TEXT [Commentary]

8. The death of Ahab (22:29-40)

29 So King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah led their armies against Ramoth-gilead. 30 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “As we go into battle, I will disguise myself so no one will recognize me, but you wear your royal robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself, and they went into battle.

31 Meanwhile, the king of Aram had issued these orders to his thirty-two chariot commanders: “Attack only the king of Israel. Don’t bother with anyone else!” 32 So when the Aramean chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat in his royal robes, they went after him. “There is the king of Israel!” they shouted. But when Jehoshaphat called out, 33 the chariot commanders realized he was not the king of Israel, and they stopped chasing him.

34 An Aramean soldier, however, randomly shot an arrow at the Israelite troops and hit the king of Israel between the joints of his armor. “Turn the horses[*] and get me out of here!” Ahab groaned to the driver of his chariot. “I’m badly wounded!”

35 The battle raged all that day, and the king remained propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran down to the floor of his chariot, and as evening arrived he died. 36 Just as the sun was setting, the cry ran through his troops: “We’re done for! Run for your lives!”

37 So the king died, and his body was taken to Samaria and buried there. 38 Then his chariot was washed beside the pool of Samaria, and dogs came and licked his blood at the place where the prostitutes bathed,[*] just as the LORD had promised.

39 The rest of the events in Ahab’s reign and everything he did, including the story of the ivory palace and the towns he built, are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel. 40 So Ahab died, and his son Ahaziah became the next king.

NOTES

22:30 I will disguise myself. Seow (1999:165) suggests that Jehoshaphat was to wear the garb of the Israelite king (so LXX; but this might be an internal Greek corruption exchanging mou [TG1473, ZG1609] for sou [TG4771, ZG5148], i.e., “my” for “your”). Montgomery (1951:345) prefers here an intentional alteration in the Greek to heighten Ahab’s treachery. The MT, however, clearly reads “your (own) robes” (also cf. 22:10 where both kings are dressed in their own royal robes). In any case, the motif of disguising oneself has already been presented in 20:38, and it will also be found in the Chronicler’s description of the demise of King Josiah (see 2 Chr 35:22), a story that has been strongly influenced by the present narrative (see Japhet 1993:1042-1043 for details). Disguise represents deception, and it betrays insecurity and probably also a guilty conscience (see the first note on 14:2).

22:31 thirty-two. This is possibly a reference back to the leaders mentioned in 20:1, 16 (see the third note to 20:1); this number is lacking in the Chronicles parallel (2 Chr 18:30) and may well be a gloss.

Attack only the king of Israel. It is unclear if the enemy even knows that the Judahite king is in the battle. In any case, they were obviously seeking King Ahab of Israel, who had initiated the hostilities.

22:34 randomly shot an arrow. As the reader knows, there is really nothing random at all about this event. The Hebrew rendered “randomly” is literally “in his innocence” (letummo [TH8537, ZH9448]); the same expression is found in 2 Sam 15:11 where 200 Jerusalemites ­followed the rebel Absalom “but they knew nothing of his intentions.”

between the joints of his armor. As Cogan (2001:494) has noted, a vivid example of this may be seen on one of the exterior carved panels located on the chariot of Thutmose IV, where the armor of an enemy chariot driver is depicted as being pierced by an arrow through one of the joints (see ANEP, illustration 314 [at detail no. 11]).

22:35 propped up. Heb., hayah mo‘omad [TH5975, ZH6641] (he was caused to stand); this posture surely was meant to encourage the Israelites that the king had not fled the battle scene. Yet again, the theme of deception is exemplified.

22:36 the cry ran through his troops. This fulfills the prophecy found back in 22:17. In particular, what is sad here is the fact that this did not have to happen; indeed, the prophecy was given so that it would not have to take place (cf. the note on 22:17).

