Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 22:1

And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel.

Ch. 1Ki 22:1-12. Ahab resolves to recover Ramoth-gilead. Jehoshaphat joins him. Ahab’s prophets promise him victory (2Ch 18:1-11)

1. they continued three years without war ] This probably means after the defeat of Benhadad described in chapter 20. It must have been during this interval of peace that Naboth was put to death.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Three years – These must be counted from the close of the second campaign of Ben-hadad 1Ki 20:34. They were not full years, as is evident from the next verse. Probably the first year is that of Ben-hadads dismissal after his defeat; the second is a year of actual peace; while the third is that in which Jehoshaphat paid his visit, and the Ramoth-Gilead expedition took place. The pause, here noticed, in the war between Israel and Syria was perhaps the result of a common danger. It was probably in the year following Ben-hadads dismissal by Ahab, that the first great Assyrian expedition took place into these parts. Shalmaneser II relates that on his first invasion of southern Syria, he was met by the combined forces of Ben-hadad, Ahab, the king of Hamath, the kings of the Hittites, and others, who gave him battle, but suffered a defeat.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

CHAPTER XXII

Jehoshaphat King of Judah, and Ahab King of Israel, unite

against the Syrians, in order to recover Ramoth-gilead, 1-4.

They inquire of false prophets, who promise them success.

Micaiah, a true prophet, foretells the disasters of the war,

5-17.

A lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets persuades Ahab

to go up against Ramoth, 18-29.

The confederate armies are routed, and the king of Israel

slain, 30-36.

Death and burial of Ahab, 37-40.

Character of Jehoshaphat, 41-47.

He makes a fleet in order to go to Ophir for gold, which is

wrecked at Ezion-geber, 48.

His death, 49.

He is succeeded by his son Jehoram, 50.

Ahaziah succeeds his father Ahab, and reigns wickedly, 51, 52.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXII

Verse 1. Three years without war] That is, from the time that Ahab made the covenant with Ben-hadad, mentioned 1Kg 20:34. And probably in that treaty it was stipulated that Ramoth-gilead should be restored to Israel; which not being done, Ahab formed a confederacy with Judah, and determined to take it by force.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

They continued; the Syrians and Israelites, designed in the following words. Three years; computed from the last war and league wherewith it was concluded; because both Ahab and Benhadad were so weakened and broken by the late wars, that they needed and desired peace to recruit themselves, and repair their former losses.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. continued three years without warbetween Syria and IsraelThe disastrous defeat of Ben-hadad hadso destroyed his army and exhausted the resources of his country,that, however eager, he was unable to recommence active hostilitiesagainst Israel. But that his hereditary enmity remained unsubdued,was manifest by his breach of faith concerning the treaty by which hehad engaged to restore all the cities which his father had seized(1Ki 20:34).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel. From the time that Benhadad made a covenant with Ahab; not three full years, but part of them: it was threatened by Elijah from the Lord, that Ahab’s life should go for Benhadad’s, because he had let him, go, 1Ki 22:42, but because of his humiliation, as is thought by Ben Gersom and others, it was respited for those three years; and now an opportunity and occasion would be given for the fulfilment of what was threatened.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Allied Campaign of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against the Syrians at Ramoth, and Death of Ahab (compare 2 Chron 18:2-34). – 1Ki 22:1. “And they rested three years; there was no war between Aram and Israel,” here is to keep quiet, to undertake nothing, as in Jdg 5:17, etc. The subject to is Aram and Israel mentioned in the second clause. The length of time given here points back to the end of the war described in 1 Kings 20.

1Ki 22:2-4

In the third year (not necessarily “towards the end of it,” as Thenius supposes, for Jehoshaphat’s visit preceded the renewal of the war) Jehoshaphat visited the king of Israel, with whom he had already formed a marriage alliance by marrying his son to Ahab’s daughter (2Ch 18:1; 2Ki 8:18). Ahab then said to his servants that the king of Syria had kept the city of Ramoth in Gilead (probably situated on the site of the present Szalt: see at Deu 4:43), which he ought to have given up, according to the conditions of the peace in 1Ki 20:34, and asked Jehoshaphat whether he would go with him to the war against Ramoth, which the latter promised to do. “I as thou, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses;” i.e., I am at thy service with the whole of my military power. In the place of the last words we have therefore in the Chronicles , “I am with thee in the war,” i.e., I will assist thee in the war.

1Ki 22:5-7

But as Jehoshaphat wished also to inquire the word of the Lord concerning the war, Ahab gathered together about 400 prophets, who all predicted as out of one mouth a prosperous result to the campaign. These 400 prophets are neither the 400 prophets of Asherah who had not appeared upon Carmel when Elijah was there (1Ki 18:19-20), nor prophets of Baal, as some of the earlier commentators supposed, since Ahab could not inquire of them . On the other hand, they were not “true prophets of Jehovah and disciples of the prophets” (Cler., Then.), but prophets of Jehovah worshipped under the image of an ox, who practised prophesying as a trade without any call from God, and even if they were not in the pay of the idolatrous kings of Israel, were at any rate in their service. For Jehoshaphat did not recognise them as genuine prophets of Jehovah, but inquired whether there was not such a prophet still in existence (1Ki 22:7), that they might inquire the will of the Lord of him ( ).

1Ki 22:8

Ahab then named to him one, but one whom he hated, because he never prophesied good concerning him, but only evil,

(Note: Just as Agamemnon says to Calchas in Il. iv. 106: , , … )

namely, Micah the son of Jimlah. Josephus and the Rabbins suppose him to have been the prophet, whose name is not given, who had condemned Ahab in the previous war for setting Benhadad at liberty (1Ki 20:35.). But there is no foundation for this, and it is mere conjecture. At any rate, Ahab had already come to know Micah as a prophet of evil, and, as is evident from 1Ki 22:26, had had him imprisoned on account of an unwelcome prophecy. Ahab’s dislike to this prophet had its root in the belief, which was connected with heathen notions of prophecy and conjuring, that the prophets stood in such a relation to the Deity that the latter necessarily fulfilled their will; a belief which had arisen from the fact that the predictions of true prophets always came to pass (see at Num 22:6 and Num 22:17).

1Ki 22:9

By Jehoshaphat’s desire, Ahab nevertheless sent a chamberlain ( ; see at 1Sa 8:15 and Gen 37:36) to fetch Micah ( , bring quickly).

1Ki 22:10-12

In the meantime the prophets of the calves continued to prophesy success before the two kings, who sat upon thrones “clothed in robes,” i.e., in royal attire, upon a floor in front of the gate of Samaria. , a threshing-floor, i.e., a levelled place in the open air. In order to give greater effect to their announcement, one of them, named Zedekiyah the son of Cnaanah, made himself iron horns, probably iron spikes held upon the head (Thenius), and said, “With these wilt thou thrust down Aram even to destruction.” This symbolical action was an embodiment of the figure used by Moses in the blessing of Joseph (Deu 33:17): “Buffalo horns are his (Joseph’s) horns, with them he thrusts down nations” (vid., Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii. p. 131), and was intended to transfer to Ahab in the case before them that splendid promise which applied to the tribe of Ephraim. But the pseudo-prophet overlooked the fact that the fulfilment of the whole of the blessing of Moses was dependent upon fidelity to the Lord. All the rest of the prophets adopted the same tone, saying, “Go to Ramoth, and prosper,” i.e., and thou wilt prosper. (On this use of two imperatives see Ges. 130, 2).

1Ki 22:13-14

The messenger who fetched Micah tried on the way to persuade him to prophesy success to the king as the other prophets had done; but Micah replied with a solemn oath, that he would only speak what Jehovah said to him.

1Ki 22:15-17

Micah’s prophecy concerning the war, and his testimony against the lying prophets. – 1Ki 22:15, 1Ki 22:16. When Micah had come into the presence of the king, he replied to his question, “Shall we go against Ramoth?” etc., in just the same words as the pseudo-prophets, to show the king how he would speak if he were merely guided by personal considerations, as the others were. From the verbal agreement in his reply, and probably also from the tone in which he spoke, Ahab perceived that his words were ironical, and adjured him to speak only truth in the name of Jehovah. Micah then told him what he had seen in the spirit (1Ki 22:17): “I saw all Israel scatter itself upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd;” and then added the word of the Lord: “These have no master; let them return every one to his house in peace.” That is to say, Ahab would fall in the war against Ramoth in Gilead, and his army scatter itself without a leader upon the mountains of Gilead, and then every one would return home, without being pursued and slain by the enemy. Whilst Zedekiyah attempted to give greater emphasis to his prophecy by symbolically transferring to Ahab’s enterprise the success predicted by Moses, Micah, on the other hand, showed to the king out of the law that would really take place in the intended war, namely, that very state of things which Moses before his departure sought to avert from Israel, by the prayer that the Lord would set a man over the congregation to lead them out and in, that the congregation might not become as sheep that have no shepherd (Num 27:16-17).

1Ki 22:18

But although Ahab had asked for a true word of the Lord, yet he endeavoured to attribute the unfavourable prophecy to Micah’s persona enmity, saying to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell thee that he prophesies nothing good concerning me, but only evil (misfortune)?”

1Ki 22:19-25

Micah was not led astray, however, by this, but disclosed to him by a further revelation the hidden ground of the false prophecy of his 400 prophets. , “therefore, sc. because thou thinkest so, hear the word of Jehovah: I saw the Lord sit upon His throne, and all the army of heaven stand around him ( as in Gen 18:8, etc.) on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, Who will persuade Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth in Gilead? and one spake so, the other so; and the spirit came forth (from the ranks of the rest), stood before Jehovah, and said, I will persuade him…I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He (Jehovah) said, Persuade, and thou wilt also be able; go forth and do so. And now Jehovah has put a lying spirit into the mouth of all his prophets; but Jehovah (Himself) has spoken evil (through me) concerning thee.” The vision described by Micah was not merely a subjective drapery introduced by the prophet, but a simple communication of the real inward vision by which the fact had been revealed to him, that the prophecy of those 400 prophets was inspired by a lying spirit. The spirit ( ) which inspired these prophets as a lying spirit is neither Satan, nor any evil spirit whatever, but, as the definite article and the whole of the context show, the personified spirit of prophecy, which is only so far a (Zec 13:2; 1Jo 4:6) and under the influence of Satan as it works as in accordance with the will of God. For even the predictions of the false prophets, as we may see from the passage before us, and also from Zec 13:2 and the scriptural teaching in other passages concerning the spiritual principle of evil, were not mere inventions of human reason and fancy; but the false prophets as well as the true were governed by a supernatural spiritual principle, and, according to divine appointment, were under the influence of the evil spirit in the service of falsehood, just as the true prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit in the service of the Lord. The manner in which the supernatural influence of the lying spirit upon the false prophets is brought out in Micah’s vision is, that the spirit of prophecy ( ) offers itself to deceive Ahab as in the false prophets. Jehovah sends this spirit, inasmuch as the deception of Ahab has been inflicted upon him as a judgment of God for his unbelief. But there is no statement here to the effect that this lying spirit proceeded from Satan, because the object of the prophet was simply to bring out the working of God in the deception practised upon Ahab by his prophets. – The words of Jehovah, “Persuade Ahab, thou wilt be able,” and “Jehovah has put a lying spirit,” etc., are not to be understood as merely expressing the permission of God, as the fathers and the earlier theologians suppose. According to the Scriptures, God does work evil, but without therefore willing it and bringing forth sin. The prophet’s view is founded upon this thought: Jehovah has ordained that Ahab, being led astray by a prediction of his prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, shall enter upon the war, that he may find therein the punishment of his ungodliness. As he would not listen to the word of the Lord in the mouth of His true servants, God had given him up ( , Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:28) in his unbelief to the working of the spirits of lying. But that this did not destroy the freedom of the human will is evident from the expression , “thou canst persuade him,” and still more clearly from , “thou wilt also be able,” since they both presuppose the possibility of resistance to temptation on the part of man.

Zedekiah was so enraged at this unveiling of the spirit of lying by which the pseudo-prophets were impelled, that he smote Micah upon the cheek, and said (1Ki 22:24): “Where did the Spirit of Jehovah depart from me, to speak to thee?” To the Chronicles add as an explanation, : “by what way had he gone from me?” (cf. 2Ki 3:8, and Ewald, 326, a.) Zedekiah was conscious that he had not invented his prophecy himself, and therefore it was that he rose up with such audacity against Micah; but he only proved that it was not the Spirit of God which inspired him. If he had been inspired by the Spirit of the Lord, he would not have thought it necessary to try and give effect to his words by rude force, but he would have left the defence of his cause quietly to the Lord, as Micah did, who calmly replied to the zealot thus (1Ki 22:25): “Thou wilt see it (that the Spirit of Jehovah had departed from thee) on the day when thou shalt go from chamber to chamber to hide thyself” ( for , see Ges. 75, Anm. 21). This was probably fulfilled at the close of the war, when Jezebel or the friends of Ahab made the pseudo-prophets suffer for the calamitous result; although there is nothing said about this in our history, which confines itself to the main facts.

1Ki 22:26-27

But Ahab had Micah taken back to Amon the commander of the city, and to Joash the king’s son, with the command to put him in prison and to feed him with bread and water of affliction, till he came safe back ( ) from the war. From the expression , “lead him back,” it evidently follows that Micah had been fetched from the commander of the city, who had no doubt kept him in custody, as the city-prison was probably in his house. The opposite cannot be inferred from the words “put him into the prison;” for this command, when taken in connection with what follows, simply enjoins a more severe imprisonment.

1Ki 22:28

In his consciousness of the divine truth of his announcement, Micah left the king with these words: “If thou come back safe, Jehovah has not spoken by me. Hear it, all ye nations.” does not mean people, for it is only in the antique language of the Pentateuch that the word has this meaning, but nations; and Micah thereby invokes not only the persons present as witnesses of the truth of his words, but the nations generally, Israel and the surrounding nations, who were to discern the truth of his word from the events which would follow (see at Mic 1:2).

1Ki 22:29-40

The issue of the war, and death of Ahab. – 1Ki 22:29. Ahab, disregarding Micah’s prophecy, went on with the expedition, and was even joined by Jehoshaphat, of whom we should have thought that, after what had occurred, he at any rate would have drawn back. He was probably deterred by false shame, however, from retracting the unconditional promise of help which he had given to Ahab, merely in consequence of a prophetic utterance, which Ahab had brought against his own person from Micah’s subjective dislike. But Jehoshaphat narrowly escaped paying the penalty for it with his life (v. 32), and on his fortunate return to Jerusalem had to listen to a severe reproof from the prophet Jehu in consequence (2Ch 19:2).

1Ki 22:30-31

And even Ahab could not throw off a certain fear of the fulfilment of Micah’s prophecy. He therefore resolved to go to the battle in disguise, that he might not be recognised by the enemy. (“disguise myself and go into the battle,” i.e., I will go into the battle in disguise): an infin. absol., – a broken but strong form of expression, which is frequently used for the imperative, but very rarely for the first person of the voluntative (cf. Ewald, 328, c.), and which is probably employed here to express the anxiety that impelled Ahab to take so much trouble to ensure his own safety. (Luther has missed the meaning in his version; in the Chronicles, on the contrary, it is correctly given.) , “but do thou put on thy clo thes. ” These words are not to be taken as a command, but simply in this sense: “thou mayest (canst) put on thy (royal) dress, since there is no necessity for thee to take any such precautions as I have to take.” There is no ground for detecting any cunning, vafrities, on the part of Ahab in these words, as some of the older commentators have done, as though he wished thereby to divert the predicted evil from himself to Jehoshaphat. but we may see very clearly that Ahab had good reason to be anxious about his life, from the command of the Syrian king to the captains of his war-chariots (1Ki 22:31) to fight chiefly against the king of Israel. We cannot infer from this, however, that Ahab was aware of the command. The measure adopted by him may be sufficiently accounted for from his fear of the fulfilment of Micah’s evil prophecy, to which there may possibly have been added some personal offence that had been given on his part to the Syrian king in connection with the negotiations concerning the surrender of Ramoth, which had no doubt preceded the war. The thirty-two commanders of the war-chariots and cavalry are, no doubt, the commanders who had taken the place of the thirty-two kings (1Ki 21:24). “Fight not against small and great, but against the king of Israel only,” i.e., endeavour above all others to fight against the king of Israel and to slay him.

1Ki 22:32-33

And when the leaders of the war-chariots saw Jehoshaphat in the battle in his royal clothes, they took him for the king of Israel (Ahab), and pressed upon him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out; and from this they perceived that he was not the king of Israel, and turned away from him. , “and they thought, it is only (i.e., no other than) the king of Israel.” , “they bent upon him.” Instead of this we have in the Chronicles , “they surrounded him,” and Thenius proposes to alter our text to this; but there is no necessity for doing so, as also occurs in a similar sense and connection in 1Ki 20:39. How far Jehoshaphat was saved by his crying out, is not precisely stated. He probably cried out to his followers to come to his aid, from which the Syrians discovered that he was not the king of Israel, whom they were in search of. The chronicler adds (1Ki 2:18, 1Ki 2:31): “and the Lord helped him and turned them off from him;” thus believingly tracing the rescue of the king to its higher causality, though without our having any right to infer from this that Jehoshaphat cried aloud to God for help, which is not implied in the words of the Chronicles.

1Ki 22:34

But notwithstanding the precaution he had taken, Ahab did not escape the judgment of God. “A man drew his bow in his simplicity” ( as in 2Sa 15:11), i.e., without trying to hit any particular man, “and shot the king of Israel between the skirts and the coat of mail.” are “joints by which the iron thorax was attached to the hanging skirt, which covered the abdomen” (Cler.). The true coat of mail covered only the breast, to somewhere about the last rib; and below this it had an appendage (skirts) consisting of moveable joints. Between this appendage and the true coat of mail there was a groove through which the arrow passed, and, entering the abdomen, inflicted upon the king a mortal would; so that he said to his charioteer: , verte manus tuas , i.e., turn round (cf. 2Ki 9:23). The Chethb (plural) is the only correct reading, since the driver held the reins in both his hands. : for I am wounded.

1Ki 22:35

“And the conflict ascended,” i.e., became more violent. The use of the verb in this sense may be accounted for on the supposition that it is founded upon the figure of a rising stream, which becomes more and more impetuous the higher it rises (vid., Isa 8:7). “And the king was stationed (i.e., remained or kept himself in an upright posture) upon the chariot before the Syrians,” that he might not dishearten his soldiers, “and died in the evening, and poured the blood of the wounds in the middle hollow ( ) of the chariot.”

1Ki 22:36-37

Towards sunset the cry went through the army ( , the army drawn up in battle array), “Every one into his city and into his land!” – In 1Ki 22:37 the historian shows how the word of the Lord was fulfilled in the case of Ahab. “Thus the king died and came to Samaria:” equivalent to, thus the king reached Samaria dead; and he was buried there.

1Ki 22:38

When they washed the chariot at the pool of Samaria, the dogs licked his blood, while the harlots were bathing (in the pool). is a circumstantial clause, and means to bathe, as in Exo 2:5. This explanation, which is sustained by the grammar and is the only tenable one, disposes of the several arbitrary interpretations of these words, together with the emendations of the text of which Thenius is so fond. In this way was the word of the Lord through Elijah (1Ki 21:19) and the unknown prophet (1Ki 20:42) fulfilled; also the prediction of Micah (1Ki 22:17). Ahab had paid the penalty with his own life for sparing the life of Benhadad (1Ki 20:42), and his blood was licked up by the dogs (1Ki 21:19). The fact that the dogs licked up the blood and the harlots were bathing in the pool, when the chariot that was stained with the blood of Ahab was being washed, is mentioned as a sign of the ignominious contempt which was heaped upon him at his death.

1Ki 22:39-40

Close of Ahab’s history. We have no further account of his buildings. “The ivory palace,” i.e., the palace inlaid with ivory, he had probably built in his capital Samaria (cf. Amo 3:15).

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Jehoshaphat’s League with Ahab.

B. C. 897.

      1 And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel.   2 And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel.   3 And the king of Israel said unto his servants, Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria?   4 And he said unto Jehoshaphat, Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead? And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses.   5 And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day.   6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.   7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?   8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.   9 Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah.   10 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them.   11 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them.   12 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king’s hand.   13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good.   14 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak.

