1Ki 20 | TNotes | STEP | 20:1 Whether this is Ben-hadad I or II is unclear. • thirty-two allied kings: Confederations of kings were common in the ancient Near East. Shalmaneser III recorded Ben-hadad’s name as Hadad-ezer and reported that he was part of a twelve-king coalition that opposed him in the Battle of Qarqar (853 BC ).

20:1 ^a Whether this is Ben-hadad I or II is unclear.

• thirty-two allied kings: Confederations of kings were common in the ancient Near East. Shalmaneser III recorded Ben-hadad’s name as Hadad-ezer and reported that he was part of a twelve-king coalition that opposed him in the Battle of Qarqar (853 BC).
Summary for 1Kgs 20:2-4: 20:2-4 ^b Ben-hadad’s first delegation of messengers brought his demand that Israel must agree to surrender both its treasures and people. Ahab capitulated, wanting peace at any cost. He would give up royal treasures and even his family rather than face bloody war with a powerful enemy.
Summary for 1Kgs 20:7-9: 20:7-9 ^c When Ben-hadad’s second delegation made even greater demands (see 1 Sam 11:1-2 ^d), Ahab recognized that Ben-hadad seemed bent on war. Ahab repeated his compliance with Ben-hadad’s first demand but rejected the second.

• my lord the king: Ahab addressed Ben-hadad in polite diplomatic terms, conceding his willingness to accept the Aramean king’s rule. Perhaps he hoped that his courteous reply would still avoid military confrontation.
Summary for 1Kgs 20:10-11: 20:10-11 ^e Ben-hadad’s third delegation delivered an ultimatum: Surrender or die. His caustic threat to thoroughly plunder Samaria was reinforced with a curse, an example of the psychological warfare often practiced in the ancient Near East (see 2 Kgs 18:19-35 ^f).

• Ahab’s third reply to Ben-hadad contained proverbial wisdom. The outcome of the conflict was not yet sealed.
20:12 ^g Ben-hadad and the other kings ... were drinking in their tents in anticipation of Ahab’s capitulation. Ahab’s reply constituted a challenge, and the Aramean officers prepared to attack.
Summary for 1Kgs 20:13-34: 20:13-34 ^h Two distinct battles ensued, one in Samaria (20:13-25 ⁱ) and one at Aphek (20:26-34 ^j). The writer included similar details regarding both: (1) pre-battle counsel (20:13-14 ^k, 23-25 ^l), (2) pre-battle conditions (20:15-16 ^m, 26-28 ⁿ), (3) victory for Israel despite the superior numbers of the enemy (20:17-21 ^o, 29-30 ^p), and (4) post-battle counsel (20:22 ^q, 31 ^r).
Summary for 1Kgs 20:13-16: 20:13-16 ^s Ahab’s forces attacked about noontime after receiving assurance of victory from an unknown prophet. The Jewish historian Josephus suggested that the prophet was Micaiah (cp. 22:8 ^t). The timing of the Israelite attack, during the heat of the day (see Josh 8:14 ^u), took the enemy by surprise. Ben-hadad and the ... allied kings were still drinking, demonstrating their disdain for Ahab’s military capability.
20:17 ^v first contingent: Ahab apparently sent this small squad to test the enemy. Surprise attacks in the ancient Near East often divided the attacking forces into assault groups designed to launch a pincer movement against the enemy (Judg 7:16 ^w; 1 Sam 11:11 ^x), to lure the opposing forces into an ambush (Josh 8:15-22 ^y), or to draw the enemy to a spot where the attacking army enjoyed a superior position (Judg 4:14-16 ^z; 5:19-21 ^aa).
Summary for 1Kgs 20:20-22: 20:20-22 ^ab Horses and chariots were a key asset in ancient warfare. Ahab’s destruction of the major portion of Ben-hadad’s striking power was essential to guard against a future incursion. Still, God’s prophet warned that the king of Aram would return.

