1 Kings 20: 1-21 The Conflict with King-Hadad of Aram Begins
1 King Ben-hadad of Aram gathered all his army together; thirty-two kings were with him, along with
horses and chariots. He marched against Samaria, laid siege to it, and attacked it. 2 Then he sent messengers into the city to King Ahab of Israel, and said to him: “Thus says Ben-hadad: 3 Your silver and gold are mine; your fairest wives and children also are mine.” 4 The king of Israel answered, “As you say, my lord, O king, I am yours, and all that I have.” 5 The messengers came again and said: “Thus says Ben-hadad: I sent to you, saying, ‘Deliver to me your silver and gold, your wives and children’; 6 nevertheless I will send my servants to you tomorrow about this time, and they shall search your house and the houses of your servants, and lay hands on whatever pleases them, and take it away.”
7 Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, “Look now! See how this man is seeking trouble; for he sent to me for my wives, my children, my silver, and my gold; and I did not refuse him.” 8 Then all the elders and all the people said to him, “Do not listen or consent.” 9 So he said to the messengers of Ben-hadad, “Tell my lord the king: All that you first demanded of your servant I will do; but this thing I cannot do.” The messengers left and brought him word again. 10 Ben-hadad sent to him and said, “The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria will provide a handful for each of the people who follow me.” 11 The king of Israel answered, “Tell him: One who puts on armor should not brag like one who takes it off.” 12 When Ben-hadad heard this message — now he had been drinking with the kings in the booths — he said to his men, “Take your positions!” And they took their positions against the city.
13 Then a certain prophet came up to King Ahab of Israel and said, “Thus says the LORD, Have you seen all this great multitude? Look, I will give it into your hand today; and you shall know that I am the LORD.” 14 Ahab said, “By whom?” He said, “Thus says the LORD, By the young men who serve the district governors.” Then he said, “Who shall begin the battle?” He answered, “You.” 15 Then he mustered the young men who serve the district governors, two hundred thirty-two; after them he mustered all the people of Israel, seven thousand.
16 They went out at noon, while Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the booths, he and the thirty-two kings allied with him. 17 The young men who serve the district governors went out first. Ben-hadad had sent out scouts, and they reported to him, “Men have come out from Samaria.” 18 He said, “If they have come out for peace, take them alive; if they have come out for war, take them alive.”
19 But these had already come out of the city: the young men who serve the district governors, and the army that followed them. 20 Each killed his man; the Arameans fled and Israel pursued them, but King Ben-hadad of Aram escaped on a horse with the cavalry. 21 The king of Israel went out, attacked the horses and chariots, and defeated the Arameans with a great slaughter.
This story of conflict between King Ben-hadad of Aram and King Ahab of Israel has puzzled many readers of 1 Kings. Several historical scholars have argued that this conflict between Aram and Israel may actually have occurred during the reign of King Jehohaz (2 Kings 13: 1-9) at least thirty-five years later when Ben-hadad continues his father King Hazael’s work of oppressing Israel. It is possible that a later story was brought forward to make a point about King Ahab, but it is also plausible that a Ben-hadad attempted to oppress Israel at different times (names were often repeated in families).[1] Perhaps even more perplexing than the historical question is the vastly different allegiances of King Ahab from the previous chapters where he was in conflict with Elijah. Baal and the prophets of Baal are absent, a lone prophet of God becomes a central advisor, and the king is well acquainted enough with the prophets of the LORD to recognize a member of the ‘sons of the prophets’ when they speak to him later. (Israel, 2013, p. 273) Also missing in action are Elijah and Elisha. The ‘sons of the prophets’ will feature heavily in the Elisha stories, and it is possible that Elijah is preparing Elisha to assume the mantle of his work. Yet, as a foreign oppressor comes and the LORD promises to demonstrate God’s power by handing over a vastly superior force into the hands of Ahab these key prophets are absent.
Despite all the perplexing elements for the narrative the central theological point is clear: the fate and security of Israel rests in the LORD’s hands and not in the hands of the king or his limited military. King Ahab is not going to deliver Samaria by his military might, his political acumen, or his leadership through the conflict. The victory is a demonstration of the sovereignty of the LORD the God of Israel and the proper response is obedience. Ahab will ultimately fail, like many previous leaders, in this final test of obedience and will trust in his own ability to negotiate a favorable peace rather than trusting in the LORD who provided the victory. In the eyes of 1 Kings this is a critical theological error.