      Though Ahab continued under guilt and wrath, and the dominion of the lusts to which he had sold himself, yet, as a reward for his professions of repentance and humiliation, though the time drew near when he should descend into battle and perish, yet we have him blessed with a three years’ peace (v. 1) and an honourable visit made him by Jehoshaphat king of Judah, v. 2. The Jews have a fabulous conceit, that when Ahab humbled himself for his sin, and lay in sackcloth, he sent for Jehoshaphat to come to him, to chastise him; and that he staid with him for some time, and gave him so many stripes every day. This is a groundless tradition. He came now, it is probable, to consult him about the affairs of their kingdoms. It is strange that so great a man as Jehoshaphat would pay so much respect to a kingdom revolted from the house of David, and that so good a man should show so much kindness to a king revolted from the worship of God. But, though he was a godly man, his temper was too easy, which betrayed him into snares and inconveniences. The Syrians durst not give Ahab any disturbance. But,

      I. Ahab here meditates a war against the Syrians, and advises concerning it with those about him, v. 3. The king of Syria gave him the provocation; when he lay at his mercy, he promised to restore him his cities (ch. xx. 34), and Ahab foolishly took his word, when he ought not to have dismissed him till the cities were put into his possession. But now he knows by experience, what he ought before to have considered, that as the kisses, so the promises, of an enemy are deceitful, and there is no confidence to be put in leagues extorted by distress. Benhadad is one of those princes that think themselves bound by their word no further and no longer than it is for their interest. Whether any other cities were restored we do not find, but Ramoth-Gilead was not, a considerable city in the tribe of Gad, on the other side Jordan, a Levites’ city, and one of the cities of refuge. Ahab blames himself, and his people, that they did not bestir themselves to recover it out of the hands of the Syrians, and to chastise Ben-hadad’s violation of his league; and resolves to let that ungrateful perfidious prince know that as he had given him peace he could give him trouble. Ahab has a good cause, yet succeeds not. Equity is not to be judged of by prosperity.

      II. He engages Jehoshaphat, and draws him in, to join with him in this expedition, for the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead, v. 4. And here I do not wonder that Ahab should desire the assistance of so pious and prosperous a neighbour. Even bad men have often coveted the friendship of the good. It is desirable to have an interest in those that have an interest in heaven, and to have those with us that have God with them. But it is strange that Jehoshaphat will go so entirely into Ahab’s interests as to say, I am as thou art, and my people as thy people. I hope not; Jehoshaphat and his people are not so wicked and corrupt as Ahab and his people. Too great a complaisance to evildoers has brought many good people, through unwariness, into a dangerous fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. Jehoshaphat had like to have paid dearly for his compliment when, in battle, he was taken for Ahab. Yet some observe that in joining with Israel against Syria he atoned for his father’s fault in joining with Syria against Israel, 1Ki 15:19; 1Ki 15:20.

      III. At the special instance and request of Jehoshaphat, he asks counsel of the prophets concerning this expedition. Ahab thought it enough to consult with his statesmen, but Jehoshaphat moves that they should enquire of the word of the Lord, v. 5. Note, 1. Whithersoever a good man goes he desires to take God along with him, and will acknowledge him in all his ways, ask leave of him, and look up to him for success. 2. Whithersoever a good man goes he ought to take his religion along with him, and not be ashamed to own it, no, not when he is with those who have no kindness for it. Jehoshaphat has not left behind him, at Jerusalem, his affection, his veneration, for the word of the Lord, but both avows it and endeavours to introduce it into Ahab’s court. If Ahab drew him into his wars, he will draw Ahab into his devotions.

      IV. Ahab’s 400 prophets, the standing regiment he had of them (prophets of the groves they called them), agreed to encourage him in this expedition and to assure him of success, v. 6. He put the question to them with a seeming fairness: Shall I go or shall I forbear? But they knew which way his inclination was and designed only to humour the two kings. To please Jehoshaphat, they made use of the name Jehovah: He shall deliver it into the hand of the king; they stole the word from the true prophets (Jer. xxiii. 30) and spoke their language. To please Ahab they said, Go up. They had indeed probabilities on their side: Ahab had, not long since, beaten the Syrians twice; he had now a good cause, and was much strengthened by his alliance with Jehoshaphat. But they pretended to speak by prophecy, not by rational conjecture, by divine, not human, foresight: “Thou shalt certainly recover Ramoth-Gilead.” Zedekiah, a leading man among these prophets, in imitation of the true prophets, illustrated his false prophecy with a sign, v. 11. He made himself a pair of iron horns, representing the two kings, and their honour and power (both of which were signified by horns, exaltation and force), and with these the Syrians must be pushed. All the prophets agreed, as one man, that Ahab should return from this expedition a conqueror, v. 12. Unity is not always the mark of a true church and a true ministry. Here were 400 men that prophesied with one mind and one mouth, and yet all in an error.

      V. Jehoshaphat cannot relish this sort of preaching; it is not like what he was used to. The false prophets cannot so mimic the true but that he who had spiritual senses exercised could discern the fallacy, and therefore he enquired for a prophet of the Lord besides, v. 7. He is too much of a courtier to say any thing by way of reflection on the king’s chaplains, but he waits to see a prophet of the Lord, intimating that he could not look upon these to be so. They seemed to be somewhat (whatever they were, it made no matter to him), but, in conference, they added nothing to him, they gave him no satisfaction, Gal. ii. 6. One faithful prophet of the Lord was worth them all.

      VI. Ahab has another, but one he hates, Micaiah by name, and, to please Jehoshaphat, he is willing to have him sent for, v. 8-10. Ahab owned that they might enquire of the Lord by him, that he was a true prophet, and one that knew God’s mind. And yet, 1. He hated him, and was not ashamed to own to the king of Judah that he did so, and to give this for a reason. He doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And whose fault was that? If Ahab had done well, he would have heard nothing but good from heaven; if he do ill, he may thank himself for all the uneasiness which the reproofs and threats of God’s word gave him. Note, Those are wretchedly hardened in sin, and are ripening apace for ruin, who hate God’s ministers because they deal plainly with them and faithfully warn them of their misery and danger by reason of sin, and reckon those their enemies that tell them the truth. 2. He had (it should seem) imprisoned him; for, when he committed him (v. 26), he bade the officer carry him back, namely, to the place whence he came. We may suppose that this was he that reproved him for his clemency to Ben-hadad (ch. xx. 38, c.) and for so doing was cast into prison, where he had lain these three years. This was the reason why Ahab knew where to find him so readily, &lti>v. 9. But his imprisonment had not excluded him for divine visits: the spirit of prophecy continued with him there. He was bound, but the word of the Lord was not. Nor did it in the lease abate his courage, nor make him less confident or faithful in delivering his message. Jehoshaphat gave too gentle a reproof to Ahab for expressing his indignation against a faithful prophet: Let not the king say so, v. 8. He should have said, “Thou art unjust to the prophet, unkind to thyself, and puttest an affront upon his Lord and thine, in saying so.” Such sinners as Ahab must be rebuked sharply. However he so far yielded to the reproof that, for fear of provoking Jehoshaphat to break off from his alliance with him, he orders Micaiah to be sent for with all speed, v. 9. The two kings sat each in their robes and chairs of state, in the gate of Samaria, ready to receive this poor prophet, and to hear what he had to say; for many will give God’s word the hearing that will not lend it an obedient ear. They were attended with a crowd of flattering prophets, that could not think of prophesying any thing but what was very sweet and very smooth to two such glorious princes now in confederacy. Those that love to be flattered shall not want flatterers.

      VII. Micaiah is pressed by the officer that fetches him to follow the cry, v. 13. That officer was unworthy the name of an Israelite who pretended to prescribe to a prophet; but he thought him altogether such a one as the rest, who studied to please men and not God. He told Micaiah how unanimous the other prophets were in foretelling the king’s good success, how agreeable it was to the king, intimating that it was his interest to say as they said–he might thereby gain, not only enlargement, but preferment. Those that dote upon worldly things themselves think every body else should do so too, and true or false, right or wrong, speak and act for their secular interest only. He intimated likewise that it would be to no purpose to contradict such a numerous and unanimous vote; he would be ridiculed, as affecting a foolish singularity, if he should. But Micaiah, who knows better things, protests, and backs his protestation with an oath, that he will deliver his message from God with all faithfulness, whether it be pleasing or displeasing to his prince (v. 14): “What the Lord saith to me, that will I speak, without addition, diminution, or alteration.” This was nobly resolved, and as became one who had his eye to a greater King than either of these, arrayed with brighter robes, and sitting on a higher throne.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

First Kings – Chapter 22 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 18

Commentary on 1Ki 22:1-12 AND 2Ch 18:1-11

Consulting False Prophets

While Jehoshaphat was enjoying the blessings of the Lord, being enriched by the nations around him, and greatly honored, he paid a visit to Ahab the king of Israel. The godly king of Judah had joined in alliance with the wicked king of Israel. In fact the meaning of the original Hebrew, from which “joined affinity” is translated, means that he made a marriage alliance, marrying his son Jehoram to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab (see 2Ch 21:6). The time was the third year after the Lord had given Ahab a spectacular victory over Ben-hadad, the king of Syria (1Ki, chap. 20). This victory had gotten Ahab three years of peace with Syria.

When Ahab had given Ben-hadad his freedom and allowed him to return to Syria unpunished the Lord had warned Ahab it would be at the price of his life (1Ki 20:42). God’s reckoning day had arrived. The Syrians had captured the Gileadite city of Ramoth on the east of Jordan Now Ahab challenges his men to go to war to repossess it and invites Jehoshaphat to join him in the campaign. It is very surprising to see this godly king consorting with the wicked Ahab, but it appears that he had come to Samaria for the purpose. It has been suggested that he felt a common danger for Judah, along with Israel, from the Syrians.

When Ahab asked Jehoshaphat whether he would go with him to war against Syria to re-take Ramoth-gilead, Jehoshaphat answered, “I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses; we will be with you in the war.” Jehoshaphat was offering his wholehearted effort to fight for this city of the northern kingdom. But Jehoshaphat was not as Ahab, for he feared the Lord while Ahab worshipped Baal; his people were not as the people of Israel, for they still had the temple and were closer to God. It seems altogether out of character for Jehoshaphat thus to join with Ahab in his war. God’s people should never join company with the world (Exo 23:2).

Jehoshaphat at least showed a concern for the will of the Lord and asked Ahab to inquire of the Lord as to His will in the war preparations. So the kings set up court in the gate of the city of Samaria. The Authorized King James Version says it was “a void place,” but language scholars have determined that the translation should be “threshing-floor”. Here Ahab gathered four hundred prophets and asked them whether he should go up against the city of Ramoth-gilead or withdraw. To a man the host of prophets encouraged him to go, assuring him that the Lord would give him victory over the Syrians. Zedekiah, one of the more theatric, had iron horns on his head, a symbol, he claimed, of how Ahab would push the Syrians invincibly and consume them.

Perhaps the prophets felt justified in promising victory because of the great victories the Lord had given Ahab against vast odds three and four years previously. But the spirit they followed was not the spirit of the Lord. Jehoshaphat knew they were not true prophets and seems to have sensed something wrong in their unanimity of prophecy. So he inquired of some other prophet, who did not belong to this gang, who truly represented the Lord in his predictions. Ahab admitted there was another, Micaiah, but that he hated him because he never predicted anything good for the king. Jehoshaphat rebuked the king for such a thought. So Ahab called an officer and sent for Micaiah in haste. Meanwhile the false prophets continued to predict, “Go up to Ramoth gilead, and prosper; for the Lord will deliver it into your hand.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

THE DIVIDED KINGDOM

1 Kings 12-22.

IN resuming our study of I Kings, in this 12th chapter we confront a sudden turn in history. The falling of such a man as Solomon is a shock to history itself; a stop so sudden in its impetuous rush, that all society is shaken in consequence, and wonder as to what next? takes possession of the people. The text of Scripture does not always take account of time. How many days elapsed between the emptying of Davids throne by Solomons death, and the accession to the same on the part of Rehoboam, we are not told; but the pivotal points in this adjustment are made plain, and in the study of them one fact shines clearly forth, namely, that God, the true King of Israel, lived and reigned.

Men make their plans and attempt their executions, but history records how the Divine will overrules them all. The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord (Pro 16:33).

Teachers have called attention to the fitness of renaming the fifth Book of the New Testament, and instead of calling it, The Acts of the Apostles, declare it, The Acts of the Holy Ghost. So in this Old Testament history we seem to be studying the acts of the kings of Judah and Israel, but they are necessarily interpreted in the light of the will of the King of kings, the Lord of Glory. Whosoever sitteth upon the throne, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Keeping that fact before us, we find these eleven chapters are as full of spiritual suggestions as they are replete with historic incidents, and in the interest of time as it relates itself to the most important truths, I ask your attention to the great opposing personalities that are herein discovered; to Jeroboam vs. Rehoboam; to Elijah vs. Ahab, and to Micaiah vs. false prophets.

JEROBOAM VS. REHOBOAM

Coming events cast their shadows before! We had not finished the 11th chapter when Jeroboam, the son of Neb at, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomons servant, the son of a widow, was lifting his hand against the king, and Ahijah, the prophet, was kindling his ambitions by telling him that the God of Israel would rend the kingdom out of Solomons hands and give ten tribes to him. The path, therefore, of Rehoboam, Solomons son, was not clear. If he came to the kingdom he must both put down his opponent and placate his people. This dual task requires wisdom, and the subject of the complaint was one with which the counsellors of the old king were alone familiar. When Rehoboam consulted them, they advised moderation in speech and conduct.

That is a hard word for ambitious youth. It is a consent to place a leash on passionate strength. The impetuous prince straightway made appeal to young men and secured from them the counsel his inexperienced spirit craved, namely the counsel of rigor, expressed in. the threat, my little finger shall be thicker than my fathers loins (1Ki 12:10).

Men, particularly inexperienced men, commonly accept the counsels that fit with their own plans and desires, and Rehoboam was no exception.

But even then, history is not made apart from the will and plan of God. The very decision of Rehoboam is a part of the prophecy of Ahijah as much so as the perfidy of Judas was prophecy converted into history. Whether God rules in all things may be a question! That God is familiar with all contingencies before they come to pass is not even debatable, and that He presides over history is a settled truth. If Judas betrayed Jesus that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled, so also Rehoboam refused wise counsel and accepted the false, that the word which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite should stand. Foreknowledge of human conduct does not render God morally responsible in any measure for what men may do, but it does enable Him to administer all history, and in the end to work out His own will.

In the remaining portion of this chapter and running through the 16th of the same book, there are at least three outstanding lessons to be learned by the observant student.

The Menace of mistaken counsels! Modern science is proving that all space is a unity, and transmission of sound by the radio is demonstrating that the speech made in America can actually be heard on every continent of the world; and yet more certain still is it that single events influence and affect history more positively and permanently than a spoken word affects the element of ether.

If it had been the rule of Rehoboam alone, the result of this consultation with the old men first and with the young men later must still have been important, but with limitations, both in time and effect. When it is remembered, however, that all human history, to the end of the age, would take color from the decision reached by this young king, then who can measure the importance of wise counsel?

The cheapest commodity is advice; that is to say, it is everywhere on exhibit and offered for nothing, but in the end it comes at the greatest conceivable cost or proves itself to have been a most invaluable contribution. In other words, counsel makes or mars. The world to this hour is suffering from Rehoboams mistake, not alone in the division of the sons of Abraham, but since that day, every Gentile nation has felt the evil influence of the same.

There is a philosophy, popular at this time, to the effect that it does not make much difference what you tell youth; whether you counsel them concerning the true God in heaven, or tell them that the only God there is is a one-celled animal; whether you lead them to believe that the inspired record of Genesis is true, or scoff their minds into an utter skepticism; whether you impress them with the notion that they are apesbetter developed, or the true creatures of Gods own thought, plan and power. There seems to be an impression that the counsel of youth finds no expression in the character of mature men and womena philosophy as false as the devil who fathers it.

I tell you that the counsels of youth determine everything! America, one hundred years from now, will be reaping the harvest of what is sown in the minds of the young men at this moment. If they are taught the truth, they will bless the world. If they are taught a lie, they will curse it! A correct counsel for the young is of too infinite moment to be banished from society through the specious plea of skeptics who cry Academic freedom. Rehoboam was not a beardless boy when they counselled him falsely. He was forty-one years of age, and yet, with even such maturity of years, he succumbed, and the nations have suffered in consequence. How vastly more deleterious is the effect of false counsel upon the ten and fifteen and twenty year old youth! To teach him falsehoods in the name of academic freedom is to flout all sound philosophy, fly in the face of all mans experience and seek to cover rotting skepticism with a wholesome sounding phrase!

But to pass on to another and kindred point, involving chapter 13:

The immorality of compromise with false ministers. When in the study of the week we came to a careful consideration of this 13th chapter, we felt exactly as though we were listening to an address in the Convention of the Christian Fundamentalists. Here is a true prophet of God with a Divinely given message, and a commission, and on his way. He is overtaken by a false prophet, a new theologian, a man with a social message, and is asked to sit at meat with him and prove himself a good fellow, and is even told that this is the will of the Lord. So the true prophet went back with the false prophet and did eat bread and drink water and the consequence was his repudiation by the false prophet first and a speedy judgment upon his disobedience, executed by his death at the paw of a lion (1Ki 13:11-32). The false prophet mourned him, buried and built a tomb to him, and requested of his own sons that he be let to lie beside him when his days are done.

How modern it all sounds! The greatest single plea presented by the new theologian of the present is that of good fellowship. They want us to sit at the same table with them; they want us to be silent about our differences; they want us to believe in their human and natural philosophies; that they are as true prophets of God as are the men who come with the revealed Word; and if we yield to their persuasions, compromise with them on the great matters in dispute between us. Deep in their own souls they despise us for our failure to stand for what we knew to be the inspired Word, and yet when we are dead, they will build tombs to us, and ask to be buried at our sides!

Meantime, every true minister of the Gospel must determine whether he will yield to such social and philosophic enticements or whether he will take his place with John and in obedience to the revelation made to that prophet, receive him not into your house, neither hid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (2Jn 1:10-11).

Moving on to chapters 14 to 16, we find another fundamental truth waiting to be apprehended and emphasized, namely,

The folly of attempting to purchase acceptable prophecy. Here again the Old Testament times are being duplicated in the New Testament day. The son of Jeroboam fell sick. Ahijah the prophet was consulted by the queen mother, who came in disguise, with gifts and flatteries. The old mans vision had failed; his eyes were set by reason of age, he could not see; but age does not dim the vision of the Lord, and He revealed her personality to Ahijah and told him both her plan and purpose. So at the sound of her feet at the door, the old prophet said, Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another? for I am sent to thee with heavy tidings (1Ki 14:6), and he pronounced judgment upon the king and his house and plainly declared that God would raise up another king over Israel who should cut off the whole house of Jeroboam in justice against the kings sin; and the prophecy came to pass, and Jeroboam, who had reigned twenty-two years, slept with his fathers, and Rehoboam, son of Solomon, who reigned in Judah, went also to his grave. Singularly enough, the death of these kings is recorded in the same chapter.

Then follows the long list of the kings on either side, conflicts, divisions, disasters and judgments (chaps. 15; 16). There are plenty of people who would like to purchase acceptable prophecy. There are plenty of women who, like Jeroboams wife, do not want the truth of God. They want smooth words; they want the prophet to say there is no sickness; they want him to affirm there is no death; they want him even to deny the reality of the same. Such people are perfectly willing to pay a price. They go to the healers, with ten loaves and cracknels and a cruse of honey. False philosophy is a profitable business, but it never yet exempted anybody from peril, never saved a single scientist from sin or sickness or death. It never kept a solitary throne upon a stable foundation and it never will.

It is interesting to watch these thrones rock, totter and fall one after another, and to find in every instance a fulfilment of the prophetic word of the Lord. Though heaven and earth shall pass away, not one jot or tittle of all that God has spoken shall fail.

But to turn afresh to our text and study another subject.

