1 Kings 20:23

1Ki 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods [are] gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.

Ver. 23. And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him.] Nothing they said to him of his drunkenness, or their own dastardliness; but tell him a tale of their tutelary gods, that they were gods of the plains and valleys only, not of the mountains, as the Israelites’ gods were: and hence the miscarriage Augustine {a} telleth us of the Romans, that for the hill tops they had their deum Iugatinum; for their little hills, the goddess Collatina; and for the valleys, Valloma. Ovid also brings in those petty deities thus speaking,

“ Dii sumus agrestes, et qui dominantur in altis

Montibus; Imperium est in sua tecta Iovi. ” - Ovid, Fastor., lib. vi.

{a} De Civ. Dei, lib. iv, cap. 8.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Ki 20:23. Their gods are gods of the hills, &c. — The heathen, in general, had no notion of the God of the universe, but only worshipped local and tutelary deities; who, they thought, ruled over particular countries, and distributed the several parts of those countries among them, some being gods of the woods, others of the rivers, and others of the mountains: and the Syrians fancied the gods of the Israelites, whom they thought to be no better than their own gods, to be of the latter kind, gods of the hills, because the land of Canaan was a mountainous land, and the great temple of their God, at Jerusalem, stood upon a hill, as did the city of Samaria, where they had received their last blow; or because the Israelites did generally choose high places for the places of their worship. It is observable, that the Syrians do not impute their ill success to their negligence, and drunkenness, and bad conduct, nor to the valour of the Israelites, but to a divine power, which was indeed visible in it. Let us fight against them in the plain — In this counsel there was not only superstition, but policy; because the Syrians excelled the Israelites in horses and chariots, which were most serviceable on plain ground.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Second Victory. - Kg1 20:23, Kg1 20:24. The servants (ministers) of Benhadad persuaded their lord to enter upon a fresh campaign, attributing the defeat they had sustained to two causes, which could be set aside, viz., to the supposed nature of the gods of Israel, and to the position occupied by the vassal-kings in the army. The gods of Israel were mountain gods: when fighting with them upon the mountains, the Syrians had had to fight against and succumb to the power of these gods, whereas on the plain they would conquer, because the power of these gods did not reach so far. This notion concerning the God of Israel the Syrians drew, according to their ethnical religious ideas, from the fact that the sacred places of this God - not only the temple at Jerusalem upon Moriah, but also the altars of the high places - were erected upon mountains; since heathenism really had its mountain deities, i.e., believed in gods who lived upon mountains and protected and conducted all that took place upon them (cf. Dougtaei Analect. ss. i. 178,179; Deyling, Observv. ss. iii. pp. 97ff.; Winer, bibl. R. W. i. p. 154), and in Syrophoenicia even mountains themselves had divine honours paid to them (vid., Movers, Phniz. i. p. 667ff.). The servants of Benhadad were at any rate so far right, that they attributed their defeat to the assistance which God had given to His people Israel; and were only wrong in regarding the God of Israel as a local deity, whose power did not extend beyond the mountains. They also advised their lord (Kg1 20:24) to remove the kings in his army from their position, and appoint governors in their stead (פּחות, see Kg1 10:15). The vassal-kings had most likely not shown the desired self-sacrifice for the cause of their superior in the war. And, lastly (Kg1 20:25), they advised the king to raise his army to its former strength, and then carry on the war in the plain. "Number thyself an army, like the army which has fallen from thee." מאותך, "from with thee," rendered correctly de tuis in the Vulgate, at least so far as the sense is concerned (for the form see Ewald, 264, b.). But these prudently-devised measures were to be of no avail to the Syrians; for they were to learn that the God of Israel was not a limited mountain-god.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

20:23 The reasoning that Israel had gods of the hills set the stage for the Lord to show his true identity (20:28). 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, 16-18) or of Israel’s long-term settlement of the hill country of Canaan (see Josh 10:40; 11:16; Judg 1:19). The Arameans were not aware that God is the Creator and Lord of all the earth (Isa 40:28; 54:5), the only God who alone can save (Isa 45:5, 22).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Thus the wicked blaspheme God in their fury, whom notwithstanding he suffereth not unpunished.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 23. Their gods are gods of the hills] It is very likely that the small Israelitish army availed itself of the heights and uneven ground, that they might fight with greater advantage against the Syrian cavalry, for Ben-hadad came up against Samaria with horses and chariots, 1Kg 20:1. These therefore must be soon thrown into confusion when charging in such circumstances; indeed, the chariots must be nearly useless.

Let us fight against them in the plain] There our horses and chariots will all be able to bear on the enemy, and there their gods, whose influence is confined to the hills, will not be able to help them. It was a general belief in the heathen world that each district had its tutelary and protecting deity, who could do nothing out of his own sphere.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(23) Gods of the hills.—The idea of tutelary gods, whose strength was greatest on their own soil, is naturally common in polytheistic religions, which, by the very multiplication of gods, imply limitation of the power of each. Now the greater part of the territory where Jehovah was worshipped was a hill-country. Samaria in particular, the scene of recent defeat, lay in the mountain region of Ephraim. The Israelite armies, moreover, being mostly of infantry—having, indeed, few or no cavalry, except in the time of Solomon—naturally encamped and fought, as far as possible, on the hills; as Barak on Mount Tabor (Jdg_4:6-14), Saul on Mount Gilboa (1Sa_31:1), and Ahab himself (in 1Ki_20:27). Perhaps the worship of Jehovah in the “high places” may have also conduced to this belief that the “gods of Israel were gods of the hills,” whose power vanished in the plains; where, of course, the Syrian armies of chariots and horsemen would naturally fight at advantage. Shrewd policy might, as so often is the case, lurk in the advice of Ben-hadad’s counsellors under the cover of superstition; as, indeed, it seems also to show itself in seizing the opportunity to increase the central power, by organising the troops of the tributary kings under officers of his own.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. their gods are gods] R.V. their god is a god. The LXX. also renders by the singular. The Syrians would speak of the God of Israel as a national divinity, just as they would of their own god. The former battle had been fought in the hill country round about Samaria, and this may have given encouragement to the idea that in a level plain, like that in which their own Damascus lay, the Syrian forces would meet with more success. It was not unnatural, in the heathen ideas about the gods, that they should consider each divinity specially able, and suited, to protect the land over which he was supposed to have the charge.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him,.... His ministers of state, his privy counsellors:

their gods are gods of the hills, therefore they were stronger than we; and beat them in the last battle; this notion they might receive from what they had heard of Jehovah delivering the law on Mount Sinai to Moses, and of the miraculous things done lately on Mount Carmel, as well as of their worship being in high places, especially at Jerusalem, the temple there being built on an hill, as was Samaria itself, near to which they had their last defeat; and this notion of topical deities very much obtained among the Heathens in later times, some of which they supposed presided over rivers, others over woods, and others over hills and mountains (e): so Nemestinus the god of woods, Collina the goddess of hills, and Vallina of valleys (f); and Arnobins (g) makes mention of the god Montinus, and Livy (h) of the god Peninus, who had his name from a part of the Alps, so called where he was worshipped; and there also the goddess Penina was worshipped; and Lactantius (i) speaks of the gods of the mountains the mother of Maximilian was a worshipper of; and even Jupiter had names from mountains, as Olympius, Capitolinus, &c. and such was the great god Pan, called mountainous Pan (k):

but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they; and prevail over them, and conquer them.

(e) "Dii fumus agrestes, et qui dominemur in altis montibus.----" Ovid. Fast. l. 3. (f) Vid. D. Herbert de Cherbury de Relig. Gent. c. 12. p. 198, 112. (g) Adv. Gentes, l. 4. (h) Hist. l. 21. c. 38. (i) De Mort. Persecutor. c. 11. p. 22. Vid. Ovid. Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 8. ver. 320. "Et numina montis adorant". See Ep. 4. ver. 171. (k) Sophoclis Oedipus Tyr. ver. 1110.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Their gods are gods of the hills - The local power and influence of deities was a fixed principle of the ancient polytheism. Each country was considered to have its own gods; and wars were regarded as being to a great extent struggles between the gods of the nations engaged in them. This is apparent throughout the Assyrian inscriptions. Compare also 2Ki 18:33-35; 2Ki 19:12. The present passage gives an unusual modification of this view. The suggestion of the Syrian chiefs may have been a mere politic device - they being really anxious, “an military grounds,” to encounter their enemy on the plain, where alone their chariots would be of much service. In the plain the Israelites had always fought at a disadvantage, and had proved themselves weaker than on the hills (see Jdg 1:19, Jdg 1:27, Jdg 1:34).

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Hills. All the high places of Israel were covered with idols. Samaria, Bethel, Dan, &c., were built on eminences. (Menochius) --- Altars had also been erected to the true God on the most famous mountains. The law had been given at Sinai, and promulgated at Garizim. The late miracle at Carmel was known to all. Hence the pagans, (Calmet) conformably to their notions of assigning different parts of the creation to different gods, suspected that the god of Israel might preside only over the mountains. (Haydock) --- People are always ready to blame any but themselves. (Calmet) --- They lay the fault on fortune, &c. (Tirinus) --- The pride of Benadad could not bear to be told that his own temerity had brought on the defeat. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The servants of the king of Syria suppose that their gods were no better than the Syrian gods, (which the idolatry of the Israelites had given them too great cause to imagine,) and that there were many gods who had each his particular charge and jurisdiction; which was the opinion of all heathen nations, that some were gods of the woods, others of the rivers, and others of the mountains; and they fancied these to be the latter, because the land of Canaan was a mountainous land, Deu 12:2; and the great temple of their god at Jerusalem stood upon a hill, and so did Samaria, where they had received their last blow: or because the Israelites did generally chose high places for the worship of their gods. It is observable that they do not impute their ill success to their negligence, and drunkenness, and bad conduct, or cowardice, of which they were really guilty; nor to the valour of the Israelites; but to a Divine power, which indeed was visible in it.

Let us fight against them in the plain; wherein there was not only superstition, but policy, because the Syrians most excelled the Israelites in horses, which are most serviceable in plain ground.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. Their gods are gods of the hills — They speak after the manner of idolaters, and show their polytheistic notions of religion. They, perhaps, knew something of Israel’s receiving the law at Mount Sinai, and of the temple on Mount Moriah at Jerusalem and of the recent miracle on Mount Carmel, and had noticed the worship on the high places: and now, on their overwhelming defeat among the mountains of Samaria, they attribute the loss chiefly to those gods of the hills whom Israel worshipped. The heathen also had hill gods, and it seems to have been a prevalent belief that each district had its tutelary divinities. Compare 2Ki_17:26.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him naturally anxious to retrieve their character and obliterate their disgrace, Their gods are gods of the hills All pagan nations have believed in local deities, Dii montium, dii nemorum, etc.. (see 2Ki_18:33-35 2Ki_19:12, 2Ki_19:13) Keil accounts for this belief that the gods of Israel were mountain divinities, by the consideration that the temple was built on Mount Moriah, and that worship was always offered on high places." Kitto reminds us that the law was given from Mount Sinai, and that fire had recently descended on Mount Carmel. "In Syrophoenicia, even mountains themselves had Divine honours paid to them" (Movers, Phoen. 1:667 sqq.) But it is enough to remember that Samaria was a hilly district, and that the courtiers must find some excuse for the defeat; therefore they were stronger than we; but Heb. ( often well rendered but not in this instance) by the LXX ouj mhn de let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. This counsel, which apparently rests on religious grounds alone, was, it is probable, really dictated by the practical consideration that in the plain the Syrians would be able to deploy their chariots a most important arm of their service in a way which they could not do in the valleys round Samaria. See 1Ki_16:24, note. Moreover the Israelites would lose the advantage of a strong position and the cover of their fortifications if they could be induced to meet them in the "great plain," or on any similar battlefield.

Their gods are gods of the hills." It is no uncommon thing to find men laying the blame of their misfortune on God. We smile at those poor pagans who beat their wooden gods with sticks, or those Italian villagers who, s few weeks ago (Sept., 1881), threw the image of their patron saint into a well, and set upon their parish priest, because their prayers for rain remained unanswered; but the same thing, slightly varied in shape, is often done amongst ourselves. "Bad luck" is held responsible for many of the failures for which we have only ourselves to thank. That "everybody is against him" is often the cry of the man who has no enemy but himself. The idle scoundrel who has wife and children generally accuses them of being the causes of his misfortunes; if he has no such scapegoats, he will lay the blame on God"s providence. He never remembers that he himself was "drinking himself drunk" at the hour for action.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Said to him - They suppose that their gods were no better than the Syrian gods and that there were many gods who had each his particular charge and jurisdiction; which was the opinion of all heathen nations; that some were gods of the woods, other of the rivers, and others of the mountains; and they fancied these to be the latter, because the land of Canaan was a mountainous land, and the great temple of their God at Jerusalem, stood upon an hill, and so did Samaria, where they had received their last blow: it is observable, they do not impute their ill success to their negligence, and drunkenness, and bad conduct, nor to the valour of the Israelites; but to a divine power, which was indeed visible in it. In the plain - Wherein there was not only superstition, but policy; because the Syrians excelled the Israelites in horses, which are most serviceable in plain ground.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.