King Ben-hadad of the Arameans gathers a large coalition of leaders and sends a large force of chariots and horsemen which besiege Samaria. His initial demand is received as a demand that King Ahab become a vassal king of this large well-equipped coalition,[2] paying tribute and surrendering captives to ensure his loyalty. King Ahab initially consents to this proposal seeing it as a way to avoid a larger conflict and his initial response declares his willingness to subjugate himself to King Ben-hadad, yet the second demand is a more arduous invasion of King Ahab’s sovereignty and the kingdom. Ben-hadad’s promise to send his servants to take whatever pleases them is viewed as a provocation because it strips Ahab of his power to protect the people and his household. Ahab and the elders refuse to consent and in the initial war of words Ben-hadad taunts that he will reduce Samaria to destruction so completely that his followers will not be able to gather a handful of dust from their remains. Ahab replies with a taunt that one who is just preparing to fight should not boast like a victor taking off his armor. The negotiations are over, King Ahab has failed to avoid conflict with a superior coalition and the siege begins in earnest as the Aramean forces take positions around Samaria.
An unnamed prophet enters the narrative. Unlike previous times when the prophets of the LORD were hunted by Jezebel and those loyal to her, now a prophet has access to the king. The prophet declares that the upcoming victory is another demonstration to Ahab of the power of the LORD. This improbably victory is not due to the skill of the vastly outnumbered forces that Ahab can command, but instead is a way for Ahab and the people to know ‘that I am the LORD.’ Knowing that the God of Israel is the LORD is to acknowledge the sovereignty of the LORD the God of Israel also means obedience to the LORD’s expectations. The prophet does not invoke that this falls under the rules of a ‘holy war’[3] but instead answers the king’s questions about how to initiate the battle and how the king is to lead. The identity of the two hundred thirty-two men who serve the district governors[4] is not clear from the context and has been a source of debate. It is unlikely that they are ‘professional soldiers’ as we think of people who are a part of a standing military, and they may be the personal protectors or enforcers for the regional leaders. Regardless of their identity they will be the first ones sent out, followed by the seven thousand Israelites that will engage the Arameans. The number seven thousand intentionally links the reader to the seven thousand who have not bent their knee to Baal who are the faithful remnant that the LORD identifies to Elijah. (1 Kings 19:18)
When the initial representatives of Israel emerge from the city an already drunk King Ben-hadad gives the order to capture them alive whether they are seeking peace or conflict. In the early stage of a siege the expectation is that there is not much that the leaders need to supervise so the drunken kings may not be as surprising as it would be for a modern leader to be drunk on the battlefield. From a military perspective the Israelites have the element of surprise, and the momentum of the battle quickly springs in their favor as they encounter an opponent who focused on a later clash rather than the emergence of an immediate threat. The leaders of the Aramean coalition are inhibited from leading their forces by their heavy drinking and Ahab’s forces take advantage of this surprised force. Yet, 1 Kings writes from a theological perspective and from that perspective the entire strategy, execution and victory is the work of the LORD and a demonstration of the LORD’s power over a superior military force.
1 Kings 20: 22-30a The Defeat of King-Hadad
22 Then the prophet approached the king of Israel and said to him, “Come, strengthen yourself, and consider well what you have to do; for in the spring the king of Aram will come up against you.”
23 The servants of the king of Aram said to him, “Their gods are gods of the hills, and so they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. 24 Also do this: remove the kings, each from his post, and put commanders in place of them; 25 and muster an army like the army that you have lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot; then we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.” He heeded their voice, and did so.
26 In the spring Ben-hadad mustered the Arameans and went up to Aphek to fight against Israel. 27 After the Israelites had been mustered and provisioned, they went out to engage them; the people of Israel encamped opposite them like two little flocks of goats, while the Arameans filled the country. 28 A man of God approached and said to the king of Israel, “Thus says the LORD: Because the Arameans have said, ‘The LORD is a god of the hills but he is not a god of the valleys,’ therefore I will give all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.” 29 They encamped opposite one another seven days. Then on the seventh day the battle began; the Israelites killed one hundred thousand Aramean foot soldiers in one day. 30 The rest fled into the city of Aphek; and the wall fell on twenty-seven thousand men that were left.
The surprising victory at Samaria buys some time for King Ahab, but the survival of King Ben-hadad means that in the spring the Arameans will return to continue the fight. Again, the unnamed prophet is the central advisor in the story giving King Ahab advice which follows. Yet, on the opposite side of the conflict Ben-hadad’s advisor also gave him advice to prepare for the next battle. Both sets of advisors are coming from different theological perspectives as they provide military guidance for their respective leaders.