ELIJAH VS. AHAB

Read 1 Kings 17-21.

The histories of potentates and prophets run parallel in the Books of the Kings. Their views of life are divergent. Elijah and Ahab have little in common beyond the fact that they are contemporaneous, and dwell in the same empire. Elijahs character so far outshines that of Ahab that we consider the latter only as his conduct is seen in the light of the former. Let us learn again,

A pessimistic pronouncement does not disprove the prophet of God. When Elijah the Tishbite comes upon the scene, his first speech is, As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years (1Ki 17:1). No! wonder he was non-acceptable! Unpalatable truths make unpopular preachers. The men who dont want to believe in the prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ, denounce as pessimists those who faithfully quote and believe Gods word upon that subject, and feel that by the very name they have discredited and discountenanced them. But Revelation pays little regard to what men want. It never consults public opinion that it may suit its speech to the same. It gives out the truth, knowing that in the end the knowledge of the truth is the worlds sorest need. If a famine is coming, it is foolish to shut ones ears against its prediction and be overtaken by starvation; and, if Christ is coming, it is foolish to repudiate the prophecy, to be shamed by His sudden appearance.

When will men learn that the prophet of God is not appointed to repeat the nonsensical platitudes of a Coue, or the filched and false aphorisms of a Mary Baker Eddy? The test of the prophets has not changed one whit in thirty centuries. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa 8:20). When a prophet speaketh in the Name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken (Deu 18:22). Only a few years ago the post millenarians of America were telling us that war was forever over; that in the evolution of the race we had developed a better wisdom and adopted a more righteous way, and they held to scorn those who believed that in the last days wars would rend the world; and that famines, and pestilences would follow in the wake of them. But the words of Jeremiah the Prophet are the test of all such opponents of the truth, The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him (Jer 28:9).

The 18th chapter has a further suggestionThe Prophets faith and speech is his sufficient self-defense. In this chapter, Elijah suddenly appears and sends, by the mouth of the Prophet Obadiah, word to Ahab, Elijah is here! He had no fear! He dared to face Ahab, the professed king of Israel, confident in the Potentate of Heaven, Israels true King. In answer to Ahabs question, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? he set up his defense, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy fathers house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord (1Ki 18:17-18), and by faith he proposed a challenge, involving the entire company of Baal prophets, The God that answereth by fire, let Him be God (1Ki 18:24). We know the result; Jehovah revealed Himself as a God that heareth and answereth prayer, and it was made manifest that Baal was no god at all, and the consequence is the slaughter of the false prophets and the justification of Elijah. What other defense does the true prophet need for his person than he has in the King of kings, the Lord of Glory? And what other defense for his message than that he brings the Word of the Lord?

It doesnt concern me that certain of my brethren write, We wont accept the article on the Second Coming of Christ to be found in the Confession of Faith of the Fundamentalists of America. My concern is in another subject. Are these articles justified by the Word, and fortified in the sacred sentences thereof? The Lord is the defense of the true minister, and the Word the one and only justification of his message.

The endangered prophet has the assurance of Divine care and provision. The execution of the false prophets stirred Jezebel to desperate decision. The life of Elijah is threatened. A womans rage holds nothing in reverence. The fury of Jezebel was a thousandfold more dangerous than the anger of Ahab, and from it Elijah fled; before it, Elijah fainted; in the face of it, Elijah requested for himself that he might die (1 Kings 19).

And yet it is impossible to believe that Elijahs fear and discouragement were the fruits of cowardice. Instead they were the natural reactions of an overstrained spirit; doubtless in part, the result of having slain the false prophets in keeping with the customs of the day, when he had no command from the Lord, and also the protest of an overtaxed mind and body.

How grateful readers should be that the whole story is recorded, for with it is also written the story of Gods tenderness and the repeated instances of Gods care. Two visits from an angel, food and drink; a still, small voice; a gracious declaration of the 7,000 fraternal souls. What refreshing for body, mind and spirit! God truly cares for the whole man, and concerns Himself for him who ministers in His Word.

But to conclude our study with the consideration of,

MICAIAH VS. FALSE PROPHETS

and to learn from these three remaining chapters, 20 to 22, three important lessons:

Ahab wages successful war when he has Gods Word for his warrant. In his battle against Benhadad the king of Syria, he had Gods promise against Syria, Behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord (1Ki 20:13). The battle was won when that word was spoken. Ahab is no saint. His life and conduct are not acceptable to Jehovah, but he is king of Israel, the ruler over Gods people, and God cares for His own, and when they are at war with sinners, men who do not so much as name God, Jehovah is likely to be on their side.

Even poor leadership is not likely to doom a good cause. God does not lose His interest in right, when the evil rule. A thousandfold better to fight for a just cause with weak leadership than for an unjust cause, superbly led. The boasted scholarship of modernism fills me with no fear in trying to stand before it. Intellectual superiority, when it sets itself against God, is insanity; and even the great Gladstone of England had no objection to being found in fellowship with the plain people. He was that countrys Commoner indeed, and Americas great Commoner, William Jennings Bryan, was brainy enough to know that battles will finally be won upon the basis of right and wrong, which is only another way of saying, If God be for us, who can be against us? Where God is, there is victory! In the last analysis, the success of an enterprise does not depend upon its human leadership but rests with the Divine favor instead.

But to the 21st chapter and learn another lesson The covetousness of a king may be indulged at the cost of a kingdom. Here we have the record of Naboths vineyard, desired by Ahab and refused by its rightful owner. People may be disposed to condemn Naboth for not selling out when his superior proffered him a fair price, but only such as are ignorant of the Word would so speak. Naboth was more anxious to be loyal to the King of kings than to this petty potentate. He could not forget the Word of the Lord written in Num 36:7, So shall not the inheritance of the Children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the Children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers; and if Ahab had known the Word of the Lord, he would have been reminded of Eze 46:18, Moreover the prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession.

Some men have sought to justify Ahab here by saying this was not covetousness, since he offered Naboth a proper price for it, but the defense is insufficient. The man who so far covets his neighbors possessions as to secure his death in order to appropriate the same is an enemy alike of God and of man, and cannot escape the judgment of the Lord. Hence it is written, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine (1Ki 21:19).

Truly, as Joseph Parker says, When Ahab went down to take possession of that vineyard, a death warrant was awaiting him. Yea, all the world does move under the hand of God and there are righteous results everywhere operative, and justice is a thousand fold more often meted out than men ever imagine.

A defenseless boy may be picked off a train in Florida and a purchasable judge may fine him an amount that he knows the lad does not have, and under the pretense of justice fling him into prison to die at the hands of a flogging brute in the form of a man, and months may pass; no mention of the matter reach the public, and in consequence the criminal chuckles to himself, My deeds are covered! Justice, if it sleep, is not dead, and in an unexpected moment it will arouse itself to speak in thunder tones, quickening the whole nation into a united jury that shall pass sentence and demand judgment. God lives!

Finally, The temporal interests of Gods Kingdom rest between true and false prophets. The last chapter tells the story of Micaiah, Gods true Prophet, and of a company of men who profess to be prophets, but who are possessed by a lying spirit. There were about 400 of these. Majorities do not settle questions of revelation, not even when they are 400 to 1! The more false prophets you have, the less dependable is their counsel. For the first time since Solomons death, the two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, have a prospect of being united. The lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets did promise the project and assure the united forces of a final victory against the enemy.

Alas for the faith of men who follow those who have no sure word of prophecy! Micaiah, the true prophet, may be smitten on the cheek; may be thrust into prison; may be fed with the bread of affliction and the water of shame, but His word will not fail on that account. Throughout the length and breadth of the land, on this beautiful Sunday morning, there are hundreds of true prophets of God whom certain ecclesiastical potentates are seeking to silence. In the Methodist denomination, bishops are refusing them appointments. In the Baptist and Congregational denominations, State Secretaries are setting their faces against them, and are seeking to influence leading church officials to reject them, and cast them out.

Suffering is the true prophets experience, but better a Micaiah in prison with scant bread and unslaked thirst, than a deceived king marching forth to a battle that shall leave him dead on the field. The after-history of the prophet we do not know. God for His own reasons left that in obscurity. What matters it? If, as a free man he breathed his last as Moses did, on Nebos heights; if as a martyr he yielded up his spirit as did Stephen in Jerusalem; if as Paul he perished in prison, what matters it? An angel came to claim Moses body; Heaven opened to receive Stephens spirit; and Paul quit the earth with a triumphant shout! The kingdom is suffering; its king and subjects are still evil in the sight of the Lord; Baal, the false god of worship is an insult to the most High, but the prophets spirit is safe!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

THE DEATH OF AHAB

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.

1Ki. 22:2. Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of IsraelThis visit is accounted for in Chronicles (chap. 1Ki. 18:1): Jehoshaphat came to Israel for the marriage of his son Jehoram to Ahabs daughter, Athaliah (see 2Ki. 8:18). Ahab entertained with sumptuous hospitality Jehoshaphat and his immense retinue, composed largely of military officers; and then seized the occasion for forming an alliance with the king of Judah against the Syrian king for the recovery of Ramoth-in-Gilead.

1Ki. 22:14. I am as thou artThe Chronicles account omits the words my horses as thy horses, and gives instead , and I am with thee in the war.

1Ki. 22:5. Enquire of the LordThe king of Judah had conscientious misgivings; such, indeed, as were unlikely to trouble the godless Ahab.

1Ki. 22:6. The prophetsThe number, 400, must not mislead. They were not the Astarte prophets again reinstated (1Ki. 18:19; 1Ki. 18:22), but a group of men who continued Jeroboams Jehovah-worship (calf worship) in the land, and were probably employed by Ahab for seductive religious purposes, to estrange the nation from the true worship of Jehovah. Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hands of the king Notice: it is in italics; omit the word, and the prophets merely affirm that the Lord shall deliverwhat? Ramoth or Israel?into the hands of the king. What king? Ramoth into Jehoshaphats (or Ahabs) hands, or Israel into the king of Syrias hands? Couched as their prediction is in ambiguous terms they evade the responsibility of failure. Thus did the Delphian oracle reply to Pysrhus: Aio te cida, Romanos vincere posse: Ibis redibis nunquam in bello peribis. I say to thee Pyrrhus the Romans shall overcome; thou shalt go, thou shalt return never in war shalt thou perish; which may mean, Pyrrhus shall overcome the Romans; that he should return; never in war should he perish; or, the Romans should overcome Pyrrhus, he should return never; in war he should perish. All depended on the punctuation of the sentence. This prophecy is alike equivocal.

1Ki. 22:7. Is there not a prophet of the Lord besides?Perhaps Jehoshaphat had heard rumours of Elijah, and referred to him.

1Ki. 22:8. Micaiah the son of ImlahWho was this? Strong probabilities favour the conclusion that he was the nameless prophet of chap. 1Ki. 20:13; 1Ki. 20:35-41. Whether this man or not, Micaiah had incurred the guilty kings hatred, which is to the honour of the prophet, for Ahab counted every man his enemy (1Ki. 21:20) who denounced his iniquitous conduct.

1Ki. 22:9. Hasten hither MacaiahHe was doubtless then in the prison to which he was afterwards carried back (1Ki. 22:27).

1Ki. 22:10. In a void place, probably an open threshing-floor.

1Ki. 22:11. Zedekiah the son of ChenaanahOne of the four hundred who sought to convince the kings by assuming the symbolic manners of a prophet, probably for the misapplication in the present instance of the grand promise formerly made to Ephraim (Deu. 33:17).

1Ki. 22:15. Go and prosper, &c.Micaiah repeats the delusive words, as in irony. The angry king sees it to be mockery (1Ki. 22:16); yet he resents with greater indignation the true word.

1Ki. 22:19. I saw the Lord sitting on His throneThis is not a parabolic form of speech, but a solemn recital of a prophetic vision.

1Ki. 22:20. Persuade AhabEntice.

1Ki. 22:21. A spirit, the spirit; definite art., i.e., the prophetic spirit which moved the prophets to speak (1Sa. 10:6; 1Sa. 10:10; 1Sa. 19:20; 1Sa. 19:23). Jehovah permits this spirit (which must not be identified with the Spirit Divine) to use the perverted prophetic gifts of Ahabs prophets for Ahabs merited ruin. Ahab would have false prophecy, false prophecy he shall have. God gave him over to believe a lie (Rom. 1:28).

1Ki. 22:22. I will be a lying spirit not Satan, assuredly, nor aliquem ex Satan familia (as Grot.): for this spirit only assumed falsity for the time, whereas Satan was a liar from the beginning.

1Ki. 22:24. Zedekiah smote MicaiahFeeling himself, after his ostentatious conduct (1Ki. 22:11), especially insulted. Keil thinks Zedekiah could only have come thus boldly forward because he was conscious to himself that he had not feigned his oracle. Possibly so; then this proves how the spirit had really moved these men to prophecy falsely unknowingly to themselves. Zedekiahs insolence called out no rebuke from Ahab, nor Micaiahs endurance his praise.

1Ki. 22:28. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of youThese are the words with which Micah the prophet opens his book (Mic. 1:2), and manifestly were interpolated by some scribe who identified Micaiah with Micah.

HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 22:1-28

THE FAITHFUL PROPHET

1Ki. 22:1. Is indispensable in great emergencies.

1. Is appealed to in times of national difficulty (1Ki. 22:1-7). A coalition had been formed between the kings of Israel and Judah. The common danger to which they were exposed from the growing power of Syria led them to forget for a time their differences, and to combine for mutual protection. War was determined upon to wrest from the hands of Benhadad one of the cities he had failed to give up according to treaty (1Ki. 20:34). The four hundred prophets of Ahab declared unanimously in favour of the war, and assured the allied monarchs of victory. But there was something wanting. The pious Jehoshaphat was suspicious of the four hundred; and, in so grave a crisis, demanded a clearer indication of the Divine will. The faithful prophet was needed. Great national emergencies demand the utmost care and thought of men of piety and intelligence.

2. Is appealed to despite the hatred of those who are compelled against their will to consult him (1Ki. 22:8). Probably it was this Micaiah who uttered against Ahab the oracle referred to in 1Ki. 20:42. O corrupt heart of self-condemned Ahab! If Micaiah spake true to thee, how was it evil? If others said false, how was it good? And if Micaiah spake from the Lord, why dost thou hate him? This hath wont to be the ancient lot of truth, censure and hatred: censure of the message, hatred of the bearer. Yet, however much the faithful counsellor is disliked, his services are valued, and often anxiously sought. Cincinnatus was twice called from his farm to the dictatorship of the Roman commonwealth, though the opposing parties would have dispensed with his services if they could.

II. Is favoured with signal opportunities of declaring the will of God (1Ki. 22:9-12). The two kings were seated on their thrones in a conspicuous place, robed in royal vestments, attended by the gaily dressed officers of the court and by the ministering priests, and surrounded by warlike horsemen and infantry. The leading representatives of church and state were assembled together, and the people in great number. It was an opportunity not to be neglected. The faithful, earnest worker will never lack opportunities; and his divinely implanted instincts will teach what are the great opportunities of life, when God can be most honoured.

III. Declares only what is divinely revealed.

1. He spurns all attempts at bribery (1Ki. 22:13-14). The messenger who went for Micaiah seeks to influence him to speak to the same effect as the false prophets, and assured him that by doing so he would win the royal favour. Those who adore earthly greatness think every man should doat on their idols, and hold no terms too high for their ambitious purchases. Faithful Micaiah scorns the notion: he knows the price of the word, and condemns it. Neither fears nor favours can tempt the holily resolute. They can trample upon dangers or honours with a careless foot; and, whether they be smiled or frowned on by the great, dare not either alter or conceal their errand.

2. Is not intimidated by the presence of royalty

(1). Ironically exposes and rebukes the false (1Ki. 22:15). Micaiah uttered the same words as the four hundred prophets; but by his manner of voice and look imitated the irony of Elijah at Carmel, as if to suggest to Ahab how misleading and unworthy of Jehovah was such an ambiguous oracle as theirs. This mocking manner, which might be familiar to Micaiah, galls by its contemptuousness: it is a dangerous weapon; should be judiciously used; in some hands it is strikingly effective.

(2). Speaks the truth, though it is unpleasant to royal ears (1Ki. 22:16-18). Micaiah wholly changes his tone, becomes profoundly serious, and relates his vision, the meaning of which Ahab could not possibly mistake, especially as the metaphor of sheep and shepherd for king and people was familiar to the Israelites from the prayer of Moses (Num. 27:17). He was resolved to speak the naked truth, though he were sure to kiss the stocks for his stiffness. The man who is inspired to declare the Divine will is raised far above the fear of his fellow-creatures, whether they are robed in silks or in rags.

IV. Is sustained and confirmed in his work by heavenly visions (1Ki. 22:19-23). A vision like this of the ineffable glory of Jehovah was a great favour, and only granted on special occasions and for special ends. It was granted to Isaiah (Isa. 6:1), who immediately supposed he must die, because he had seen the King, the Lord of Hosts; to Ezekiel (Eze. 1:26); to Daniel (1Ki. 7:9); and in Christian times it was allowed to Stephen (Act. 7:56) and John (Rev. 4:2). Thus God prepares His servants for special work by a course of training and discipline in every way suited to bring about its faithful accomplishmentby special arrangements of His providence, and by special and striking displays of His glory. The man who sees the Lord, and gains an insight into heavenly realities, will be filled with indomitable courage and perseverance.

V. Is often called to suffer for his faithfulness (1Ki. 22:24-27). The king to whom his fidelity was disagreeable had cast Micaiah into prison, and the leading spirit of the four hundred prophets, whose falseness and delusion he had exposed, struck the bound and helpless prisoner, unrebuked by the great ones in whose presence the insult and injury were committed. It was enough for Ahab to punish with the hand: no weapon was for Zedekiah but his tongue; neither could this rude presumption have been well taken, if malice had not made magistracy insensible of this usurpation. Ahab was well content to see that hated mouth beaten by any hand. It is no new condition of Gods faithful messengers to smart for saying truth. Falsehood does not more betray itself in anything than in blows: truth suffers, while error persecutes. None are more ready to boast of the Spirit of God than those that have the least; as in vessels, the full are silent.

VI. Is not hindered by suffering from proclaiming his message (1Ki. 22:28). Though smitten and dragged back to prison, and threatened with the harshest treatment (1Ki. 22:27), the faithful Micaiah persists in maintaining the truthfulness of his message, and calls upon the people to bear witness to it. How little do we know of suffering compared with what our forefathers endured for the truth. We should be more energetic and earnest than they in making known the will of God. There is danger that immunity from suffering should render us less, rather than more, concerned in upholding and propagating the truth. We prize that most for which we suffer most.

LESSONS:

1. It is a calamity to a nation when every faithful voice it hushed.

2. The faithful prophet is often alone in his witness-bearing.

3. The faithful are nevertheless sustained by Jehovah, and will be by-and-by acknowledged and rewarded by Him.

THE MAN WHO SAW THE LORD (1Ki. 22:19)

The prophets frown; the king turns pale; the people hiss; while the uncompromising man of God delivers the unwelcome message. He is the master spirit of that great multitude. How are we to account for his commanding power? The text (1Ki. 22:19) is the line that fathoms the mystery, the key which unlocks the secret. I saw the Lord. We are no longer astonished at the effect now we know the cause. We think we can understand the mans behaviour; after such a sight, earths poor pomp must have appeared trivial indeed. Faiths perception of God has ever been the strength of the Church. True

Not with our mortal eyes,
Have we beheld the Lord,

yet, Moses like, the Church endures, as seeing Him invisible. Notice

I. The man who sees the Lord can best understand lifes mysteries.

1. We need not attempt to prove that life has its mysteries. The Psalmist was not the only one who had been perplexed by them (Psa. 73:2-17). Many a good mans faith has staggered under the burden of mysterious providences. Micaiah was a man of like passions to ourselves. It must have sorely tried him to see godless Ahab upon a throne; godless prophets basking in royal favour and popular esteem; whilst hewho, true to his convictions, had trodden the path of dutywas shut up in a dungeon. But Gods presence can transform a dungeon to a palace. The dungeon was heavens ante-room. I saw the Lordsuch a sight would wean his soul from earthly delights, and help him to understand the hollowness of earthly grandeur and pomp.