22:38 dogs . . . licked his blood. See the second note on 21:19.

at the place where the prostitutes bathed. The original text here is problematic (cf. the various suggestions given in the NLT mg). The MT is straightforward enough, if a bit un­expected; it is reflected in the above translation, as well as in the first alternative given in the NLT mg. But the LXX refers to dogs and pigs (both here and in the anticipatory prophecy back in 21:19 [20:19, LXX]); the word “pigs” is khazirim [TH2386, ZH2614] in Hebrew, somewhat similar to the Hebrew for “the prostitutes” (hazzonoth [TH2181B, ZH2390]), possibly leading to the varying textual traditions (although the LXX does include the “­prostitute” reference as well). Cogan (2001:495) notes that both dogs and pigs (the scavengers found in cities) were often invoked in formulaic curses of the ancient Near East. The Targum and Syriac Peshitta seem to understand the term zonoth (prostitutes) yet differently, along the lines of zeyanoth (“weapons, armor”; cf. Jastrow 388, 393). Further complicating the situation is their understanding that the term “dogs” (kelabim [TH3611, ZH3978]) could refer to male prostitutes, as in Deut 23:18 [19]. I suspect that such an understanding of kelabim (in parallel with hazzonoth) may underlie the MT as well (cf. the use of both terms in close proximity in the Deuteronomy text). In any case, if the MT (in the sense of the NLT text) be retained, the idea might simply be that the place where Ahab’s blood was washed off the chariot was a well-known place where prostitutes usually did their bathing (cf. NIV text; also Wiseman 1993:189). And if the first alternative translation in the NLT mg be selected (which is also a plausible rendition of the MT), the idea was that the prostitutes at this time bathed in the king’s blood (or bloody water) due to the alleged fructifying effects of royal blood (cf. Gray 1970:455; Jones 1984:371-372). In conclusion, certitude still eludes us at this point in our understanding of this difficult and intriguing text.

22:39 ivory palace. Amos 6:4 notes the use of ivory carvings to decorate furniture (cf. 10:22; Amos 3:15; for some magnificent examples of such ivory carvings and panels, see ANEP, pictures 125-132). Cogan (2001:495) suggests that the reference here may be to a building that was particularly ostentatious, though Wiseman (1993:190) notes that “there are no known instances of ivory panelling of whole rooms or exteriors.”

The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel. See “Literary Style” in the Introduction.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The theme of deception continues. Ahab heeded Micaiah’s message, at least to the superstitious extent of disguising himself as a common soldier (an ironic contrast to his heroic cast in ch 20). Despite the disguise, Ahab’s day in battle would end on a tragic but heroic note—his mortally wounded body (presumably no longer disguised), propped up in the chariot until sundown. This was, on the one hand, yet another ruse to encourage his troops and discourage the enemy, but on the other, a testimony to his dying conviction that he must not quit the field of battle early. Here Ahab’s words from 20:11 come true with a vengeance: “A warrior putting on his sword for battle should not boast like a warrior who has already won.” Ahab had fair warning that his God did not favor his endeavors (although, admittedly, the contest of prophet versus prophet probably made this warning more ambiguous than we might otherwise surmise; cf. the commentary on 22:10-28). Ahab’s ally King Jehoshaphat, although remaining dressed in royal robes as bidden (see note on 22:30), was the only king who providentially survived, apparently unscathed. Ahab’s dynasty (or more accurately, the dynasty of his father, Omri) would hang on for 11 more years; but it, like Ahab himself, was already as good as dead.

In summary, Ahab was a complicated person. He did have moments of heroism (mainly in ch 20, but even there, the evidence is mixed), and he certainly had many moments of treachery (much of chs 18, 21, and also here in ch 22). His marriage to Jezebel was probably not by choice, but rather arranged by his parents (see note on 16:31), and certainly he represented the result of diplomatic pressures that we rarely face today. He did repent at one point (21:27-29), but such repentance seems not to have lasted very long. In short, Ahab was a crafty, conniving, sometimes cowardly leader during an era when such personality traits were probably necessary to survive long on the throne. But the final verdict on King Ahab must be as negative as the initial verdict found back in 16:30-33: “He did more to provoke the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, than any of the other kings of Israel before him.” What a sad legacy to leave to posterity. We must be suitably chastened so that we are in no danger of following him in his fate. Truly, “a (spiritual) warrior girding for battle should not boast like one who has already won” (an adaptation of Ahab’s apt words as found in 20:11; cf. Paul’s similarly sober words in Phil 3:12-14: “Forgetting the past . . . I press on to reach the end of the race and receive the heavenly prize”). Let us redouble our dedication to run the good race and fight the good fight to the very end.