Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 20

Ben-hadad. —This is the inherited title of the Syrian kings. (Jeremiah 49:27.) From the allusion in 1 Kings 20:34, it appears that this Ben-hadad was the son of a king who had been victorious against Omri—possibly pushing still further the advantage gained in the time of Baasha. It is evident that he assumed, perhaps by inheritance, a sovereignty over Israel.

Thirty and two kings. —All the accounts of Syria show it as divided into small kingdoms, confederated from time to time under some leading power. In the days of David, this leading power was that of Hadadezer of Zobah (2 Samuel 8:3–13; 2 Samuel 10:19), although Hamath was apparently independent. Now Damascus, under the dynasty of Hadad, assumes a most formidable predominance. Ahab cannot stand before it, but shuts himself up, probably after defeat, within the strong walls of Samaria.

1 Kings 20:2–4 And he sent. —This message and the answer of Ahab (My lord, O king) are the assertion and acceptance of Syrian sovereignty over Israel: all the possessions and the family of the vassal are acknowledged to be the property of his superior lord. Ahab surrenders, but not at discretion. Ben-hadad refuses all qualified submission.

Whatsoever is pleasant. —The demand, which is virtually for the plunder of Samaria, probably neither expects nor desires acceptance, and is therefore a refusal of all but unconditional surrender. It is notable that in the last extremity Ahab falls back on an exceptional appeal to the patriotism of the people.

The `elders of the land` (evidently present in Samaria at this time) were the representatives in the northern kingdom of the ancient assembly of the `elders of Israel,` existing from the time of Moses onward as a senate, having power not only of advice, but of concurrence, in relation to the Judge or King (Exodus 12:21; Exodus 24:1; Deuteronomy 27:1; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 7:6; 2 Samuel 5:3; 1 Kings 8:3).

The solemn appointment of the seventy in Numbers 11:24-25 seems to be simply the reconstitution and consecration of the original body. Each tribe and each town also had its lesser body of elders (See 1 Samuel 30:26, `the elders of Judah`; Deuteronomy 19:12; Deuteronomy 21:3, and other such references to `the elders of the city`). The authority of all these assemblies must have been at all times largely overridden by the royal power (see 1 Kings 21:11), and must have varied according to time and circumstance.

The dust of Samaria —when razed to the ground. The phrase probably implies a threat of destruction, as well as a boast of overwhelming strength. Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 8.14.2) has a curious explanation—that, if each of the Syrians took only a handful of dust, they could raise a mound against the city, higher than the walls of Samaria.

The historian, with a touch of patriotic scorn, paints Ben-hadad as a luxurious and insolent braggart. He receives the message at a feast, “drinking himself drunk,” and, stung by its tone of sarcasm, does not condescend to exert himself, but orders his servants to an instant attack. The command is given, with a haughty brevity, in a single word (“Set”), which may be “Array troops,” or “Place engines,” as in the margin. The Septuagint translates, “Build a stockade” (for attack on the walls).

There came a prophet. —The appearance of this unknown prophet evidently shows (see also 1 Kings 22:6–7) that Ahab’s enmity toward the prophetic order had ended after the great day at Carmel, and that the schools of the prophets were forming again—perhaps not free from connection with the idolatry of Jeroboam, but safe from all attacks by the worshippers of Baal.

It is notable that Elijah does not appear in any of these political functions of prophecy, reserving himself for the higher moral and religious mission from God.

Ahab receives the prophet’s message with perfect confidence and reverence; he has, by outward profession, returned to his allegiance to Jehovah, an allegiance which he had, perhaps, never wholly relinquished.

Who shall order the battle? —The marginal reading seems right, “Who shall give battle?,” “Who shall begin the fray?”