2. Micaiah also understood the mysteries of the Divine government. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will show them His covenant. The imprisoned prophet had seen the moving powerthe unseen forces that had acted upon the four hundred prophets. He had heard the evil spirit obtain permission to lure Ahab to his ruin. He knew that the king was given over to believe a delusion and a lie, that his damnation might be more speedy. He alone, of all the crowd, regarded him as a ruined man. While others were feasting their eyes with the trappings of royal pageantry, he saw the fingers writing Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. He understood the unanimity of the prophets. There were four hundred Ayes, to one No; a miserable minority, the people said, and Jehoshaphat thought so too, or he would not have accompanied the doomed expedition. But truth is never in a minority. The man who has God on his side is always with the majority. Such was Moses in Pharaohs court; Luther before the Diet at Worms; Whitfield amid the showers of rotten eggs on Kennington Common. Such is the God-fearing young man in the shop or warehouse; who, amid the taunts of ungodly associates, maintains a Christian bearing, and testifies to the Gospels worth.

II. The man who sees the Lord can best perform lifes duties.

1. God sometimes calls His people to very unpleasant duties. It is not pleasant to run counter to the wishes of friends by giving our protest against their cherished projects. Yet this was what Micaiah had to do. He knew the consequences of such a course; he would exasperate a king whom he had already offended; he would make his own punishment more severe and intolerable than it had already been; he would become the object of popular hatred and contempt. Yet none of these things moved him. God had the first claim. He had seen the Lord, and that sight had changed unpleasant duties into delightful pleasures

2. The sight of the Lord is essential to the possession of qualifications necessary for religious work. Tis the basis upon which faith rests. Strong faith is the mainspring of earnest work. Unbelief paralyzes Christian effort. The man who has never seen the Lord is not the man for church work. Colleges cannot give this qualification. Ten minutes beside the burning bush was more useful in preparing Moses for his work, than all the years he had spent in acquiring all the wisdom of the Egyptian. It took Gamaliel years to train young Saul to be a bigoted persecutor. It didnt take five minutes for Christ to change him to a devoted Apostle, and from that hour his life testified the truth of his assertion, that he looked at the things which are not seen.

3. A sight of the Lord will cause men to regard worldly interests and personal comforts as secondary matters. The narrative does not give the name of the officer who conducted the prisoner into the royal presence. John Bunyan would call him Worldly Wiseman. The man regarded his prisoner with something akin to pity; his haggard face and bent form moved him to advise him concerning his conduct before the king: Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth; let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. The man didnt mean what he said; he meant: Speak that which is pleasing. And Micaiah said: As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak. How that reply would annoy the officer, who would regard him as an obstinate and foolish man, whose singular folly merited all the punishment he would get. He would not understand such a man. A word, and his rags would be exchanged for purple and fine linen: from a dungeon to a court; from famine to plenty; from degradation to position and fame. But he would not speak the word; he was no time-server to pander to popular taste. What the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.

III. The man who sees the Lord can best endure lifes sufferings. The prison is no longer a prison if God is there. God loves to favour His suffering people with manifestations of His presence, whether it be the three young men in the fiery furnace, or Paul in prison, or John on Patmos; all alike shall testify that He is a very present help in trouble. It was, probably, when Paul had been beaten so severely by his foes as to be unconscious of all around him, afterwards unable to tell whether he was in the body or out of the body, that he was caught up into the third heaven, and heard God say: My grace is sufficient for thee. We know it was when they had many stripes laid upon them, after they had been subjected to the rough violence of a brutal mob, and had spent hours with their swollen limbs in the stocks, that at midnight Paul and Silas sang, and the prisoners heard them. Such sounds had never before been heard through the gloomy corridors of the prison; groans and curses had been frequently heard there, but joyous Christian song, never. That inner cell was darkso dark, that though bolts and bars and fetters were felt, they could not be seen; but the apostles saw the Lord that night, and endured as seeing Him who is invisible. A wild, excited mob is dragging a prisoner along to execution; the most brutal passions are depicted in their countenance; they cannot reserve their insults and cruelty until they reach the spot where the bloody scene is to be enacted; as they drag, they beat and stone him. But mark his face, how calm, how joyous! And when they reach the place, the victim stands until the stones bruise and gash his frame, but the blood cannot wash out the expression of joy from holy Stephens face. We can account for that joy: had he not just said: Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. Such a sight enabled him to endure the suffering; and, in an atmosphere charged with the hatred of hell, and amid a storm of death-dealing missiles, he calmly lay down and fell asleep. The presence of God is the saints solace under suffering. Micaiah saw more splendours in his prison than Ahab in his palace. That cell was illuminated by the ineffable light, and visited by the aristocracy. Rutherford compared his dungeon to the kings cellar, where all the best wines were kept; and like Micaiah he would sing

Thy presence, Lord, can cheer

This dungeon where we dwell;

Tis heaven itself if Thou art near

If Thou depart tis hell.

IV. The man who sees the Lord can best wait for lifes rewards. Alas! how many have sacrificed truth and a good conscience for earthly rewards! Micaiah could wait for future rewards. Ahab could not have rewarded himhe had nothing that could have satisfied him. He had seen the Lord, and the light of the Divine presence revealed how valueless earths poor tinsel baubles are. Nothing but heaven could satisfy him

Had I a glance of Thee, my God,
Kingdoms and men should vanish soon;
Vanish as though I saw them not,
As a dim candle dies at noon.

We can imagine the same officer taking him back, and, as the jailor pushed him into his dark cell, he would sayServe him right! And then he would tell the jailor about the events of the day, and how foolish the prisoner had behaved in being so blind to his own interests, and then they would talk about what Ahab meant by keeping him until I come in peace. Did he mean to restore him to liberty then? They knew better than that. The day of Ahabs return would be the day of Micaiahs death. Such would be their rational conclusion. How much or how long he suffered we cannot tell, but we know it was well with him to the last. Say ye to the righteous, it shall be well with him.Condensed from The Christian Age for 1873.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

1Ki. 22:1-28. King Ahab appears here in the last act of his career, just as we have seen him always hitherto, devoid of religious or moral character. His penitence, which seemed so earnest, and which certainly falls in the period immediately preceding the renewed war with the Syrians, had, as we see from the story before us, borne no fruit. His attitude towards Jehovah and his covenant remained the same. There is not a sign of any change of heart. He is now enraged against Benhadad, whom, after the battle of Aphek, he called his brother, and suffered to depart out of weakness and vanity. He summons the chief soldiers to a war against Benhadad, and calls for Jehoshaphats aid also, in order to make sure of destroying him. As Jehoshaphat desired, before engaging on the expedition, to hear an oracle of Jehovah in regard to it, Ahab summoned only those in regard to whose declarations he could be sure they would accord with his own wishes; and when Micaiah, being called at the express wish of Jehoshaphat, gives another prophetic declaration, Ahab explains this as the expression of personal malice, as he had once done in regard to Elijahs declarations (1Ki. 21:20). He allows Zedekiah to insult and abuse Micaiah, and even orders the latter into close confinement. Then, again, he becomes alarmed at the prophets words, though before he was passionate and excited; and he goes into battle disguised.Lange.

1Ki. 22:1-4. National alliances.

1. Are justifiable against a dangerous and powerful enemy.
2. Are always attended with peril where there is want of harmony in religious beliefs.
3. Cannot result in permanent good without the Divine blessing.

1Ki. 22:3. It is a misfortune when great men have a fondness for war. They are not satisfied when they must be still, but seek war without necessity, and imperil their country. Do ye not know that heaven is ours, yet we be still! So should those cry out to their hearers who are charged with the cure of souls, and should encourage them to take the kingdom of heaven by force (Mat. 11:12).Wurt. Summ.

1Ki. 22:5-12. The delusion of falsehood. I. All the more dangerous when it is the consentaneous declaration of acknowledged religious leaders (1Ki. 22:6; 1Ki. 22:12). II. Never lacks an audacious and ingenious champion (1Ki. 22:11). III. Meanly obsequious in the presence of royal pomp and circumstance (1Ki. 22:10). IV. Fears exposure from the tongue of the faithful (1Ki. 22:8). V. Is ever suspected by the truly good (1Ki. 22:5; 1Ki. 22:7).

1Ki. 22:7. Their number consent; confidence hath easily won credit with Ahab: we do all willingly believe what we wish. Jehoshaphat is not so soon satisfied. These prophets were, it is like, obtruded to him for the true prophets of the true God. The judicious king sees cause to suspect them, and now, perceiving at what altars they served, hates to rest in their testimony. Is there nowhere a prophet of the Lord besides? One single prophet speaking from the oracles of God is worth more than four hundred Baalites. Truth may not ever be measured by the poll. It is not number, but weight, that must carry it in a council of prophets. A solid verity in one mouth is worthy to preponderate light falsehood in a thousand.Bp. Hall.

1Ki. 22:10-12. There is nothing that is more sinful and worthy of punishment than to flatter the great, who need to hear the truth. This is more sinful, however, in the clergy than in others. Who is not disgusted by those who fashion their words by popular favour? Yet he who would go on smoothly, easily, and prosperously must do this. Then he will not meet with opposition, nor lose his place at Jezebels table, nor his other emoluments. All the four hundred agreed unanimously, and yet their prophecy was false. In matters of Divine truth it matters not how many agree. Here voices ought to be weighed, not counted. The number of the unbelieving or the superstitious was always greater than that of the believers, for men agree in error or falsehood much more easily than in truth. Be not deceived, though thousands may think and say the same thing, and though the greatest and most learned may be amongst them; but cling thou to the word of Him who said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Unanimity of opinion, even in the largest congregations of theologians, is not always a proof of truth, for a great company may err.Lange.

1Ki. 22:12-28. Here we see the marks of the true and false prophets. The false teachers say what is popular, so as to enjoy rewards; they rely upon their numbers; they say that they have Gods Word, though they have it not, and claim to be in all things equal to the true teachers; they dispute more with blows and screams than with proofs from the Word of God; they are held in high esteem. On the contrary, true teachers do not speak to please anybody, but they preach fearlessly the truth of Gods Word, letting it strike whom it will, refusing to be turned aside and submitting to persecution.Wurt. Summ.

1Ki. 22:12. These were fit helves for such a hatchet as Ahab was; fit lettuce for such lips. Itching ears shall have clawing preachers.Trapp.

1Ki. 22:13-28. The intrepidity of truth. I. Is superior to the influence of bribery (1Ki. 22:13-14). II. Teaches when to use judiciously the weapon of irony (1Ki. 22:15-16). III. Fearlessly declares what is divinely revealed, irrespective of consequences (1Ki. 22:17-18). IV. Is explicit and uncompromising in the exposure of falsehood (1Ki. 22:19-23). V. Refuses to be silent, though threatened and afflicted with severest sufferings (1Ki. 22:24-28).

1Ki. 22:19-23. Heavenly visions. I. Present sublime and elevating revelations of truth. II. Sustain and strengthen the suffering faithful. III. Are intended to guide and instruct in a crisis of national and religious difficulty. IV. Aggravate national ruin when wilfully disregarded.

1Ki. 22:22. The difficulties which attach to this passage are considerable. While, on the one hand, it is hard to suppose that one of the holy angels would undertake to be, and be permitted to be, a lying spirit, on the other, it is not what we should have expected, to find Satan, or an evil spirit, included among the host of heaven (1Ki. 22:19), and acting as the minister of God. Still, as Satan appears sometimes to present himself to God among the angels (Job. 1:6; Job. 2:1), he may have done so on this occasion; and the service which he offered may have been accepted. On the other hand, we scarcely know enough of the Divine government in its action upon evil to say that the holy angels may not sometimes be employed, when God sends men strong delusion that they should believe a lie (1Th. 2:12). Finally, it may be doubted whether we ought to take literally, and seek to interpret exactly, each statement of the present narrative. Visions of the invisible world can only be a sort of parables; revelations, not of the truth as it actually is, but of so much of the truth as can be shown through such a medium. The details of a vision, therefore, cannot safely be pressed, any more than the details of a parable. Portions of each must be accommodations to human modes of thought, and may very inadequately express the realities which they are employed to shadow forth to us.Speakers Comm.

1Ki. 22:23. These men called prophets were only pretenders to prophecy, whom the wicked king of Israel had in his pay, and who knew how to suit his humour and flatter his vanity. Micaiah distinctly calls them Ahabs prophets. The address of Micaiah is not a real representation of anything done in the heavenly world, as if the Almighty were at a loss for expedients, or had any hand in the sins of his creatures. It is a parable, and tells in figurative language the events shortly to take place, and the permission on the part of God for these agents to act. It is a known idiom of the Hebrew language to express things in an imperative and active form which are to be understood only permissively.T. H. Horne.

1Ki. 22:24-28. Micaiahs suffering for the truth.

1. He is publicly insulted by Zedekiah, the chief of the prophets (Mat. 5:11).

2. He is thrown into prison by the godless king Ahab (1Pe. 2:19).

3. He is left unprotected by the pious king Jehoshaphat (Mat. 26:56).

1Ki. 22:26-28. Ahabs conduct towards the witness of the truth. I. It was tyrannical. There is no greater tyranny than to suppress by force the Divine Word and the truth. II. It was foolish. We cannot accomplish anything against the truth (2Co. 13:8). We can put the advocates of it in prison, but not the truth. It cannot be bound in chains, nor starved. It escapes and spreads, and only gains in glory by our attempts to oppress it.Lange.

1Ki. 22:26. To prison, whence he was fetched, and whereof he might say, as that martyr did to the bishop who reviled and threatened him: Send me back to my frogs and toads, where I may be free to pray for your lordship.

1Ki. 22:27. This is the emphatic clause of Ahabs speech. Micaiah is to be once more put in prison, but not on the same terms as before. In order to punish him for his uncomplying spirit, he is to be placed upon a poorer and scantier diet than he had been previously allowed; and this is to continue until Ahab returns in peace. Ahab introduces this expression purposely, in order to show his entire disbelief of Micaiahs prophecy.Speakers Comm.

1Ki. 22:28. The hope of unjust men perisheth (Pro. 11:7). Julian, for instance, when he went out to war against the Persians, breathed out threatenings against the Christians on his return, which was never. And that French king who promised to see with his eyes a certain female martyr burnt, had, before that time, one of his eyes thrust out at the jousts, of which wound he died.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

I. FAITHLESS AHAB AND FEARLESS MICAIAH 22:140

Against the earnest protestations of a faithful prophet, the foolhardy Ahab organized a military campaign to try and recapture the Transjordan border town of Ramoth-gilead which was held by the forces of Benhadad. In this futile effort Ahab lost his life. The historian relates here (1) the proposal for the campaign (1Ki. 22:1-5); (2) the predictions of the court prophets (1Ki. 22:6-12), and (3) of Micaiah (1Ki. 22:13-28) regarding the campaign; and finally (4) the death of Ahab at Ramoth-gilead (1Ki. 22:29-38). To this account is appended a concluding note about the reign of Ahab (1Ki. 22:39-40).

A. THE PROPOSAL FOR THE CAMPAIGN 22:15

TRANSLATION

(1) And they continued for three years; there was no war between Aram and the children of Israel. (2) And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went down unto the king of Israel. (3) Now king of Israel said unto his servants, Do you know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us, and we are still doing nothing to take it from the hand of the king of Aram? And he said unto Jehoshaphat, Will you go with me to fight against Ramoth-gilead? And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, I am as you, my people as your people, my horses as your horses. (5) And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray you, at the word of the LORD today.

COMMENTS

Following the second defeat of Benhadad, the Arameans and Israelites remained at peace for over two years.[491] It was during this period that a new power, Assyria, made its presence felt in the ancient Near East. In 853 B.C. Shalmaneser made a push westward through Syria that caused consternation and alarm in the various petty states of that region. An anti-Assyrian coalition was formed to which both Ahab and Benhadad contributed forces.[492] In the famous battle of Qarqar the coalition successfully withstood the Assyrian onslaught and forced the invaders to withdraw. The common danger from the Assyrians had caused a temporary suspension of hostilities between Aram and Israel (1Ki. 22:1).

[491] According to the Hebrew system of time reckoning, any time over two years would be called three years. 1Ki. 22:2 clearly shows that the events in chapter 22 took place in the third year and thus before the completion of that year.

[492] The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser relates that Ahab contributed ten thousand footmen and two thousand chariots to this war effort.

After the battle of Qarqar, in the third year of the peaceful relations between the two countries, King Jehoshaphat came down from the mountain-top city of Jerusalem to visit Ahab in Samaria (1Ki. 22:2). This would appear to be the first time that the monarchs of the sister kingdoms had met, except in battle, since the schism of 931 B.C. three quarters of a century earlier.[493] It was perhaps the growing power, first of Damascus, and then of Assyria, that caused Israel and Judah to enter into an alliance with one another. Probably the invitation to visit Samaria had been extended to Jehoshaphat for ulterior motives. Benhadad, it seems, had failed to comply with his treaty obligations to return to Israel the cities which had previously been captured by his father (cf. 1Ki. 20:34). Ahab knew he was powerless to enforce the terms of the treaty single-handedly without the help of his Southern ally whose military organization at this time must have been substantial (cf. 2Ch. 17:10-19).

[493] The marriage of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, had taken place some years before this date. Cf. 2Ch. 18:1-2.

The focal point of Ahabs concern was the fortress of Ramothgilead located west of the sea of Galilee on the frontier with Aram. Though belonging to Israel, this city had been and continued to remain in the possession of Benhadad in flagrant violation of the treaty of Aphek. Thus far Ahab had remained still, i.e., he had said or done nothing about the situation, for fear of stirring up the wrath of his powerful northern adversary (1Ki. 22:3).

During the course of Jehoshaphats royal visit, Ahab broached the question of a possible joint campaign to recapture Ramoth-gilead. The alliance between the two kingdoms was new, and Ahab probably wondered how this proposal would strike the pious prince of Judah. Whereas Jehoshaphat should have forthrightly refused aid to Ahab (cf. 2Ch. 19:2), he instead at once expressed his enthusiastic interest[494] in engaging in this war (1Ki. 22:4). Probably Jehoshaphat feared the growing power of Damascus and considered that it would be in his own best interest to dislodge Benhadad from his stronghold in Gilead. Being the godly man that he was, Jehoshaphat insisted that the will of the Lord be sought regarding the proposed project[495] (1Ki. 22:5).

[494] On the basis of this verse some have proposed that Jehoshaphat was a vassal of Ahab rather than an ally of equal rank. However, Jehoshaphats answer may simply be the result of oriental diplomatic courtesy. The statement is not to be taken literally. The fact that Jehoshaphat was given a free choice to accompany Ahab would seem to indicate that he was an ally and not a vassal. See Gray, OTL, p. 449.
[495] The word today in 1Ki. 22:5 should not be overlooked. The thought is: even if you are not generally accustomed to inquire the word of the Lord, kindly do it on this occasion.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) Three years without war.The period is clearly reckoned from the rash peace made by Ahab with Ben-hadad in 1Ki. 20:34. Evidently the king of Syria has recovered his independence, if not superiority; he has not restored Ramoth-gilead according to his promise; and his revived power is sufficient to cope with the united forces of Israel and Judah. The sagacity of the prophetic rebuke of 1Ki. 20:42 has been amply justified.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

SYRIAN WARS AND AHAB’S DEATH, 1Ki 22:1-40.

1. Three years without war Three years from the time of the covenant between Ahab and Ben-hadad. 1Ki 20:34.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Ahab And Jehoshaphat Unite To Regain Ramoth-gilead For Israel And Ahab Learns From A Prophet Of YHWH That They Will Be Successful But That He Will Die In The Attempt ( 1Ki 22:1-29 ).

Ahab’s life has been one of continual contact with prophets of YHWH as YHWH has sought to win him back to true obedience. Indeed that is the only reason why it has been portrayed in such detail, for the prophetic author’s concern has been to demonstrate that the final fall of both Israel and Judah occurred in spite of all YHWH’s attempts to prevent it. And now Ahab’s life will end with a description of one final conflict with a prophet of YHWH, a conflict which illustrates the fact that Ahab’s previous repentance had only been temporary, and that he had soon fallen back into his old ways.