The advisors of Ben-hadad follow pretty conventional military advice for the technology of the day couched in a theological proposition about the God of Israel. There is a distinct advantage for a military force which depended on chariots as a key maneuver element to fight on level ground. Military planners often look for ground that will enhance their technological advantage or reduce their disadvantages. The Arameans will be the ones who choose the next battlefield, and they choose Aphek. There are multiple places in the region named Aphek, but this is most likely the Transjordan site near the modern day Golan Heights.[5] (Cogan, 2001, p. 466) Yet, the theological rationale for encouraging King Ben-hadad to make these decisions is that they believe the gods of Israel is are ‘gods of the hills’ whose ability to influence the fight will be negated by moving the location of the conflict.[6]
A second man of God comes to the king of Israel with a promise that the LORD will deliver this force into the hands of Israel both to demonstrate to the Arameans the error in their thinking and to demonstrate once again to Ahab that ‘I am the LORD.’ Even though the Arameans fill the country, and the Israelites look like two little flocks of goats, Israel is not reliant upon its military might but the LORD’s deliverance. The seven days wait before the conflict echoes the six days of marching and the fall of Jericho on the seventh day.[7] Like Jericho the defeat for the Arameans is massive. The number of one hundred twenty-seven thousand dead seems impossibly large, but the theological effect is that this massive army is removed by God’s action on the battlefield and at the wall of Aphek. Although the battle is never declared a ‘holy war’ the parallels with Jericho begin to give the battle that feel which will prove crucial in Ahab’s decision in the aftermath of the LORD’s triumph.
1 Kings 20: 30b-43 King Ahab’s Political Choice and Theological Blunder
Ben-hadad also fled, and entered the city to hide. 31 His servants said to him, “Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings; let us put sackcloth around our waists and ropes on our heads, and go out to the king of Israel; perhaps he will spare your life.” 32 So they tied sackcloth around their waists, put ropes on their heads, went to the king of Israel, and said, “Your servant Ben-hadad says, ‘Please let me live.'” And he said, “Is he still alive? He is my brother.” 33 Now the men were watching for an omen; they quickly took it up from him and said, “Yes, Ben-hadad is your brother.” Then he said, “Go and bring him.” So Ben-hadad came out to him; and he had him come up into the chariot. 34 Ben-hadad said to him, “I will restore the towns that my father took from your father; and you may establish bazaars for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria.” The king of Israel responded, “I will let you go on those terms.” So he made a treaty with him and let him go.
35 At the command of the LORD a certain member of a company of prophets said to another, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike him. 36 Then he said to him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, as soon as you have left me, a lion will kill you.” And when he had left him, a lion met him and killed him. 37 Then he found another man and said, “Strike me!” So the man hit him, striking and wounding him. 38 Then the prophet departed, and waited for the king along the road, disguising himself with a bandage over his eyes. 39 As the king passed by, he cried to the king and said, “Your servant went out into the thick of the battle; then a soldier turned and brought a man to me, and said, ‘Guard this man; if he is missing, your life shall be given for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver.’ 40 While your servant was busy here and there, he was gone.” The king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it.” 41 Then he quickly took the bandage away from his eyes. The king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets. 42 Then he said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Because you have let the man go whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his people.'” 43 The king of Israel set out toward home, resentful and sullen, and came to Samaria.
Throughout the conflict agents of the LORD the God of Israel have informed King Ahab that by these victories that Ahab will know that “I am the LORD.” These surprising military events should demonstrate to Ahab that God is the only refuge and support that the king needs. Yet, when presented with an opportunity to negotiate the reclamation of territory and trading rights for Israel, Ahab chooses to rely upon his skills in making a treaty. Ahab makes a political choice and a theological blunder. In the end Ahab trusts in crafting a commonsense deal rather than a zealous adherence to trusting in God and the results are disastrous for his household and Israel.
Ben-hadad’s servants convince their king to allow them to attempt to negotiate for his life. When they declare that the kings of Israel are ‘merciful’ kings they reference a central theological word often related to God: The Hebrew word hesed. Hesed is a rich word which can be rendered covenant faithfulness, grace, or mercy. It is God’s hesed that Israel relies upon. Now Ahab is to be manipulated by this property of hesed. The servants come out in sackcloth and with ropes on their heads to indicate their subservience to the Israelites. This has echoes of the way the Gibeonites trick the Israelites into sparing them in Joshua 9. These servants who may have been the same ones that would have been sent to plunder the house of Ahab, now come to make a humble appeal for the life of their king. Even though Ahab was previously treated with disdain by Ben-hadad, he extends the courtesy of calling him ‘brother’ and this allows Ben-hadad and Aram to negotiate terms of peace. With territory restored and trading rights promised King Ahab makes the political choice to allow his enemy to live. Peace between Aram and Israel will only last for three years.
