1 Kings 20:42

And he said onto him. Thus saith the lord, Because thou hast let go [Heb. sent away ; same word as in ver; 34. This is an in direct proof that those were the words of Ahab] out of thy hand [Heb. out of hand —same idiom in 1 Samuel 26:23 —i.e; power, possession . Cf. Genesis 32:12 ; Exodus 18:9 ; Numbers 35:25 ] a man whom I appointed to utter destruction [Heb. a man of my devoting . Cf. Isaiah 34:5 ; Zechariah 14:11 . It is the word used of the Canaanites and their cities, Deuteronomy 2:34 ; Deuteronomy 7:2 ; Joshua 8:26 ; Joshua 10:28 ; and it gave a name to the city Hormah, Numbers 21:3 ; Numbers 14:45 . Ben-hadad, therefore, was doomed of God], therefore thy life shall go for [Heb. be instead of ] his life, and thy people for his people. [By the lex talionis . It was probably because of this denunciation (cf. 1 Kings 22:8 ) that Josephus identifies this prophet with Micaiah, the son of Imlah, "whom Ahab appears to have imprisoned on account of some threatening prophecy (Rawlinson). See 1 Kings 22:9 , 1 Kings 22:26 . For the fulfilment o! this prediction see 1 Kings 22:1-53 . It has seemed to some writers as if Ahab were here very hardly dealt with for merely gratifying s generous impulse, and dealing magnanimously with a conquered foe. Indeed, there are commentators who see in his release of the cruel and insolent tyrant s "trait which does honour to the heart of Ahab." But it is to be remembered, first, that Ahab was not free to do as he liked in this matter. His victories had been won, not by his prowess, by the skill of his generals, or the valour of his soldiers, but by the power of God alone. The war, that is to say, was God's war: it was begun and continued, and should therefore have been ended, in Him. When even the details of the attack had been ordered of God ( 1 Kings 22:14 ), surely He should have been consulted as to the disposal of the prisoners. The prophet who promised Divine aid might at any rate have been asked—as prophets constantly were in that age ( 1 Kings 22:5 , 1 Kings 22:8 )—what was the "word of the Lord" concerning Israel's overbearing and inveterate enemy. But Ahab, who had himself played so craven a part ( 1 Kings 22:21 , 1 Kings 22:31 ), and who had contributed nothing to these great and unhoped-for victories, nevertheless arrogated to himself their fruits, and thereby ignored and dishonoured God. Secondly, if he had so little regard for his own private interests as to liberate such a man as Ben-hadad, he ought, as trustee for the peace and welfare of Israel, to have acted differently. The demand of 1 Kings 22:6 should have revealed to him the character of the man he had to deal with. And lastly, he was acting in defiance of all the principles and precedents of the Old Testament dispensation. For one great principle of that dispensation was the lex talionis . The king was the authorized dispenser of rewards and punishments, not only to wicked subjects but to aggressive nations. It was his duty to mete out to them the measure they had served to Israel. And the precedents were all in favour of putting such wretches as this Ben-hadad to the sword ( Joshua 10:26 ; 7:25 ; 1 Samuel 15:33 ). If he had been the first oppressor who fell into the hands of Israel, Ahab might have had some excuse. But with the fate of Agog, of Adonibezek, of Oreb and Zeeb, in his memory, he ought at any rate to have paused and asked counsel of God before taking Ben-hadad into his chariot and sending him away with a covenant of peace, to reappear at no distant period on the scene as the scourge of the Lord's people.]