Uniting with Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, Ahab planned to regain Ramoth-gilead from the Aramaeans, and to that end prophets were called on to prophesy what would happen when they made the attempt. His own prophets prophesied complete success. But Jehoshaphat then asked for a genuine prophet of YHWH to be consulted, and this prophet, Micaiah, declared that while the project would be successful, Ahab would die in the attempt. Ahab was not, however, to be dissuaded, for in contrast to this one negative voice about four hundred prophets viewed the situation favourably, and so he had Micaiah put in prison in order that when he returned safely he could punish him as a false prophet. Micaiah’s reply was simply that if he did return in peace then it would be true that YHWH had not spoken though him. But he had no doubt as to what would happen.

Analysis.

a And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel, and it came about in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel. And the king of Israel said to his servants, “You know that Ramoth-gilead is ours, and we are still, and do not take it out of the hand of the king of Aram (Syria)?” And he said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead?” And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses” (1Ki 22:1-4).

b And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Enquire first, I pray you, for the word of YWHW” (1Ki 22:5).

c Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king” (1Ki 22:6).

d But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here a prophet of YHWH besides, that we may enquire of him?” And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may enquire of YHWH, Micaiah the son of Imlah. But I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, “Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imlah” (1Ki 22:8-9).

e And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria, and all the prophets were prophesying before them (1Ki 22:10).

f And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron, and said, “Thus says YHWH, with these you will push the Aramaeans (Syrians), until they are consumed.” And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, “Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper, for YHWH will deliver it into the hand of the king” (1Ki 22:11-12).

g And the messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him, saying, “Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth, let your word, I pray you, be like the word of one of them, and do you speak good” And Micaiah said, “As YHWH lives, what YHWH says to me, that will I speak” (1Ki 22:13-14).

h And when he was come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?” And he answered him, “Go up and prosper, and YHWH will deliver it into the hand of the king” (1Ki 22:15).

g And the king said to him, “How many times shall I adjure you that you speak nothing to me but the truth in the name of YHWH?” (1Ki 22:16).

f And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep which have no shepherd. And YHWH said, These have no master. Let them return every man to his house in peace.” And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” (1Ki 22:17-18).

e And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear you the word of YHWH. I saw YHWH sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left”. And YHWH said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.” And there came forth a spirit, and stood before YHWH, and said, “I will entice him. And YHWH said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You will entice him, and will also prevail. Go forth, and do so’ ” (1Ki 22:19-22).

d “Now therefore, behold, YHWH has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets, and YHWH has spoken evil concerning you” (1Ki 22:23).

c Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, “Which way went the Spirit of YHWH from me to speak to you?” And Micaiah said, “Behold, you will see on that day, when you shall go into an inner chamber to hide yourself” (1Ki 22:24-25).

b And the king of Israel said, “Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son,, and say, ‘Thus says the king, put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with food of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace. ’ ” And Micaiah said, “If you return at all in peace, YHWH has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Hear, you peoples, all of you” (1Ki 22:26-28). ’

a So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead (1Ki 22:29).

Note that in ‘a’ the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat plan to go up against Ramoth Gilead, and in the parallel they do so. In ‘b’ Jehoshaphat asks for the word of YHWH, and in the parallel Ahab has the prophet who brings it put in prison because he does not like what he says. In ‘c’ the king’s false prophets prophesy success for the king, and in the parallel, having been challenged by Micaiah, the false prophet Zedekiah smites him for claiming that it is he who has the Spirit rather than Zedekiah and the false prophets. In ‘d’ Jehoshaphat enquires if there is no prophet of YHWH to speak to them, but Ahab complains that he only speaks evil concerning him, and in the parallel Micaiah says that YHWH has spoken evil concerning him. In ‘e’ the kings sit on their thrones at the gates of the city with all the false prophets gathered around them and in the parallel YHWH is pictured by Micaiah as sitting on His throne with the host of Heaven gathered around Him, and listening to a spirit who will put lies in the mouths of the prophets. In ‘f’ the false prophets vividly portray Ahab’s coming victory, and in the parallel the true prophet vividly portrays his death. In ‘g’ the king’s messenger adjures Micaiah to speak fair words to the king, and in the parallel the king adjures him to speak the truth to him. Centrally in ‘h’ Micaiah forecasts victory, which is partly true, (apart from the small matter of the death of Ahab).

1Ki 22:1

‘ And they continued three years without war between Aram (Syria) and Israel.’

For three years after the previous encounter there had been no war between Aram and Israel. Indeed, as we have seen above, they had collaborated together in order to see off Shalmaneser III of Assyria. But now Ahab saw the opportunity to obtain back from the Aramaeans control of Ramoth-gilead, an Israelite city in Transjordan. Its return may well have been part of the previous treaty when Ben-hadad had been defeated and had had to yield. But if so it had never been actioned.

1Ki 22:2

‘ And it came about in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel.’

The visit of Jehoshaphat to Israel may have been simply a ceremonial one, or it may have been to do with trading arrangements. Or it may even have been with the venture that follows in mind. Whichever way it was he was clearly invited to the council meeting which Ahab held with a view to his plan to regain Ramoth-gilead.

1Ki 22:3

‘ And the king of Israel said to his servants, “You know that Ramoth-gilead is ours, and we are still, and do not take it out of the hand of the king of Aram (Syria)?”

The result of the council meeting is briefly summed up in these words emphasising the fact that Israel had been negligent in not arranging for the deliverance of Ramoth-gilead out of the hands of the king of Aram earlier. In view of what follows we must assume that the council agreed that the attempt should be made.

1Ki 22:4

‘ And he said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead?” And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.” ’

Ahab then turned to Jehoshaphat and asked him if Judah would help them in their venture. This request confirms that Jehoshaphat was not seen as a vassal, but as an ally. Jehoshaphat’s reply was that what he had was at Ahab’s disposal, both of men and of horses.

1Ki 22:5

‘ And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Enquire first, I pray you, for the word of YWHW.” ’

It was a normal process for any kingdom in those days to consult its gods prior to engaging in an invasion, and accordingly Jehoshaphat requested that YHWH his God be consulted in order to receive a confirmatory ‘word of YHWH’. Jehoshaphat was a true worshipper of YHWH.

1Ki 22:6

‘ Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king.” ’

Accordingly the king of Israel gathered together around four hundred prophets and asked them whether they should go against Ramoth-gilead. From their reply (‘Lord’ not YHWH) it is clear that these were mainly not prophets of YHWH. They were probably mainly prophets of Baal or Asherah, which have already been mentioned as consisting of such numbers (1Ki 18:19), those slaughtered by Elijah having been replaced. Others of them (like Zedekiah) may have been prophets from the syncretistic sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, half Yahwist and half Baalist. They were, however, all agreed that he should go ahead because ‘the Lord’ would deliver it into their hands. It was the common practise among such prophets to say what would please the king. But they saw their prophecies as doing more than this. The belief was that their ‘inspired words’ would help to bring about what was predicted. They considered that the more they ‘prophesied’ the more the chance of success.

1Ki 22:7

‘ But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here a prophet of YHWH besides, that we may enquire of him?” ’

Jehoshaphat easily detected that these were not true prophets of YHWH and was not satisfied with what they said. That may have been due to their methods being contrary to all his experience of prophets of YHWH. He thus asked if there were not a genuine prophet of YHWH of whom they could enquire.

1Ki 22:8

‘ And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may enquire of YHWH, Micaiah the son of Imlah. But I hate him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” ’

Ahab then admitted that there was a prophet of YHWH named Micaiah, the son of Imlah who could be consulted. But he pointed out that he did not like him because he never prophesied good concerning him, only evil. At this Jehoshaphat demurred. He did not like the implication that lay behind Ahab’s charge. It is, however, confirmation of the fact that Ahab’s repentance had not lasted long.

We may ask why Ahab did not call Elijah. The simple explanation would be that he had no idea where he was, but knew that he was not at present within call. In view of the situation it had to be someone accessible, while Elijah was no doubt out fulfilling his responsibility to take God’s word to the people, and to encourage true Yahwists. The result would be that Ahab would have been at a loss where to find him. As we know, when he does appear, it was always suddenly and unexpectedly. But Ahab had cause to know that Micaiah was around, bravely fulfilling a ministry in Samaria in the face of Jezebel’s hostility and the evident danger that that could have resulted in at any time. Samaria was not a good place for prophets of YHWH to be. It was the religious centre of all that directly opposed YHWH.

1Ki 22:9

‘ Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, “Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imlah.” ’

The king of Israel accordingly called one of his officers, and commanded him to bring Micaiah the son of Imlah into his presence immediately.

1Ki 22:10

‘ Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria, and all the prophets were prophesying before them.’

Meanwhile Ahab and Jehoshaphat were each seated in state on their thrones, arrayed in their royal robes, in the open space at the entrance of the gate in Samaria, while before them were gathered the large group of prophets brought together by Ahab who were ‘prophesying’. This was the sight that would meet Micaiah when he arrived.

Cities in those days tended to be unplanned, with buildings springing up everywhere, but it was always the practise to leave a large space in front of the gate for gatherings, judicial hearings and meetings of the town elders.

“In an open place.” The word can mean literally ‘in a threshingfloor’. However, the word may well have come to signify any open space, or it may even be that there was a large royal threshingfloor at the gates of Samaria which could be use for such a purpose as this. The word is used at Ugarit of a similar ‘open place’.

This description of the kings sitting ‘in state’ with the prophets surrounding them is the basis on which Micaiah will build up his own prophecy when he speaks of YHWH as seated on His throne surrounded by the ‘host of Heaven on his right hand and on His left’ (compare ‘YHWH’s host’ in Jos 5:14-15; ‘God’s host’ in Gen 32:2). Micaiah thus drew his picture of YHWH and His host from the royal splendour that he saw before him. It was not intended to be taken as a literal vision.

1Ki 22:11

‘ And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron, and said, “Thus says YHWH, with these you will push the Aramaeans (Syrians), until they are consumed.” ’

While they were awaiting Micaiah, the other prophets continued prophesying, no doubt continuing in an ecstatic state, and one of them, Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, made horns of iron and, no doubt flourishing them effectively, said to Ahab, “Thus says YHWH, with these you will push the Aramaeans (Syrians), until they are consumed.” It was a typical example of an acted out prophecy in terms of prophetic symbolism. The horn was a symbol of strength and power.

1Ki 22:12

‘ And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, “Thus says YHWH, with these you will push the Aramaeans (Syrians), until they are consumed.” ’

All the prophets then chimed in and confirmed, “Thus says YHWH, with these you will push the Aramaeans (Syrians), until they are consumed.” The citing of the name of YHWH (instead of ‘Lord’) indicated that they had all gathered that Jehoshaphat wanted to know what YHWH had to say about the matter, and were duly obliging him.

1Ki 22:13

‘ And the messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him, saying, “Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth, let your word, I pray you, be like the word of one of them, and do you speak good.” ’

Meanwhile the officer who had been sent to bring Micaiah, and clearly had sympathy with him, informed him of the ‘good’ things that the other prophets had unanimously declared to the king, and begged him for his own sake to do similarly.

1Ki 22:14

‘ And Micaiah said, “As YHWH lives, what YHWH says to me, that will I speak.” ’

Micaiah’s reply was simple, “As YHWH lives, what YHWH says to me, that will I speak.” He wanted it known that he would not prophesy anything other than what YHWH declared. He would speak the truth, and the full truth.

This was the difference between true prophecy and false prophecy. False prophecy was an attempt to make the gods do what the prophet wanted. True prophecy conveyed the mind of YHWH.

1Ki 22:15

‘ And when he was come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?” And he answered him, “Go up and prosper, and YHWH will deliver it into the hand of the king.” ’

When Micaiah came into the presence of the king, the king then asked him, whether in his view and in YHWH’s view they should go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or should forbear. Micaiah’s reply was that he should go up, for the cause would prosper, and YHWH would deliver Ramoth-gilead into his hand. We may assume from this prophecy that this was in fact what was achieved by the military action. What Micaiah had not, however, delivered was the punch line, and Ahab apparently knew it.

1Ki 22:16

‘ And the king said to him, “How many times shall I adjure you that you speak nothing to me but the truth in the name of YHWH?” ’

The king was suspicious about Micaiah’s reply. He clearly felt that something was missing in the reply. Perhaps Micaiah had made it clear by his tone. So he adjured Micaiah to tell him the whole truth and hide nothing from him. What he wanted was ‘the truth in the Name of YHWH’, confirmation of YHWH would therefore bring about.

1Ki 22:17

‘ And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep which have no shepherd. And YHWH said, These have no master. Let them return every man to his house in peace.”

Micaiah then added to his previous prophecy what he had previously omitted. It was basically that in gaining their success Ahab himself would be killed, leaving Israel without a shepherd. He presented the prophecy in vivid form, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep which have no shepherd.” The idea of kings being shepherds to their people was a common one for kings in the Ancient Near East. Then he added what YHWH had said, “These (people) have no master. Let them return every man to his house in peace.” As a result of Ahab’s death peace would result and the war would be over. All would be able to return home in peace and security.

1Ki 22:18

‘ And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” ’

Ahab was not sufficiently committed to YHWH to accept Micaiah’s words as the truth, and rather saw it as what he might have expected from a man like Micaiah. (He probably thought that he was being deliberately vindictive). So turning to Jehoshaphat he said, ‘Did I not tell you that he would not prophecy good concerning me, but evil?’ His pagan view was probably that Micaiah was trying to bring about his death by prophesying it. (He was, however, sufficiently impressed to make an attempt later to prevent any disaster happening to him).

1Ki 22:19

‘ And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear you the word of YHWH. I saw YHWH sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.” ’

Micaiah then continued his prophecy. Looking at the splendid scene before him of the kings sitting in state on their thrones, with the prophets gathered around, he used it as a picture of the heavenly court. His description is not to be taken literally. As he looked at them he pictured YHWH as similarly seated on a throne with the host of Heaven around Him, and with lying spirits appearing before Him. As he looked at the false prophets jabbering away it brought to his mind a picture of lying spirits.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Final Fate Of Ahab Is Sealed ( 1Ki 22:1-40 ).

As we have seen, prophets have featured all through Ahab’s reign, and here they feature to the end. Ahab could never argue that he had not been given a chance. God gave him plenty of chances. But in the end even his repentance proved to be temporary, and in this chapter he is back to his old unbelieving ways.

As a result of the greater finances which had flowed into Israel after Benhadad’s defeat Ahab was at the height of his power and had built up his chariot force to ‘two thousand chariots’. For we know from Assyrian records that in the previous year (853 BC) Shalmaneser III of Assyria had crossed the Euphrates with a view to obtaining tribute from, among others, the small Aramaean states, and while claiming victory at Qarqar had been forced to withdraw before a coalition of states which had included Ahab of Israel, who had provided ‘two thousand chariots and ten thousand men’. The same inscription tells us that Aram had provided 1200 chariots, 1200 cavalry, and 20,000 men. But it would appear that Aram (Syria) had been sufficiently damaged in the engagement to be at this time no threat to Israel.

The story begins with a determination by Ahab to win back Ramoth-gilead, a city in Transjordan that had belonged to Israel but had been seized and held by the Aramaeans. And he sought joint action between Israel and Judah in order to fulfil that objective. Jehoshaphat the king of Judah was agreeable It would appear that Omri and Ahab had recognised the folly of fighting with Judah, and had instead established friendly relations. Ahab then consulted a number of patently false prophets to approve the venture, but being a godly king Jehoshaphat wanted approval from what he saw as a genuine prophet of YHWH and this finally resulted in Micaiah being called in. To Ahab’s chagrin Micaiah prophesied victory, but stated that in the gaining of that victory Ahab would be slain. As a result Ahab had him put under guard until he returned, so that if, as he expected, his prophecy proved wrong he could be punished. But the result was precisely as Micaiah had forecast, and Ahab returned a dying man only for his blood to be licked from his chariot by the scavenger dogs of Samaria.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Reign Of Ahab King Of Israel c. 872-851 BC ( 1Ki 16:29 to 1Ki 22:40 ).

The reigns of the previous seven kings of Judah and Israel have been covered in a short space (1Ki 15:1 to 1Ki 16:28). The reign of Ahab will now take up almost the whole of the remainder of 1 Kings (from 1Ki 16:29 to 1Ki 22:40). This, however, was not due to the importance of Ahab politically, but occurs because he was in continual conflict with the prophets of YHWH. It was these conflicts which were considered important by the prophetic writer. His initial prolonged encounter was with Elijah the prophet (chapters 17-19, 21), he had dealings with an unnamed prophet (chapter 20) and he had dealings with Jehoshaphat, a righteous king of Judah, who caused him to have dealings with Micaiah, a third prophet. He was thus of note because of YHWH’s dealings with him, and especially because his wife Jezebel, sought to establish Baalism in the face of the efforts of Elijah and the other prophets to maintain the truth of pure Yahwism. It is describing a conflict for the soul of Israel.

The whole section can be summarised as follows:

a 1). Initial summary of the reign of Ahab (1Ki 16:29-34).

b 2). WARNING OF FAMINE. Elijah Warns Of The Coming Famine Which Duly Occurs. The First Flight Of Elijah (1Ki 17:1 to 1Ki 18:2 a).

A. Elijah flees and is fed by ravens indicating YHWH’s control of the living creation in the midst of famine (1Ki 17:2-7).

B. Elijah is sustained by the miraculous provision of meal and oil indicating YHWH’s control over the inanimate creation in the midst of famine (1Ki 17:8-16). |

C. Elijah raises the dead son of the widow to life indicating YHWH’s control over life and death in the midst of famine and death (1Ki 17:17-24).

c 3). AHAB’S FIRST REPENTANCE. The Contest on Mount Carmel between the prophets of Baal and Elijah indicating YHWH’s power over storm and lightning (purportedly Baal’s forte) (1Ki 18:2-40). This leads to Ahab’s first change of heart (although not repentance).

d 4). Elijah flees from Jezebel and meets God at Horeb leading on to the command to anoint of Hazael, Jehu and Elisha as symbols of YHWH’s judgment and mercy on Israel through war, assassination and ministry (1Ki 19:1-21).

d 5). Two wars with Benhadad of Aram (Syria) before each of which a prophet of YHWH promises that YHWH will give him victory, and which results in YHWH’s final declaration of judgment on Ahab through a third prophet for failing to execute the captured king who had been ‘devoted to YHWH’ (1Ki 20:1-43).

c 6). AHAB’S SECOND REPENTANCE Naboth is falsely accused and murdered in order that Ahab might take possession of his vineyard, an incident that brings home how YHWH’s covenant is being torn to shreds and results in Elijah’s sentence of judgment on Ahab’s house, which is delayed (but only delayed) because of his repentance (1Ki 21:1-28).

b 7). WARNING OF DEATH. Micaiah warns Ahab of his coming death. War over Ramoth-gilead results in Ahab’s death as warned by Micaiah the prophet of YHWH and the humiliation of his blood by contact with scavenger dogs and common prostitutes (1Ki 22:1-38).

a 8). Ahab’s Obituary (1Ki 22:39-40).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Ki 22:17  And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.

1Ki 22:17 Comments – Jesus pictured the children of Israel as sheep having no shepherd during His ministry on earth (Mat 9:36, Mar 6:34). The nation of Israel is described as sheep (Num 27:17, 1Ch 18:16).

Mat 9:36, “But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.”

Mar 6:34, “And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.”

Also:

Num 27:17, “Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd.”

2Ch 18:16, “Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace.”

1Ki 22:48-49 Comments Divine Intervention – 2Ch 20:36-37 says the Lord broke up this evil work between kings Ahaziah and Jehoshaphat.

2Ch 20:36-37, “And he joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish: and they made the ships in Eziongeber. Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD hath broken thy works . And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish.”