King Ahab may have several political reasons to negotiate with the king of Aram. The return of land and the ability to expand trade with a neighbor are powerful incentives on their own. Ahab is also aware of the emergence of the Assyrians which will pose a threat to both Israel and Aram and may be looking for a military alliance with Aram to bolster the nations security. (Israel, 2013, p. 282) There is also the possibility that ‘class solidarity’ may play a part in Ahab’s considerations. (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 250) It may be fine for thousands of soldiers to be slaughtered but kings may be seen as ‘brothers.’ Ahab and Ben-hadad make a covenant[8] and the battle has ended.
Yet, the messengers of the LORD have to relay God’s displeasure at Ahab’s covenant which spares the life of Ben-hadad. We see the ‘sons of the prophets’ (NRSV company of prophets) appear for the first time. The sons of the prophets will feature heavily in the Elisha cycle, but now we encounter an unnamed prophet who declares to another to strike him. The failure of the first man to strike this prophet results in his death in a similar manner to the prophet who disobeyed in 1 Kings 13:24. Once the second man strikes the prophet and wounds him he departs to wait for the king. He is disguised with a bandage over his eyes because he is apparently known by sight to the king and portrays himself as a wounded soldier from the battle.
The prophet tells the king a ‘juridical parable’ where the offender is caught in the trap thinking the narrative is about someone else and then finding it refers to them. The most famous example of this type of parable is when the prophet Nathan confronts King David after sleeping with Bathsheba and ordering Uriah’s death.[9] Here the disguised prophet portrays himself as responsible for a man’s life and allows him to disappear in the chaos of the battlefield. Aram allows the words of the narrative to condemn the prophet only to find himself the one who has release one he was responsible for. King Ben-hadad was to be ‘devoted to destruction’ which translates the Hebrew herem. Herem is the practice of war referred to for the people that the Israelites were to eliminate in Deuteronomy 20: 16-18 (see also Deuteronomy 7: 1-5, 25-26). The story bears striking similarities to King Saul sparing King Agag of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15) which results in the LORD’s rejection of Saul-although in the battle with the Amalekites the prophet Samuel invokes this concept of herem where they are to be completely committed to destruction. Only at the end of the narrative do we hear that the King of Aram was ‘devoted to destruction’ but like Saul, Ahab’s life and lineage are now marked.
This is a difficult passage to wrestle with. The theological blunder of Ahab is clear: he trusted in his own ability to bring about a better settlement for Israel even in the demonstration of the LORD’s might. The LORD wanted Ahab to acknowledge his power, authority, and protection and to respond with obedience and trust. Even if the number of deaths here are significantly inflated, one of the difficult challenges for any reader of scripture is reconciling the God of hesed with the God who calls for herem. How does one balance mercy with obedience, political realism with faithfulness. These are not easy questions. I’ve wrestled with Violence and the Bible in other places in these reflections. But the overarching message that I believe the narrator of 1 Kings wants us to understand is that we are to orient our trust to be in the LORD and the LORD’s provision and protection and not in our own ability to negotiate.
[1] The prefix ‘Ben’ in names means ‘Son of’. Ben-hadad is literally the son of Hadad, likewise the common name Benjamin means ‘son of my right hand.’
[2] Chariots and horses were still viewed as the central military advantage in warfare of this time period.
[3] Hebrew herem, see the discussion of below on 20: 30b-43.
[4] Hebrew naari sarei hamedinot. This term not used at other times to help provide contextual clues for these ‘young men.’
[5] The Golan Heights is still a contentious piece of land that both Israel and Syria claim. Israel captured most of this territory in 1967 and annexed it in 1981. Syria still claims that the land is theirs.
[6] Judges also makes note of the Israelites being unable to clear the Canaanites and Philistines from the planes because of their iron chariots. (Judges 1:19) See also Joshua 17:16-18.
[7] Joshua 6
[8] Hebrew b’rith another key theological concept in the Hebrew Scriptures often linked with hesed.
[9] 2 Samuel 12, see also 2 Samuel 14 for another example when the woman of Tekoa confronts King David.