• next spring: Late spring and early summer were standard seasons for warfare in the ancient Near East; the forces could count on good weather and a supply of grain from the early harvest.
20:23 ^ac The reasoning that Israel had gods of the hills set the stage for the Lord to show his true identity (20:28 ^ad). Ben-hadad’s officers had a pagan religious outlook. Perhaps their erroneous view was fostered by traditional knowledge of the Lord’s appearance to Israel on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1-3 ^ae, 16-18 ^af) or of Israel’s long-term settlement of the hill country of Canaan (see Josh 10:40 ^ag; 11:16 ^ah; Judg 1:19 ^ai). The Arameans were not aware that God is the Creator and Lord of all the earth (Isa 40:28 ^aj; 54:5 ^ak), the only God who alone can save (Isa 45:5 ^al, 22 ^am).
Summary for 1Kgs 20:24-25: 20:24-25 ^an Ben-hadad’s field commanders reasoned that with trained military leadership and superiority in manpower and equipment, they would easily defeat Israel on the plains in the next encounter.
20:26 ^ao Aphek was east of the Sea of Galilee in northern Ramoth-gilead. Ben-hadad’s officers assumed that this location would favor the Aramean chariots and take away the power of Israel’s “gods of the hills.”
Summary for 1Kgs 20:27-30: 20:27-30 ^ap Despite the Arameans’ superior numbers, Israel won another outstanding victory by God’s help. All the parties learned that “nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37 ^aq; see Matt 19:26 ^ar; Mark 10:27 ^as) and that when God is on one’s side, the enemy will retreat (Ps 56:9 ^at) with staggering losses (Deut 32:30-31 ^au; 2 Kgs 19:32-36 ^av). Israel could face the foe fearlessly (Pss 3:6 ^aw; 27:1-3 ^ax).

• God’s assurance to Israel through the man of God showed that this battle was not just for Israel’s well-being but for the Lord’s glory.
20:31 ^ay burlap ... ropes: Knowing the merciful mindset of the kings of Israel, Ben-hadad’s officers advised that they approach Ahab with symbols of humble repentance (Joel 1:13 ^az; Jon 3:5-9 ^ba) and submission (Job 12:18 ^bb; Lam 1:14 ^bc). Ancient Near Eastern reliefs often depict captured enemies with ropes around their necks. Assyrian kings boasted of piercing their captives’ lips or cheeks with ropes.
Summary for 1Kgs 20:32-33: 20:32-33 ^bd my brother: Ahab spoke to Ben-hadad in terms that politely indicated the Aramean king’s royal authority and Ahab’s desire for good relations. Ahab welcomed Ben-hadad into his chariot to demonstrate his warm reception of the king, yet serving notice that he should recognize Ahab as his equal. Correspondence and parity agreements between kings of the ancient Near East used the language of brotherhood to express friendship, good relations, or formal equality.
20:34 ^be The treaty that Ahab and Ben-hadad established provided parity between the parties, although it was especially favorable to Ahab as the victor.

• The towns that Israel had lost to Aram (15:20 ^bf) were restored and Ben-hadad made important trade concessions to Ahab, who may have reasoned that such an arrangement would be profitable and provide him with an ally against the rising power of Shalmaneser III of Assyria.
Summary for 1Kgs 20:35-43: 20:35-43 ^bg Ahab’s leniency toward Ben-hadad met with God’s disfavor, portrayed in the symbolic actions of an unidentified prophet. God’s prophets often conveyed the Lord’s message through symbolic actions (Isa 20 ^bh; Jer 27:1-7 ^bi; Ezek 4:1-3 ^bj, 9-17 ^bk; 5:1-4 ^bl). Ahab had brought judgment upon himself and his people by sparing an untrustworthy enemy rather than trusting further in the Lord.
20:36 ^bm a lion will kill you: A lion was previously the means of divine judgment (13:20-24 ^bn) and would be so again during the repopulation of Israel following the fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:25-26 ^bo).
Summary for 1Kgs 20:42-43: 20:42-43 ^bp The Lord had apparently told Ahab to put Ben-hadad to death (cp. Josh 6:17-21 ^bq), but Ahab violated his charge, perhaps viewing the Aramean king as part of the spoils of war (cp. 1 Sam 15:1-23 ^br). The king of Israel would regret his folly: He later faced Ben-hadad in another battle that would cost him his life (1 Kgs 22:29-37 ^bs). Rather than learning from the prophet’s rebuke, Ahab went home angry and sullen. 20:42 ^bt destroyed: See thematic note for Complete Destruction at end of chapter.

Thematic note: Complete Destruction
God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16 ^bu; Deut 25:17-19 ^bv). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3 ^bw; Josh 6:17-18 ^bx) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29 ^by; Josh 6:19 ^bz).
Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6 ^ca; 13:12-18 ^cb). In 1 Samuel 15:3 ^cc, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3 ^cd).
God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56 ^ce). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13 ^cf; Col 3:5 ^cg). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20 ^ch; 1 Jn 2:9-17 ^ci). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19 ^cj; 2 Thes 1:6-10 ^ck).

Passages for Further Study
Exod 22:20 ^cl; Lev 27:28-29 ^cm; Num 21:2-3 ^cn; Deut 7:1-6 ^co, 26 ^cp; 13:12-18 ^cq; Josh 6:17-19 ^cr; 7:11-26 ^cs; 1 Sam 15:3 ^ct; 1 Kgs 20:42 ^cu; Isa 43:26-28 ^cv