1Ki 22:51-53 The Reign of Ahaziah Over Israel (853-852 B.C.) 1Ki 22:51-53 records the story of Ahaziah reigning over Israel.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Campaign against the Syrians

v. 1. And they continued three years, literally, “they rested,” they undertook no further campaigns, without war between Syria and Israel; so long the false friendship lasted.

v. 2. And it came to pass in the third year that Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, came down to the king of Israel; his son having married a daughter of Ahab, he made a formal visit and was entertained most lavishly, 2Ch 18:1 if.

v. 3. And the king of Israel said unto his servants, at some time during Jehoshaphat’s visit, Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead, an important fortified city in the country east of Jordan, is ours, both by right of original possession and by covenant with Benhadad, 1Ki 20:34, and we be still, remain inactive in spite of this state of affairs, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria?

v. 4. And he said unto Jehoshaphat, whom he intended to gain for his side, Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead? And Jehoshaphat, who should have kept out of this entangling alliance, said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses, he pledged himself and all his resources, his entire military power, to the support of Ahab’s project.

v. 5. And Jehoshaphat, remembering at least some caution in time, said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord today; he wanted to he sure that the undertaking was in agreement with the will of Jehovah.

v. 6. Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, not true prophets of Jehovah, but men who presumed upon the office for the sake of filthy gain, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they, who seem to have been at the same time priests of the calf-worship introduced by Jeroboam and therefore were anxious to please the king, whose purpose was so evident, said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.

v. 7. And Jehoshaphat, not at all satisfied with this farce, said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, a true and genuine prophet of Jehovah, that we might enquire of him?

v. 8. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah, the son of Imlah, he was immediately available, as some commentators think because he had delivered an unfavorable prophecy to Ahab and had thereupon been placed in prison, by whom we may enquire of the Lord; but I hate him, just as Ahab hated everything else connected with the true worship of Jehovah; for he doth not prophecy good concerning me, but evil. Ahab evidently held the heathen idea that the prophet had some influence over the God whom he served and could be held responsible with his person for an unfavorable oracle. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so; he rebuked Allah for his alleged hatred and his consequent unwillingness to listen to Micaiah.

v. 9. Then the king of Israel called an officer and said, Hasten hither Micaiah, the son of Imlah; he conceded this point for the sake of his scheme.

v. 10. And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, clothed in all their royal finery, as was proper for such a solemn assembly, in a void place, in an open space which had been made level like a threshing-floor, in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets, those whom Ahab had summoned at first, prophesied before them.

v. 11. And Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, made him horns of iron, probably in the form of large spikes which he held against his forehead, this being a symbolical action intended to remind his audience of Deu 33:17; and he said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, like a strong wild ox, until thou have consumed them.

v. 12. And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper, sure of the victory even in advance; for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand.

v. 13. And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, in an effort to influence him and to shape his prophecy, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth, there was perfect agreement among them; let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good.

v. 14. And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak; as a faithful prophet of Jehovah he would not deviate so much as one inch from the path of his duty.

v. 15. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go and prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. Either the prophet’s tone of voice or his face must have shown that he was speaking in holy irony, rebuking the king for his hypocritical question, as though he had said: Why the formality? Your mind is made up. Go ahead; march out into the battle-field; for all I may say will not change your mind.

v. 16. And the king, in order to convince Jehoshaphat of a sincerity which he by no means felt, said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord? It sounded like zeal for the truth, but was in reality another specimen of hypocrisy.

v. 17. And he, ready now to describe the vision which Jehovah gave him, said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd; and the Lord said, These have no master; let them return every man to his house in peace. The meaning was clear. Ahab would fall in battle, his soldiers would be scattered in the hills of Gilead, they would eventually return to their homes without being pursued.

v. 18. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, in trying to blame this unfavorable prophecy on the personal enmity of Micaiah, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?

v. 19. And he, Micaiah, said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord, an account of a second vision, which explained the attitude of the four hundred prophets: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left, God appearing here as the great, almighty Ruler of the world.

v. 20. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, deceiving or seducing him, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? It is plain that the fall of Ahab was determined in the counsels of God. And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

v. 21. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, evidently the spirit of prophecy represented as a person, and said, I will persuade him.

v. 22. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets, causing them to prophesy falsehoods. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so. Since Ahab had sold himself into the service of sin and hardened his heart against all permanent good influences, therefore the Lord now deliberately gave him up to the destruction which he sought.

v. 23. Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. This explained the remarkable agreement among the false prophets of Ahab.

v. 24. But Zedekiab, the son of Chenaanah, who had heard this explanation, went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee? He challenged Micaiah for evidence, being certain that he did not invent the saying which he had so confidently spoken before the king, but overlooking, at the same time, that the application of brute force was no way of establishing his claim.

v. 25. And Micaiah, without resenting the blow inflicted by Zedekiah, said, Behold, thou shalt see In that day when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself, running from one room to another in the excess of his terror over the fulfillment of Micaiah’s prophecy.

v. 26. And the king ot Israel said, Take Micaiah and carry him back unto Amon, the governor of the city, in whose care he had therefore been before, and to Joash, the king’s son, a prince of the blood, who, with the commandant of the city, had charge of the prisoners,

v. 27. and say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, with rough prison fare, until I come in peace, for he boldly thought that he would be successful in his campaign.

v. 28. And Micaiah, fully conscious of his divine office, said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of you! He called upon those present to be witnesses of his word, knowing that his prophecy would surely be fulfilled. Though the godless children of the world are full of hatred against the true servants of the Lord, the latter never hesitate in announcing God’s wrath and displeasure upon the children of unbelief, the purpose being to induce them to leave the path of unrighteousness.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE EXPEDITION OF AHAB AND JEHOSHAPHAT AGAINST HRAMOTH–GILEAD. THE DEATH OF AHAB. THE REIGNS OF JEHOSHAPHAT AND AHAZIAH.

1Ki 22:1

And they continued [rather, rested. Heb. sate, dwelt. Cf. Jdg 5:17. The LXX. has , sing.] three years without war [The Hebrew explains the “rested”there was not war, etc. See Ewald, 286 g. The three years (not full years, as the next verse shows) are to be counted from the second defeat of Ben-hadad; the history, that is to say, is resumed from 1Ki 20:34-43. Rawlinson conjectures that it was during this period that the Assyrian invasion, under Shalmaneser II; took place. The Black Obelisk tells us that Ahab of Jezreel joined a league of kings, of whom Ben-hadad was one, against the Assyrians, furnishing a force of 10,000 footmen and 2000 chariots; see “Hist. Illust.” pp. 113, 114. The common danger might well compel a cessation of hostilities] between Syria and Israel.

1Ki 22:2

And it came to pass in the third year [Of the peace; not after the death of Naboth, as Stanley], that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down [The journey to Jerusalem being invariably described as a “going up,” one from Jerusalem to the provinces would naturally be spoken of as a “going down”] to the king of Israel. [For aught that appears, this was the first time that the monarchs of the sister kingdoms had met, except in battle, since the disruption, though the marriage of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, had taken place some years before this date (2Ch 18:1, 2Ch 18:2). It is probable that it was the growing power of Syria had led to this affinity and alliance.]

1Ki 22:3

And the king of Israel said unto his servants [During the visit. It seems likely that Jehoshaphat went down to Samaria by Ahab’s invitation, and that the latter then had this campaign in view. The chronicler says that Ahab “incited,” or “stirred him up” (same word as in 1Ki 21:25) to go with him to battle. Ahab was unable to contend single-handed, and without Divine assistancewhich he could not now look foragainst Syria; and saw no means of compelling the execution of the treaty which Ben-hadad had made with him (1Ki 20:34), and which he appears to have shamelessly broken, except by the help of Jehoshaphat, whose military organizetion at this time must have been great, and, indeed, complete (2Ch 17:10-19). It is in favour of this view that Ahab entertained him and his large retinue with such profuse hospitality. The chronicler, who dwells on the number of sheep and oxen slain for the feast, intimates that it was this generous reception “persuaded” Jehoshaphat to join in the war], Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead [Generally, as below (1Ki 22:4, 1Ki 22:6, etc.), “Ramoth-Gilead,” i.e; of Gilead. See note on 1Ki 4:13. This “great frontier fortress was, in the hands of Syria, even after many reverses, a constant menace against Israel” (Stanley)] is ours [i.e; it was one of the cities which Ben-hadad had promised to restore (1Ki 20:34). This shows that, as we might expect from a man of Ben-hadad’s overbearing yet pusillanimous character, he had not kept good faith. Though so long a time had elapsed, it was still in his hands], and we be still [ is onomatopoetic, like our “hush.” Marg. rightly, silent from taking it. The word conveys very expressively that they had been afraid of making any movement to assert their rights, lest they should attract the attention and anger of their powerful and incensed neighbour], and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria? [It is hardly likely that Ahab could have forgotten the warning of 1Ki 20:42. It is probable that Ben-hadad’s flagrant disregard of his treaty engagements determined him to run all risks, especially if he could secure the help of the then powerful king of Judah.]

1Ki 22:4

And he said unto Jehoshaphat, Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-Gilead? [It is probable this question was asked with some misgivings. Such an alliance was altogether new, and Ahab might well wonder how the idea would strike a pious prince like Jehoshaphat. That the latter ought to have refused his help, we know from 2Ch 19:2.] And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art [Heb. as I as thou], my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses. [From the ready and unreserved way in which he at once engages in this war, we may safely conclude that he, too, had reason to fear the power of Syria. Probably Ben-hadad, when he besieged Samaria (1Ki 20:1), had formed the idea of reducing the whole of Palestine to subjection. And Jehoshaphat would remember that Ramoth-Gilead, where the Syrian king was still entrenched, was but forty miles distant from Jerusalem. Bhr holds that horses are specially mentioned “because they formed an essential part of the military power” (Psa 33:16, Psa 33:17; Pro 21:31). It is true that in a campaign against the Syrians they would be especially useful (see on 1Ki 20:1.); but they receive no mention at the hands of the chronicler, who reads instead of this last clause, “And we (or I) will be with thee in the war.”]

1Ki 22:5

And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at [This word is redundant] the word of the Lord today. [ hardly conveys that “he asks to have the prophets called in at once,” “lest Ahab should consent in word and put off the inquiry in act” (Rawlinson); but rather means, “at this crisis,” “under these circumstances.” This request agrees well with what we learn elsewhere as to Jehoshaphat’s piety (2Ch 17:4-9; 2Ch 19:5-7, etc.) And, remembering how Ahab’s late victories had been foretold by a prophet, and had been won by the help of Jehovah, Jehoshaphat might well suppose that his new ally would be eager to know the word of the Lord.]

1Ki 22:6

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets [Called by Micaiah “his prophets” (1Ki 22:22), and “thy prophets” (1Ki 22:23)] together, about four hundred men [From the number (cf. 1Ki 18:19) it has been concluded that these were “the prophets of the groves,” i.e; of Astarte, who escaped the massacre of the Baal prophets (1Ki 18:40). Others have supposed that they were prophets of Baal. But both these suppositions are negatived

(1) by the fact that Jehoshaphat asks Ahab to “inquire at the word of Jehovah,“ and

(2) that these prophets profess to speak in the name and by the Spirit of Jehovah (1Ki 22:11, 1Ki 22:12, 1Ki 22:24). Moreover

(3) Ahab would hardly have insulted Jehoshaphat by bringing the prophets of Baal or Astarte before him (Waterland in Wordsworth).

And yet that they were not true prophets of the Lord, or of the” sons of the prophets,” appears

(1) from 1Ki 22:7, where Jehoshaphat asks for a “prophet of the Lord;” and

(2) from 1Ki 22:20 sqq; where Micaiah disclaims them, and is found in direct opposition to them. The only conclusion open to us, consequentlyand it is now generally adoptedis that they were the priests of the high places of Bethel and Dan, the successors of those whom Jeroboam had introduced into the priestly office. It need cause us no surprise to find these priests here described as “prophets” (of. Jer 22:13; Eze 13:1), and as claiming prophetic gifts, for the priests of Baal bore the same name (1Ki 18:19, 1Ki 18:22, etc.), and apparently pretended to similar powers. “No ancient people considered any cultus complete without a class of men through whom the god might be questioned” (Bhr). The existence of so large a number of prophets of the calves proves that the inroads of idolatry had by no means destroyed the calf worship. If its priests were so many, its worshippers cannot have been few], and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-Gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord [ It is very significant that at first they hesitate to use the ineffable name. It was probably this circumstance excited Jehoshaphat’s suspicions. It has been said that the reason why he was dissatisfied with this answer is unexplained; hut when we remember how careful the true prophet was to speak in the name of Jehovah (1Ki 14:7; 1Ki 17:1,1Ki 17:14; 1Ki 20:13, 1Ki 20:14, 1Ki 20:28), we can hardly doubt that it was their mention of “Adonai “occasioned his misgivings. The chronicler gives the word as Elohim] shall deliver it [LXX. , shall surely give it] into the hand of the king.

1Ki 22:7

And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord [Heb. Jehovah] besides [i.e; in addition to these soi-disant prophets. He hardly likes to say bluntly that he cannot regard them as inspired, but at the same time hints clearly that he cannot be satisfied as to their mission and authority], that we might inquire of him?

1Ki 22:8

And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man [Cf. 1Ki 18:22], Micaiah [The name ( = Who is like Jehovah?) is as appropriate to the man who bore it as Elijah’s name was to him (1Ki 17:1; cf. 1Ki 18:39). But it is not an uncommon name in the Old Testamentit is borne by eight different persons. Compare Michael, “Who is like God?”] the son of Imlah [The chronicler writes the name Imla, ], by whom we may inquire of the Lord [Ahab evidently had wished Jehoshaphat to understand that the prophets already consulted were prophets of Jehovah, as no doubt they claimed to be. One of them bore a name in which the sacred Jah formed a part]: but I hate [ (cf. odi), have learned to hate] him [Ahab had good reasons for not caring to consult a man whom he had put into prison (see 1Ki 18:26, and compare Mat 14:3), because of his reproofs or unwelcome predictions. Josephus, and Jewish writers generally, identify Micaiah with the nameless prophet of 1Ki 21:1-29 :42]; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil [The chronicler adds ; i.e; persistently, throughout his whole career. Ahab insinuates that Micaiah is actuated by personal dislike. The commentators refer to Homer. I1. 4; 106-108.] And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. [He does not mean that the prophet cannot say just what he will, but suggests that Ahab is prejudiced against him. Perhaps he suspected that there might be a very different reason for Micaiah’s sinister predictions.]

1Ki 22:9

Then the king of Israel caned an officer [Heb. one eunuch. So the LXX; . So that Samuel’s forebodings have been realized Probably, like Ebed Melech, the Ethiopian (Jer 38:7), he was a foreigner; possibly a prisoner of war (Herod. 3:49; 6:32). Deu 23:1 suggests that even such a king as Ahab would hardly inflict this humiliation upon an Israelite. From 1Ch 28:1, Hebrews, we gather that even David’s court had its eunuchs, and we may be sure that Solomon’s enormous harem could not be maintained without them. In later days we find them prominent in the history, and occupying important positions under the king (2Ki 8:6; 2Ki 9:32; 2Ki 23:11; 2Ki 25:19; Jer 29:2; Jer 34:19; Jer 52:25, etc. Cf. Gen 37:36)], and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of.

1Ki 22:10

And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne [“Oriental kings had portable thrones, which they took with them upon their journeys” Rawlinson], having put on their robes [As a council of state was to be held, the kings put on their official vestments. simply means “coverings,” “clothes,” but that the special royal dress is here intended is clear, as Bhr observes, from Le 1Ki 21:10. This gathering of prophets and counsellors seems to have followed the banquet. When Jehoshaphat expressed his readiness to go to war, Ahab appears to have forthwith convened this assembly, in order that the matter might be put in train at once. Ewald says a review of the troops was designed, but of this the text knows nothing] in a void place [Heb. a threshing-floor. See note on 1Ki 21:1. The “floor” implies not only a vacant space, but an exalted position. Ordinarily, it would not be enclosed within the city walls, nor does it appear that this floor was] in the entrance [The Hebrew has no preposition; simply which would be more correctly rendered “at the entrance.” The town gate was the great place of concourse (2Ki 7:1). Here, too, justice was dispensed. See Rth 4:1; 2Sa 15:2; 2Sa 19:8; Psa 69:12; Psa 127:5; Deu 21:19; Gen 19:1; Gen 23:10; Amo 5:12, Amo 5:15, etc.] of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. [They continued their prophesyings even whilst Micah was being summoned. Or the reference may be to the prophesyings of verse 6.

1Ki 22:11

And Zedekiah [This name = “Justice of Jehovah,” is one of the proofs that these cannot have been prophets of Baal, as Stanley and others suppose] the son of Chenaanah [= “Canaanitess.” But we gather from 1Ch 7:10 that this, like Shelomith, was a man’s name. The Benjamite there mentioned may be identical with the father (or ancestor) of Zedekiah] made him [Rawlinson would translate, had made him,” He says that the horns must have “been made previously, in expectation of some such occasion as that now afforded him.” But it is quite conceivable that during the prophesyings, which clearly lasted some time, the idea occurred to Zedekiah, and it would not take long to put it into execution] horns of Iron [Thenius understands that these were iron spikes held on the forehead. But the reference is clearly to the horns of a bullock, and the appropriateness of the prophetic act is only manifest when we remember that Ephraim is compared to a bullock (Deu 33:17), and more, that Moses spake beforehand of the strength of his horns, and predicted that with them he should “push the people together to the ends of the earth.” Not only, that is to say, was the horn a familiar Oriental symbol of power (1Sa 2:1, 1Sa 2:10; 2Sa 22:3; Psa 89:24; Psa 92:10; Dan 7:21; Dan 8:8, etc.), but it was identified in a peculiar manner with the powerful tribe of Ephraim; in ether words, with the kingdom of Israel This symbolical act was not necessarily an imitation of the action of Ahijah (1Ki 11:30). Such acted parables were not uncommon among the prophets (2Ki 13:15; Isa 20:2; Jer 13:1; Jer 19:10; Jer 32:9 sqq.; Eze 4:5.; Act 21:11)]: and he said, Thus saith the Lord [Heb. Jehovah. He now uses the sacred name; no doubt because of Jehoshaphat’s demand, verse 7], With these shalt thou push [the word of Deu 33:17] the Syrians, until thou have consumed then.

1Ki 22:12

And all the prophets prophesied [Heb. were prophesying] so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper [a Hebraism for “thou wilt prosper.” Gesenius, Gram. 127. 2, cites parallels in Gen 42:18; Pro 20:13; Psa 37:27; Job 22:21; Isa 8:9; Isa 29:9, and reminds us that in the Latin divide et impera we have the same idiom]: for the Lord tall speak in His name now, hoping thus to satisfy the king of Judah] shall deliver it into the king’s hand.

1Ki 22:13

And the messenger that was gone [or went] to call Micaiah, spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth [Heb. one mouth good to the king. The messenger may possibly have had instructions to seek to conciliate Micaiah. In any case he thinks it well to tell him of the unanimity of the prophets. His testimony, he suggests, will surely agree with theirs]: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good of the [Heb. speak good.]

1Ki 22:14

And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak. [We are forcibly reminded of the answer of Balaam, Num 22:18, Num 22:38. And we may see not only in the suggestion of this messenger, but also in Ahab’s belief (Num 22:8), that Micaiah could prophesy at pleasure, a striking correspondence with the ideas of Balak (ib. Num 5:6, Num 5:17). Instead of regarding the prophet as being merely the mouthpiece of Deity, he was believed in that age to have a supernatural influence with God, and to be entrusted with magical powers to shape the future, as well as to foretell it.]

1Ki 22:15

So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-Gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? [Same words as in 1Ki 22:6. There is an apparent studied fairness in this repetition. It is as if Ahab said, “Despite his prejudice against me, I will not attempt to influence his mind. I only deal with him as with the rest.”] And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. [As Ahab’s inquiry is the echo of the question of 1Ki 22:6, so is Micaiah’s response identical with the answer of the prophets. He simply echoes their words, of which, perhaps, he has been informed by the eunuch. There was an exquisite propriety in this. The question was insincere; the reply was ironical (cf. 1Ki 18:27). Ahab is answered “according to the multitude of his idols” (Eze 14:4). He wishes to be deceived, and he is deceived. No doubt Micaiah’s mocking tone showed that his words were ironical; but Ahab’s hollow tone had already proved to Micaiah that he was insincere; that he did not care to know the will of the Lord, and wanted prophets who would speak to him smooth things and prophesy deceits (Isa 30:10).]

1Ki 22:16

And the king said unto him How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord? [Rawlinson concludes from these words that “this mocking manner was familiar to Micaiah, who had used it in some former dealing with the Israelite monarch.” But we must remember that Ahab’s words were really addressed to Jehoshaphat. He is so manifestly playing a part, that we need not assume that he is strictly truthful. His great desire evidently is to discredit Micah’s predictions, which he clearly perceives, from the bitter and ironical tone of the latter, will be adverse to him.]

1Ki 22:17

And he said [We may imagine how entire was the change of tone. He now speaks with profound seriousness. Thenius sees in the peculiarity and originality of this vision a proof of the historical truth of this history. “We feel that we are gradually drawing nearer to the times of the later prophets. It is a vision which might rank amongst those of Isaiah or Ezekiel” (Stanley)], I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace. [The last words are illustrated by the command of verse 31; compare verse 36. We may also picture the effect these words would have on the assembly at the city gate. For, however much they might be inclined to discredit Micaiah’s words, and however much the reckless, unreasoning war spirit might possess them, there were none who did not understand that this vision portended the dispersion of the Israelite army and the death of its leader. King and people had been constantly represented under the figure of shepherd and sheep, and notably by Moses himself, who had used these very words, “sheep without a shepherd” (Num 27:17; cf. Psa 78:70, Psa 78:71; Isa 44:28; Jer 23:1, Jer 23:2; Eze 34:1-31, passim). It is observable that Micaiah’s vision, like Zedekiah’s parable, borrows the language of the Pentateuch. Coincidences of this remote character are the most powerful proofs that the Pentateuch was then written.]

1Ki 22:18

And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would [Heb. say to thee, He will, etc.] prophesy no good concerning me but evil? [It is clear that Ahab had understood perfectly the purport of Micaiah’s words. He now appeals to them as a proof of the latter’s malice.]

1Ki 22:19

And he said, Hear thou [in 2Ch 18:18, Hear ye] therefore [The LXX. has , whence it would almost appear that they had the text before them (Bhr). But is every way to be preferred. It is emphatic by position, and the meaning is, “Since you will have it that my words are prompted by malice, hear the message I have for you,” etc.] the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord [It is not implied (Wordsworth) that he had any direct and objective vision of God, such as Moses (Exo 34:5), Elijah, or St. Stephen. He here declares what he may have seen in dream or trance. (Cf. Rev 1:10; Rev 4:2; Isa 6:1; Eze 1:1.) It was a real but inner vision (Keil). In its interpretation the caution of Peter Martyr is carefully to be borne in mind; Omnia haec dicuntur ] sitting on his throne [It was natural for some of the commentators to see in these words a reference to the two kings then sitting in their royal apparel, each upon his throne. But it is very doubtful whether any such thought was present in the mind of the speaker, who, imply relates a vision of the past], and all the host of heaven [The celestial powers, cherubim, angels, archangels, who surround the Lord of glory. That there can be no reference to the sun, moon, and stars, notwithstanding that these are called “the host of heaven” in Deu 4:19, Deu 17:3, is clear from the next words. The expression is to be explained by Gen 32:1, Gen 32:2] standing by him [; for the meaning, see Gen 18:8] on his right hand and on his left. [The resemblance of this vision to that of Isaiah (1Ki 6:1-8) must not be overlooked.]

1Ki 22:20

And the Lord said, Who shall persuade [Same word in Exo 22:16, Hebrews; Jdg 14:15; Jdg 16:5; Pro 1:10, etc.; in all of which instances it is translated “entice.” Compare with this question that of Isa 6:8.] Ahab, that he may go up and fan at Ramoth-Gilead? [The meaning is that Ahab’s death in battle had been decreed in the counsels of God, and that the Divine Wisdom had devised means for accomplishing His purpose.] And one said on this manner, and another said [Heb. saying] on that manner. [Bhr again quotes from Peter Martyr: “Innuit varies providentiae Dei modos, quibus decreta sua ad exitum perducit,” and adds that in this vision “inner and spiritual processes are regarded as real phenomena, nay, even as persons.”]

1Ki 22:21

And there came forth a spirit [Heb. the spirit. By some, especially of the earlier commentators, understood of the evil spirit. But the view now generally adopted (Thenius, Keil, Bhr) is that “the spirit of prophecy” is meant, “the power which, going forth from God and taking possession of a man, makes him a prophet (1Sa 10:6, 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 19:20, 1Sa 19:23). The is the (Hos 9:7)” Bhr. This power is here personified], and stood before the Lord, and said, I [emphatic in the Hebrew] will persuade [or entice] him.

1Ki 22:22

And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? [Heb. By what?] And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit [Heb. a spirit of a lie. Cf. Zec 13:2; 1Jn 4:6] in the mouth of all his prophets. [His prophets, not God’s. Cf. 2Ki 3:13.] And he said, Thou shalt persuade him. and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

1Ki 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth Of all these thy [Cf. , Mat 23:38] prophets [This statement, especially to those who have taken the narrative literally, and who have seen in “the spirit” either one of the angels of God, or Satan himself, has presented almost insuperable difficulties. The main difficulty lies in the fact that the Almighty and All Holy is here made to give His sanction to deceit and lying, for the purpose of tempting Ahab to his death. We have precisely the same difficulty, though, if possible, more directly expressed in Eze 14:9 : “If the prophet be deceived I the Lord have deceived that prophet.” Cf. Jer 20:7; 1Sa 16:15. But this difficulty vanishes if we remember that this is euthropopathic language, and is merely meant to convey that God had “taken the house of Israel in their own heart,” because they were “estranged from Him through their idols” (Eze 14:5). Ahab wished to be guided by false prophets, and the justice of God decreed that he should be guided by them to his ruin. Sin is punished by sin. “God proves His holiness most of all by this, that He punishes evil by evil, and destroys it by itself” (Bhr). Ahab had chosen lying instead of truth: by lyingaccording to the lex talionishe should be destroyed. The difficulty, in fact, is that of the permission of evil in the world; of the use of existent evil by God to accomplish His purposes of good], and the Lord [not I alone, 1Sa 16:18] hath spoken [i.e; decreed] evil concerning thee.

1Ki 22:24

But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah [Rawlinson holds that he was a sort of coryphaeus of the false prophets. It is more probable that, having put himself forward on a former occasion (1Ki 22:11), he now feels specially aggrieved at Micaiah’s blunt assertion, that he and the rest have been possessed by a spirit of lies] went near, and smote Micaiah [A thoroughly natural touch. But the whole narrative has every mark of naturalness and veracity. It is easy to see how enraged Zedekiah would be at the slight cast upon his prophetic powers. Apparently this gross indignity elicited no protest or word of displeasure from either of the kings. Micaiah, like Elijah, was left alone], on the cheek [cf. Job 16:10; Lam 3:30; Luk 6:29; and above all Mat 26:67; Luk 22:64; Act 23:2. Herein Micaiah had “the fellowship of sufferings” (Php 3:10) with our blessed Lord. Rawlinson thinks that his hands would be bound, but this is extremely improbable. In that case Ahab could hardly have asked him to prophesy (Act 23:15), or if he did, Jehoshaphat would know beforehand what to expect], and said, Which way [Heb. What, or where. The chronicler supplies “way,” thereby bringing the expression into unison with 1Ki 13:12; 2Ki 3:8; Job 38:24] went [Heb. passed, crossed, ] the Spirit of the Lord [These words are important, as showing that the speaker had not identified “the spirit” of verse 21 with the evil spirit: Job 1:6 sqq.] from me to speak unto thee? [It is pretty clear from these words, in connexion with verse 23, that Zedekiah had been conscious of an inspiration, of a spirit not his own, which impelled him to speak and act as he did. We must not attach too much import-ante to a taunting and passionate speech, but its meaning appears to be: I have spoken in the name and by the spirit of Jehovah. Thou claimest to have done the same. How is it that the Spirit of God speaks one thing by me, another by thee? Thou hast seen (Job 1:19) the secret counsels of Heaven. Tell us, then, which way, etc.

1Ki 22:25

And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see [Keil understands, “that the Spirit of the Lord had departed from thee.” But the meaning rather appears to be, “Thou shalt see which was a true prophet.” He does not answer the insolent question, but says,” Thou wilt alter thy mind in the day,” etc. With this may be compared our Lord’s words, Mat 26:64. He also manifests our Lord’s spirit (1Pe 2:22 sqq.) “as if the Great Example had already appeared before him” (Bhr)] in that day when thou shalt go into an inner chamber [see note on 1Ki 20:30] to hide thyself. [When was this prediction fulfilled? Probably when the news of the defeat reached Samaria, or on the day after Ahab’s death. Jezebel would almost certainly take summary vengeance upon the false prophets who were responsible for her husband’s death and the reverses of the army. Or if she did not, the prophets had good reason to fear that she would, and would hide accordingly.

1Ki 22:26

And the king of Israel said, Take [Sing. Take thou. This command was probably addressed to the eunuch mentioned in 1Ki 22:9] Micaiah and carry him back [Heb. make him return. This shows clearly that he had come from prison] unto Amon the governor [ chief; same word in 1Ki 4:2; 1Ki 11:24; 1Ki 16:9; Gen 37:36; Gen 40:9, Gen 40:22, etc. The “chief of the city” is also mentioned 2Ki 23:8; cf. Neh 11:9] of the city [who would naturally have charge of the town prison. Probably the prison was in his house. Cf. Gen 40:3; Jer 37:20], and to Joash the king’s son. [Thenius supposes that this prince had been entrusted to Amon for his military education, and refers to 2Ki 10:1. But in that case he would hardly have been mentioned as associated with him in the charge of so important a prisoner. Whoever Joash was, he was a man in authority. It is curious that we find another prophet, Jeremiah, put into the prison of Malchiah, the son of the king (A.V. the son of Hammelech; same expression as here), Jer 38:6; cf. Jer 36:26. Some have seen in this designation a name of office, and Bhr thinks that “Joash was not probably a son of Ahab, but a prince of the blood.” But when we remember what a number of sons Ahab had (2Ki 10:1), no valid reason can be assigned why Joash should not have been one of them. He may have been billeted upon Amon, and yet associated with him in the government of the city.]

1Ki 22:27

And say [Heb. thou shalt say], Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison [Heb. house of the prison. Bhr thinks that Micaiah had formerly been in arrest under Amon’s charge, and now was to be committed to the prison proper. But more probably the words mean, “put him in the prison again.” His superadded punishment was to be in the shape of prison diet. It is probable that it was owing to the presence of Jehoshaphat that Micaiah escaped with no severer sentence], and feed him with bread of affliction [or oppression, pressit; cf. Exo 3:9; Num 22:25; 2Ki 6:32], and with water of affliction [Josephus (Ant. 8.15. 4) relates that after Micaiah’s prediction the king was in great suspense and fear, until Zedekiah deliberately smote him, in order to show that he was powerless to avenge an injury as the man of God did (1Ki 13:4), and therefore no true prophet. This may be an “empty Rabbinical tradition” (Bhr), but we may be sure that Ahab did not hear Micaiah’s words unmoved. He had had such convincing proofs of the foresight and powers of the Lord’s prophets that he may well have trembled, even as he put on a bold front, and sent Micaiah back to the prison house], until I come in peace. [This looks like an effort to encourage himself and those around him. But it almost betrays his misgivings. He would have them think he had no fears.

1Ki 22:28

And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people [Rather, O nations. Audite, populi crones, Vulgate. He appeals, so to speak, to the world], every one of you. [It is a curious circumstance that these same words are found at the beginning of the prophecy of Micah (1Ki 1:2). The coincidence may be purely accidental, or the words may have been borrowed by the prophet, not, indeed, from our historian, but from some record, the substance of which is embodied in this history. Micah lived about a century and a half after Micaiah; about a century before the Book of Kings was given to the world.

1Ki 22:29

So the king of Israel and Jehoshapat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-Gilead to battle. [“By the very network of evil counsel which he has woven for himself is the king of Israel led to his ruin” (Stanley). We can hardly doubt that Jehoshaphat at least would have been well content to abandon the expedition. After the solicitude he had manifested for the sanction of one of the prophets of Jehovah, and after that the one who had been consulted had predicted the defeat of the army, the king of Judah must have had re,my misgivings. But it is not difficult to understand why, notwithstanding his fears, he did not draw back. For, in the first place, he had committed himself to the war by the rash and positive promise of 1Ki 22:4. In the next place, he was Ahab’s guest, and had been sumptuously entertained by him, and it would therefore require some moral courage to extricate himself from the toils in which he was entangled. Moreover he would have subjected himself to the imputation of cowardice had he deserted his ally because of a prophecy which threatened the latter with death. The people around him, again, including perhaps his own retinue, were possessed with the spirit of battle, and treated the prophecy of Micaiah with contempt, and it would be difficult for him to swim alone against the current. It is probable, too, that he discounted the portentous words of Micaiah on account of the long. standing quarrel between him and Ahab. And, finally, we must remember that his own interests were threatened by Syria, and he may well have feared trouble from that quarter in case this war were abandoned. Rawlinson suggests that he may have conceived a personal affection for Ahab; but 2Ch 19:2 affords but slender ground for this conclusion.]

1Ki 22:30

And the king of Israel said unto Jehoahaphat [At Ramoth-Gilead, on the eve of the battle], I will disguise himself.” [same word 1Ki 20:38] and enter [The margin,” when he was to disguise himself,” etc; is quite mistaken. The Hebrew has two infinitives; lit; to disguise oneself and enter; a construction which is frequently employed to indicate an absolute command. Cf. Gen 17:10; Exo 20:8; Isa 14:31; and see Ewald, 828 c. “The infinitive absolute is the plainest and simplest form of the voluntative for exclamations” (Bhr). It agrees well with the excitement under which Ahab was doubtless labouring] into the battle. [It is not necessary to suppose with Ewald, Rawlinson, el; that he had heard of Ben-hadad’s command to his captain, (verse 81). It is hardly likely that such intelligence could be brought by spies, and there would be no deserters from the Syrian army to that of the Jews. It is enough to remember that Micaiah’s words, “these have no master,” could not fail to awaken come alarm in his bosom, especially when connected with the prophecy of 1Ki 20:42. He will not betray his fear by keeping out of the fraywhich, indeed, he could not do without abdicating one of the principal functions of the king (1Sa 8:20), and without exposing himself to the charge of cowardice; but under the circumstances he thinks it imprudent to take the lead of the army, as kings were wont to do (2Sa 1:10), in his royal robes. He hopes by his disguise to escape all clanger]: but put thou on thy robes [LXX. . “My robed” “We can neither imagine Ahab’s asking nor Jehoshaphat’s consenting to such a procedure. Jehoshaphat had his own royal robes with him, as appears from 1Ki 20:10” (Rawlinson). If this LXX. interpretation could be maintained it would lend some colour to the supposition, otherwise destitute of basis, that Ahab by this arrangement was plotting the death of Jehoshaphat in order that he might incorporate Judah into his own kingdom. It is clear, however, that Ahab then had other work on his hands, and it is doubtful whether even he was capable of such a pitch of villainy. What he means is, either

(1) that the Syrians have a personal enmity against himself (verse 81), whereas they could have none against the king of Judah; or

(2) that Jehoshaphat’s life had not been threatened as his own had. “These words are not to be taken as a command, but simply in this sense: Thou canst put on thy royal dress, since there is no necessity for thee to take any such precautions as I have to take” (Keil). Do they not rather mean that Jehoshaphat should be the recognized leader of the army in which Ahab would serve in a more private capacity?] And the king of Israel disguised himself and went into the battle.

1Ki 22:31

But the king of Syria commanded [rather, had commanded. These words are of the nature of a parenthesis. “Now the king,” etc. is so rendered in 2Ch 18:30] his thirty and two captains [mentioned in 1Ki 20:24. It does not follow, however (Wordsworth), that these very men had been spared by Ahab] that had rule over his chariots [Heb. chariotry. Another indication that the chariots were regarded as the most important arm of the Syrian service], saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel. [This Orientalism, translated into Western ideas, means, “Direct your weapons against the king.” What Ahab had done to provoke such resentment is not quite clear. Rawlinson supposes that Ben-hadad’s “defeat and captivity were still rankling in his mind, and he wished to retaliate on Ahab the humiliation which he considered himself to have suffered.” But it is impossible to see in Ahab’s generous conduct towards him a sufficient reason for the fierce hatred which these words disclose. It is much more probable that some affront had subsequently been offered to the Syrian monarch, possibly in the shape of the reproaches which Ahab may have addressed to him on account of his retention of Ramoth-Gilead, and the gross violation of the treaty of 1Ki 20:34. It is also possible that he hoped that the death of Ahab would terminate the war (Bhr).]

1Ki 22:32

And it came to pass when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely [, not only (Bhr, Keil), but certainly; cf. Gen 44:28; Jdg 3:24; 2Ki 24:3] it [Heb. he] is the king of Israel. And they turned aside [Cf. 1Ki 20:39, same word. The Hebrew inserts . The chronicler reads they surrounded him, instead of ; and the LXX. has , in both places. But the Syrians can hardly have actually closed round the king, and the alteration might easily be made in the course of transcription] to fight against him [according to their instructions]: and Jehoshaphat cried out. [This cry has been very variously interpreted. According to some, it was his own name that he ejaculated, which is possible, if the command of 1Ki 20:31 was known in the allied army. According to others, it was the battle cry of Judah, which, it is said, would be familiar to the Syrians, and which would rally his own soldiers round him. The Vulgate, no doubt influenced by the words of 2Ch 18:31, “And the Lord helped him, and God moved them to depart from him,” interprets, clamavit ad Dominum. That it was a cry for Divine help is the most probable, because it is almost an instinct, especially with a pious soul like Jehoshaphat, to cry to God in the moment of danger. That he had doubts as to whether the course he was pursuing was pleasing to God, would make him all the more ready to cry aloud for mercy the moment he found himself in peril. But it may have been merely a cry of terror. It must be carefully observed that the Scripture does not say that it was this cry led to his being recognized and spared.]

1Ki 22:33

And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots perceived [in what way we are not told. But Ahab would be known to some of them, 1Ki 20:1-43 :81] that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him

1Ki 22:34

And a certain man [Heb. a man. It was natural for some of the Rabbins to identify this archer with Naamanthe tradition is found in Josephus. But it is directly contrary to the spirit of the narrative to attempt to identify him. As it was a chance arrow, so it was by an unknown archer] drew a bow at a venture [Heb. in his simplicity, i.e; with no intention of shooting Ahab: not knowing what he was doing. That this is the meaning is clear from the use of the words in 2Sa 15:11], and smote the king of Israel between the Joints of the harness [The marg; joints and the breastplate, comes nearer the Hebrew. But it is clear that the rendering joints, notwithstanding that it has the support of Gesenius and others, is a mistaken one. “In the joints” we can understand, but “between the joints and the coat of mail,” gives no sense. It is obvious that like following, must signify, some portion of the armour, and the meaning of the verb , adhaesit, leads us to conclude that “the hanging skirt of parallel metal plateshence the plural”(Bhr) is intended. The coat of mail only covered the breast and ribs. To this a fringe of movable plates of steel was attached or fastened, hence called . So Luther, Zwischen den Panzer und Hengel. One is reminded here of the Parthian arrow which wrung from Julian the Apostate the dying confession, “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean.” Cf. Psa 7:13, Psa 7:14]: wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand [or, according to the Chethib, hands. The charioteers of Palestine, like those of Egypt and Assyria, or those of modern Russia, held a rein in each hand. Same expression 2Ki 9:23. The meaning is “turn round”] and carry me Out of the host; for I am wounded, [Heb. made sick. The king probably felt his wound to be mortal, as a wound in such a part, the abdomen (cf. 2Sa 2:23; 2Sa 3:27; 2Sa 20:10), would be Vulgate, graviter vulneratus sum. How far an arrow in such a place could penetrate, we may gather from 2Ki 9:24; cf. Job 16:13. And he was seemingly anxious that the army should not know it, lest would soon discover it if he remained with the host; he can fight no longer; his wound needs attention; hence this command. It is quite possible that the charioteer, in the din and confusion of battle, may not have observed that his master was wounded. The arrow had not struck any part of the armour.]

