­ both in token of companionship and for more private conversation. In truth, nothing less than a treaty of alliance was

in hand between them. Ben-hadad undertook to restore the towns which his father had taken from Ahab's father (in a

warfare of which we have no other record) and to allow to Ahab the same rights and privileges as to having "streets," or

rather "bazaars" - what in modern language would be called an Israelitish "factory" ­ in the Syrian capital, which Ben-

Hades' father had possessed in Samaria; and with this covenant Ahab dismissed the Syrian king.

We have said that it is not easy to understand what motives could have prompted an act which, even politically, was a

grave mistake. Was it flattered vanity on the part of Ahab, or sympathy with the heathen king, or part of his statecraft to

secure, not only an ally, but a vassal on the northern flank of his kingdom, or all these combined? In any case he must

have looked upon the victory over the Syrians in a manner far different from that in which it had been announced to

him by the God who had wrought it. Ahab no longer thought of Jehovah; he inquired not as to His purpose or will.

There was an ominous similarity between his conduct and that of Saul in regard to Agag (1 Samuel 15). Evidently,

Ahab claimed to have himself gained the victory, and felt sure that in like circumstances - should Ben-hadad rebel - he

would equally gain it once more. It was he, and not the LORD, who would shape and direct the destinies of Israel.

Jehovah was only the national deity of that Israel of which Ahab was the king. And so the error of the Syrians was

substantially repeated by Ahab, and the lesson which Jehovah would have taught by their defeat had to be learned anew

by Israel and its king - this time in judgment.

This explains the commission with which God now charged one of "the sons of the prophets." We mark that the

expression here occurs for the first time.  53 It referred to those associations54 under the leadership of some prophet

(hence sons of the prophets) which, in the decay of religious life in Israel, served such important purposes, alike for the

preservation of religion, and in the execution of the Divine behests.

In fact, they would recall to Israel, what, as a nation, Israel had been destined to be, and ever keep it before them. Thus

they represented, so to speak, ideal Israel in the midst of apostate Israel. To a member of this community it came "by

the word of Jehovah" - that is, by direct command from Him - to confront Ahab with such a symbolic (or parabolic)

presentation of his late conduct as would show it in its true light, and lead the king to pronounce sentence on himself.

Thus only could a man like Ahab be convicted, if not convinced, of sin.

In the execution of this commission the "son of the prophet" went to one of his colleagues,55 and, telling him that it was

"by the word of Jehovah," bade him "smite" him.

It was conduct not unlike that of Ahab when this behest was resisted by the prophet. Remembering these two things:

that the person addressed was also a "son of the prophets," and that he had been informed that it was "by the word of

Jehovah," we can understand the Divine judgment which so speedily overtook him when he was torn by a lion. For the

fundamental idea, the very law, of prophetism was absolute, unquestioning obedience to the command of God. This

was the lesson to be taught by these associations and their leaders, and it explains how sometimes exceeding strange

things were given them to do in public, that so in the absoluteness of their obedience they might exhibit the

absoluteness of God's authority. Hence not to have visited with signal judgment the disobedience of the prophet would

have been not only to contravene the principle on which the whole prophetic institution rested, but also the very lesson

and message which was to be conveyed to Ahab.

But what one "son of the prophets" had refused, another soon afterwards did. Then the "son of the prophets," now

smitten till he was wounded, "disguised himself with a bandage upon his eyes,"  56 and waited for the king by the way.

The reason of his appearing as a wounded man was that he might appeal to the king with the mo re show of truth, and of

claim upon his interference, as wounded in the fight. And a symbolism may also have been designed. For, as the

prophet's conduct was intended to represent that of the king, it might be wished to anticipate this possible excuse of

Ahab that the difficulty of his circumstances had rendered it not easy to retain Ben-hadad by the analogous case of a

wounded man, who might have fair ground of excuse if he allowed his prisoner to escape.

The story which the wounded prophet told the king was to the effect that, while in the battle - and this is an important

point, as intended to indicate that Ahab was only like a soldier engaged in a warfare in which God, and not the king of

Israel, was the commander - one had turned aside and bidden him have safe custody of a captive, with this injunction: