1 Kings 22:38

And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria,.... After the body was taken out, very likely the chariot driver, who drove it into the pool, and plunged it into it, as the word signifies, to

And the battle increased that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot against the Syrians, and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot. No JFB commentary on these verses.

The dogs licked up his blood, together with the water wherewith it was mixed. According unto the word of the Lord; of which See Poole "".

1 Kings 22:38 And [one] washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according unto the word of the LORD which he spake.Ver. 38. In the pool of Samaria.] So the pool in Jezreel might be called, for the reason above given, on 1 Kings 21:19.

(38) They washed his armour.—There seems little doubt that this is a mistranslation, and that the LXX. rendering (supported also by Josephus) is correct: “And the harlots bathed in it,” that is, in the bloodstained pool, the usual public bathing-place of their shamelessness. The dog and the harlot are the animal and human types of uncleanness. According unto the word of the Lord.—The reference to the emphatic prophecy of Elijah is unmistakable, and the context fixes its fulfilment plainly as having taken place in Samaria. The difficulty is, of course, the notice in 2 Kings 9:25, where the dead body of Jehoram is cast “in the portion of the field of Naboth,” evidently at Jezreel; with quotation of the “burden of the Lord laid upon him,” “I will requite thee in this plot, saith the Lord.” The reconcilement is, with our knowledge, difficult, if not impossible. But the reference in the text is so much clearer, that it must outweigh the other. Naboth, in any case, is likely to have had land in his native place, which would be forfeited to the king; and there would still be an appropriate judgment in making it also the scene of the dishonoured death of the last king of Ahab’s house. We may notice, moreover, that the quotation in 2 Kings 9 is not taken from Elijah’s words against Ahab, nor does it contain the characteristic notice of the “dogs licking the blood;” though it is noticed as a fulfilment of the subsequent prophecy of chapter 21:24 against Ahab’s house.

Verse 38. The dogs licked up his blood] Some of the rabbins think that this was in the very place where Naboth was stoned; see on 1Kg 21:19. The Septuagint translates this verse strangely: "And the swine and the dogs licked his blood, and the whores bathed themselves in his blood, according to the word of the Lord." It is certain that the Hebrew words, הזנות רחצו hazzonoth rachatsu, "washed his armour," might be translated as the Septuagint have done; "and the whores (or public women) washed," c. And so the rabbins seem to have understood the words but then they suppose that Jezebel had made him two images of prostitutes, which he had with him in the chariot. It is not worth inquiring into the use for which they say these images were made. See Kimchi and Jarchi.

38. And one [R.V. they] washed the chariot in [R.V. by] the pool of Samaria] The first change substitutes an English for a Hebrew idiom; the second renders more exactly the preposition of the original. It was necessary in the East to provide large reservoirs outside each town that the supplies of water in the rainy season might be kept for times of drought. Many such pools are mentioned in Scripture, and some, for example those at Bethlehem, remain to the present day. To the side of such a tank the royal equipage was brought to be washed. Thus Ahab’s blood came to be licked up by the dogs in the same sort of spot, outside the city walls, as that where Naboth’s blood was licked up near Jezreel. and the dogs licked, &c.] Here as above in 1 Kings 21:19 the LXX. adds ‘the swine’ to the dogs. and they washed his armour] R.V. Now the harlots washed themselves there. This change, which is the rendering of the LXX., is no doubt correct. The Hebrew word æðåú occurs often in the O. Test. and means nothing else but ‘harlots,’ while the verb in the sentence is not one applied to washing articles that need cleaning but to bathing the body. Cf. Exodus 30:19; Exodus 30:21; Exodus 40:12; Exodus 40:31; Leviticus 16:4; Leviticus 16:24; Leviticus 16:26; Leviticus 16:28, and in Numbers 19:19 another verb is used for ‘wash his clothes’ and the present verb rendered ‘bathe himself,’ and in the verse before us another verb is employed to describe the washing of the chariot. The R.V. by placing this clause in a parenthesis seems to treat it as a subsidiary feature in the description. This was the place to which they usually came to bathe. Some have however suggested that the women alluded to were those attached (as such persons were) to the temples of Baal and Ashtoreth, and that thus a greater indignity still was offered to this fosterer of idolatrous worship. This interpretation however reads a good deal into the text which is not there. And surely it was indignity enough for the royal blood to be washed into the waters of the harlots’ bath. It should be mentioned that Josephus, and, among the Fathers, Theodoret, support the rendering of R.V. The A.V. is derived from the Chaldee and the Syriac versions.

They washed his armour - Rather, “the harlots bathed in it.” The “pool of Samaria,” which was stained with Ahab’s blood by the washing of his chariot in it, was, according to Josephus, the usual

38. Dogs licked up his blood — The blood which all that day had been trickling through his armour and falling down upon the chariot. Thus was partially fulfilled the words of Elijah. 1 Kings 21:19.