and worshipped Baal, as in ch. xvi. 31. — With this general description of his character not only is the chapter brought to a close, but the first book of Kings also, — very unsuitably, however, since the further account of Ahaziah's reign and of his death is given in ch. i. of the following book. It would have been incomparably more suitable to commence a fresh chapter with ver. 52, and indeed to commence the second book there also.