1Ki 22:35

And the battle increased [Heb. went up. Marg. ascended. The tide of warfare rose higher and higher. Both Keil and Bhr think that the image is taken from a swelling river and cite Isa 8:7. The object of this verse is to explain how it was that the king’s request was not complied with] that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot [Heb. made to stand. LXX. . He was supported in his chariot by some of his servants, and maintained in an erect posture. Chariots were destitute of seats. According to Thenius and Keil, he maintained himself erect, by his own strength. But the word is passive] against the Syrians [Heb. in the face of the Syrians. , coram. His back was not turned to them, as he had desired. The idea that he was in any way fighting against the Syrians is altogether foreign to the text. It is at first sight somewhat difficult to reconcile this statement with the direction given to the charioteer in the preceding verse, and some have been led, though without sufficient warrant, to conclude that Ahab left the field, had he wound bound up, and then returned to take his part in the battle. But the explanation is very simple. As the battle increased, it became impossible to comply with the king’s desire. So thick was the fight that retreat was impossible. Hence the wounded king, who would otherwise have sunk down to the bottom of the chariot, had to be “stayed up in the presence of the Syrians.” This circumstance may also account for the fact that he died at even. Had it been possible to remove him and staunch his wounds, he might have lingered for some time. As it was, he bled to death. It is not clear, therefore, that “his death was kingly” (Kitto), or that we must concede to Ahab “the credit of right princely fortitude on this occasion” (Rawlinson). He would have left the host could he have done so. It was his set-rants propped up the dying man in his chariot, to encourage the army. What a picture for an artistthe king with the pallor of death spreading over his face, the anxious faces of the attendants, the pool of blood, the sun sinking to the horizon, etc.], and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound [Heb. the blood of the wound poured] into the midst [Heb. bosom; LXX. , the hollow part, or “well.” The same word is used of the concave part of the altar] of the chariot.

1Ki 22:36

And there went a proclamation throughout the host [Heb. And the shouting passed over in the camp. Gesenius will have it that must mean a “joyful cry,” and would see the cause of joy in the cessation of hostilities and the permission to return home] about the going down of the sun [According to the chronicler (1Ki 18:34), it was at sunset that the king died. It seems natural, therefore, to connect this shout with his death. But the approach of night would of itself put an end to the battle. It does not appear that Israel had been utterly defeated, or had suffered great loss. But “they had no master”], saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country [or land].

1Ki 22:37

So the king died [The LXX. makes this to be a part of the proclamation , which involves a very slight change in the Hebrew text, instead of and gives a better sense. It has already been stated that the king died. Such repetitions however are common in Hebrew, and this reading has almost the look of an emendation] and was brought [Heb. came. The A.V. is against the grammar. As “came” would be a strange word to use of a dead man, it is highly probable that instead of we should read with the LXX. ] to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria [“with his father,” 1Ki 16:28].

1Ki 22:38

And one washed the chariot in [or at; Heb. ] the pool of Samaria. [Nearly all Eastern cities had their tanks or pools, often outside the city gate. Jerusalem has several of these, and we read of one at Hebron (2Sa 14:12) and Gibeon (2Sa 2:13). Cf. Son 7:4. The Hebrew word is preserved in the modern Arabic Birkeh]; and the dogs [The LXX. has the swine and the dogs. The mention of swine is hardly likely to have been omitted, had it formed part of the original text] licked up his blood [cf. 1Ki 21:19, note. According to Josephus, the chariot was washed “in the fountain of Jezreel.” The alteration would appear to have been made to avoid the difficulty occasioned by the discrepancy between the statement of the text, and that of 1Ki 21:19], and they washed his armour [So the Chaldaic and the Syriac. But this translation is now abandoned,

(1) because it is contrary .to the usage of the language to make the object; and

(2) because that word occurs in the Old Testament only in the sense of harlots (Bhr). The true meaning is that given by the LXX; . does not require any object such as “chariot,“ or “corpse,“ for it is found in the sense of bathe (intrans.) in Exo 2:5; Num 19:19; Rth 3:1-18 :21; 2Ki 5:10. Bhr reminds us that harlots are elsewhere associated with dogs (Deu 23:19; Rev 22:15). This fact is mentioned as a proof of the just judgment of God. Even if these harlots were not prostitutes devoted to the service of the Phoenician deities, whose cultus Ahab had sought to establish in Israel, still the result of his religious policy had been the spread of prostitution. It is a fine example of the lex tolionis. “He which is filthy, let him be filthy still”]; according unto the word of the Lord which he spake [the reference is to 1Ki 21:19].

1Ki 22:39

Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made [So called because it was adorned with ivory. See on 1Ki 11:1-43.; and cf. Amo 3:15; Psa 45:8; Son 7:5. Rawlinson cites several passages from Greek and Latin authors to prove that ivory was anciently applied, not only to furniture, but to the doors and walls of houses], and an the cities that he built [Probably Jezreel was one, but we have no information concerning them. The fact that he did build cities, however, is one proof of Ahab’s enterprize. He was not weak in all particulars], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1Ki 22:40

So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah [“Whom Jehovah upholds.” The name suggests that, notwithstanding his idolatries, Ahab cannot have completely abandoned the worship of the Lord] his son reigned in his stead.

Reign of Jehoshaphat.

1Ki 22:41

And Jehoahaphat [“Whom Jehovah judges”] the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel. [The historian now resumes for a moment the history of Judah, which has dropped out of notice since 1Ki 15:24, where the accession of Jehoshaphat was mentioned. His reign, which is here described in the briefest possible way, occupies four chapters (17-20.) of 2 Chronicles]

1Ki 22:42

Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi.

1Ki 22:43

And he walked in an the ways of Asa his father [Apart from his alliance with the house of Ahab, and the troubles in which it involved him, his reign was alike pious and prosperous. Like Asa’s, it was distinguished by internal reforms, and By signal deliverances from foreign enemies]; he turned not aside from it [as Asa was tempted to do in his old age], doing [Heb. to do] that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away [Heb. departed not, as in 1Ki 15:14; 2Ch 15:17; 2Ki 12:4, Hebrews; 14:4, Hebrews But see 2Ch 18:6. The discrepancy is the exact parallel of that between 1Ki 15:14 and 2Ch 14:3; or between this latter passage and 2Ch 15:17. And the explanation is the same, viz; that an effort was made to remove the high places, which was partially, and only partially, successful]; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places [cf. 1Ki 3:2].

1Ki 22:44

And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. [One great feature of his reign was this: that the hostility which had lasted, even if it sometimes slumbered, between the two kingdoms for seventy years, from the date of their separation to the time of Asa’s death, gave way to peace and even alliance. Judah now recognized the division of the kingdom as an accomplished fact, and no longer treated Israel, even theoretically, as in rebellion. It is probable that the marriage of Jehoram and Athaliah was at once the fruit of, and was intended to cement, this good understanding (2Ch 18:1). It is hardly likely (Bhr) that the peace was the result of the union of the two families. From the analogy of 2Ch 19:2; 2Ch 20:37; cf. 1Ki 16:31; 2Ki 3:14, we should conclude that the marriage at any rate was ill advised and displeasing to God. Bhr sees in it a step on the part of Jehoshaphat towards realizing the union of the two kingdoms under the supremacy of Judah. He thinks that we cannot otherwise account for this complete change of front.]

1Ki 22:45

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might [as in 1Ki 15:23, 1Ki 16:27, etc. It is noticeable that this word is not used of Ahab, notwithstanding his wars and victories] that he showed [see 2Ki 3:9 sqq.; 2Ch 17:12 sqq. His judicial reforms are hardly referred to here], and how he warred [2Ch 18:1-34; 2Ch 20:1-37.], are they not written in the book of he chronicles of the kings of Judah?

1Ki 22:46

And the remnant of the Sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa [It appears hence that Asa’s removal of the religious prostitutes (1Ki 15:12), like that of the high places, had been but partial], he took [Heb. exterminated] out of the land.

1Ki 22:47

There was then no king in Edom: a deputy [, same word as in 1Ki 4:7. It is implied that this officer was appointed by the king of Judah (Wordsworth)] was king. [This fact is mentioned to show how it was that Jehoshaphat was able to build a fleet at Ezion-Geber, in the territory of Edom (1Ki 9:26). That country would seem to have regained its independence very soon after Solomon’s death (1Ki 11:14), but would also appear from the text, and from 2Ki 8:20, 2Ki 8:22, to have been again made subject to Judah, probably by Jehoshaphat himself; see 2Ch 17:10, 2Ch 17:11.]

1Ki 22:48

Jehoshaphat made [The Chethib has ten, obviously a clerical error for made] ships of Tharshish [see note on 1Ki 10:22] to go to Ophir [In 2Ch 20:36, Tharshish is read for Ophir. Wordsworth holds that two separate fleets are intended, but this is most improbable] for gold [Evidently the great prosperity of his reign had suggested to him the idea of emulating Solomon’s naval exploits, and of reviving the commerce of his people with the East]: but they went not [Heb. it went not]: for the ships were broken [Probably they were dashed by a storm against the rocks which “lie in jagged ranges on each side,” Stanley] at Ezion-Geber.

1Ki 22:49

Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants In the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not. [But we are told in 2Ch 20:37 that the ships were broken, according to a prophecy of Eliezer, the son of Dodavah, because Jehoshaphat had joined himself with Ahaziah. The explanation is that the fleet had been built by the two kings conjointly, and manned by the subjects of Jehoshaphat exclusively; and that, after the disaster, Ahaziah proposed either to repair the injured vessels, or to construct a second fleet, which should then be partly manned by sailors of the northern kingdom, “men probably accustomed to the sea, perhaps trained at Tyre” (Rawlinson). This proposal was declined by the king of Judah, not so much on account of the “reflection on his subjects’ skill contained in it,” as because of the prophecy of Eliezer, and the evidently judicial disaster which had befallen the fleet already built.]

1Ki 22:50

And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead [2Ch 21:1-20.]

Reign of Ahaziah.

1Ki 22:51

Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel. [Parts of two years; 2Ki 3:1; and of. 2Ki 1:17 and 2Ki 8:16. It is suggested that Jehoram was associated with his father in the government of Judah from the date of the expedition against Ramoth-Gilead, and this is not improbable. But it has been already remarked that these chronological notices appear to have undergone a revision which has sometimes resulted in confusion.]

1Ki 22:52

And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father [1Ki 16:30-33; cf. 2Ki 3:2] and in the way of his mother [The powerful influence of Jezebel, even after Ahab’s death, is hinted at here. It was to her that idolatry owed its position in Israel], and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [the calf worship and idolatry existed side by side], who made Israel to sin.

1Ki 22:53

For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger [or vexed] the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done. [The termination of this book at this point could hardly be more arbitrary if it had been made by accident. These verses are closely connected with 2 Kings 2Ki 1:1-18. The division here obscures the connexion between the sin of Ahaziah and the judgments which it provoked.]

HOMILETICS

1Ki 22:1-40

The Death of Ahab and the Defeat of Israel.

This chapter is almost entirely occupied with an account of the death of Ahab, and of the circumstances which preceded and attended it. The earlier portion of the chapter, which contains the prophesyings of the false prophets and the vision of Micaiah, is only recorded because of its bearing on the death of the king, and the dispersion of his army.

And the prominence accorded to Ahab’s end only corresponds with the space assigned to his reign. That reign was so full of evil for Israel that it occupies a fourth part of this entire book. It was meet, therefore, that the death which avenged it should be recorded with proportionate detail. For the battle of Ramoth-Gilead was the final paymentso far as this world is concernedfor the sins of two and twenty years.

But it is to be observed in the first place that Ahab’s repentance (1Ki 21:29), as the penitence begotten of fear often is, was but shortlived. Had it lasted, we had not read of this tragical death. How soon the king shook off his impressions we know not, but we do know thatthanks to the natural weakness of his character, still further enfeebled by years of self indulgence and submission to a stronger will than his own; thanks to the evil genius (1Ki 21:25) ever at his side to stifle good resolves and to steel his heart against the true religion; thanks to the impious system to which he found himself committed, and the toils of which he found it impossible to break, this unhappy king steadily lapsed into his old sins. It “happened unto him according to the true proverb, “The dog is turned to his vomit again” (2Pe 2:22).

And it is also to be considered here that Israel had gone hand in hand with him in his downward course. Had the king’s career been one of steadily increasing demoralization? so had that of the people. The death of Naboth affords sufficient proof of this. The ready compliance of the elders, the alacrity with which they perpetrated that judicial murder, shows to what a moral depth the example of the court and the idolatry around them had plunged the holy nation. No; king and queen had not sinned alone, and justice required they should not suffer alone. Nations and their rulers, as we have already seen, receive a reckoning in this life; how much more the covenant people and the Lord‘s anointed? Placed as they were under a direct law of temporal punishments and rewards, it would have been strange, indeed, if such a reign as this had gone unrecompensed. But so far from that, they have already received part reckoning for their sin. The three years drought, the famine, the terrible Syrian invasions, have avenged a part of their idolatries and immoralities; but there still remains a long score of guilt to be expiated in shame and suffering and blood.

And here it may be well to remind ourselves what were the sins which awaited a settlement under the walls of Ramoth-Gilead. They were five in number.

(1) The calf worshipthe hereditary sin of the northern kingdom, the sin of Jeroboam;

(2) the worship of Baal with the prostitution which accompanied itthe sin primarily of Jezebel and her Phoenician following, but shared in by almost the entire nation;

(3) the determined persecution of the prophets and the virtual proscription of the ancient faith;

(4) the release of the Syrian king in disregard of God’s will the sin of Ahab and his captains; and

(5) the murder of Naboth in defiance of all lawthe sin of the rulers and elders. It may be thought that the two last were peculiarly Ahab’s or Jezebel’s sins, and that the people had no part in them; but this is a mistaken view. No doubt he and his infamous consort had by far the largest share in all the four, and therefore they received, as we shall see presently, by far the severer punishment. But just as the people worshipped at the shrines which the king supported, just as they practised the abominations which he had introduced, so had they approved his policy towards Ben-hadadsee the words of 1Ki 19:1-21 :42, “thy people for his people”and the guilt of innocent blood, as we know (Num 35:33; Deu 21:7; 2Sa 21:1-22.) rested on the community until it had been cleansed in blood. It is clear, then, that at the time when this chapter opens, king and people, though in very different degrees, were chargeable with the sins of schism, of idolatry, of unfaithfulness to God, of murder. It is now for us to observe how these things were expiated.

Now there are two principles which underlie all God’s retributive dealings with his ancient people. First, that sin is left, or made to bring its own penalties. Per quod quis peccat per idem quoque plectitur idem. Secondly, that the penalty is ever correspondent with the sin. This latter is what we commonly call the lex talionis. We have had instances of the working of both of these laws, but especially of the latter, in the earlier portions of this history. We shall find the same laws in operation here.

For consider

I. By what means Ahab was led to death and Israel to defeat.

II. By what instruments these punishments were inflicted.

III. In what way they were signalized as the chastisements of sin.

I. In considering the INFLUENCES which moved Ahab to war, and which led to his destruction, we must assign the first place to

1. The perfidy of Ben-hadad. No doubt it rankled in Ahab’s breast that, after he had dealt so magnanimously with a prostrate foe, after he had treated an insolent invader with unexampled generosity, and after a solemn covenant had been made betwixt them, it rankled in his soul that a Syrian garrison, in spits of all embassies and remonstrances, should hold the Jewish fortress of Ramoth-Gilead and thus offer a standing menace to Israel and Judah alike. But did it never occur to him that the conduct of Ben-hadad was but the counterpart of his own? He too had forgotten his benefactor and deliverer, to whom he was bound by solemn covenant; he still maintained a garrison of idolatrous priests in the heart of Immanuel’s land. Ben-hadad’s breach of faith was no greater than his own. Probably, he never thought of this when he debated whether he should go up against Ramoth-Gilead. He would remember, however, that he had only himself to blame for this act of perfidy, and he would devoutly wish he had dealt with the oppressor as he had deserved; he would perhaps think that it only served him right for his weakness and sin. We see, however, that he is paid back in his own coin, that the measure he has meted to God is measured to him again. The sin of three years before gave the first impulse to war and death.

2. The lies of the false prophets. It is hardly likely that Ahab would have engaged in this war but for the unanimous verdict of the four hundred prophets in its favour. We see in Micaiah’s vision that a “lying spirit” was the principal means employed to procure his fall (verse 22). But what were these prophets, and how came they to prophesy thus? One thing is certain, that they were not prophets of Jehovah, and another thing is also clear, that whether they were prophets of Baal, or, as is most probable, prophets of the calves, the false system which Ahab had supported became through them a means of his destruction. The schism or the idolatry, as the case may be, is bearing its bitter fruit. He has sown to lies, he reaps to delusions. It is a conspicuous instance of the just judgment of heaven that Ahab is lured to his death by the impostors he had cherished and patronized. “He that hates truth shall be the dupe of lies.” The sin of the calves too brings its own retribution.

But how was it, it is worth asking, that these four hundred sycophants came to, counsel him thus? Was it not that they took their cue from him, and prophesied what they knew would please? They saw that the king had already made up his mindfor his resolution was taken before they were summoned (1Ki 19:4, 1Ki 19:5), and they thought it wisest to swim with the stream. It may be they were guided by other and inscrutable impulses (verse 23), and were constrained, they knew not how, to prophesy as they did; it may be they honestly mistook the vox populi for the vox Dei, but probably the working of their minds was this: “The king wishes it. Jehoshaphat assents to it. The people are set upon it. We should be going against common sense and our own interests to resist it.”

And so the king was a second time paid in his own coin. Those martial prophecies had been minted in his own brain. He wished for lies and he had them. His own passions and pride were reflected, were echoed, in the voices of his four hundred soothsayers. It is the case of which both sacred and profane history supply so many examples, Homo vult decipi et decipiatur. It is thus God deals with deceivers still. He leaves them to be deceived, to be the prey of their own disordered fancies. It is notorious how men find in the Bible what they wish to find there; how all unsuspectingly they read their own meanings into the words of Scripture; how they interpret its injunctions by the rule of their own inclinations. “He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isa 44:20). “Ephraim is joined unto idols: let him alone” (Hos 4:17).

3. The silence of the Lord‘s prophets. Why was it, we cannot help asking here, why was it that there were no true prophets present, at this crisis in the history of Israel, to step forth and warn the king against this undertaking? Why were the four hundred deceivers left to have their own way? We see here the fruit of persecution, the recompense of those fierce dragonnades which Jezebel had maintained against the prophetic order. Of the men who might have interposed to prevent this disastrous expedition, some were dead, others were banished; king and queen had wickedly silenced them. They now reap the fruit of those repressive measures. Their curses come home to roost. Elijah might have saved king and country, but he is hiding from the wrath of Jezebel, or is withdrawn by God from the arena of history. Micaiah the son of Imlah foresaw the end, but Ahab had imprisoned him, and could not brook to take his advice, and had persuaded himself that his admonitions were the outcome of personal enmity. It is true this prophet was not silent, but plainly foretold defeat and death; but Ahab was in a manner bound not to regard his warnings. He had told Jehoshaphat it would be so. It would look like cowardice to be influenced by his vaticinations. And so he is left to the prophets of his choice: no hand is raised to stop him: he goes straight into the jaws of death, the victim of his own folly and cruelty and sin.

II. The INSTRUMENTS of retribution were

1. The king whom Ahab had wickedly spared. We have already seen in what the sin of sparing the tyrant Ben-hadad consisted. It is now for us to observe that this foolish and impious deed brought its own peculiar Nemesis. It was Ben-hadad himself who said, “Fight neither with small nor great, but with the king of Israel only.” Ahab’s ill-advised clemency procures his own destruction. With base natures, it only needs that we should put them under obligations which they cannot possibly discharge, in order to provoke their bitter enmity. But it is much more material to observe here that in Ben-hadad’s conduct we may see a parable of the cruel revenge which a cherished sin will often take on those who have once conquered and then trifled with it. The devil that was cast out returns bringing with him seven other devils more wicked than himself (Mat 12:45). We are constantly as tender to the sins which tyrannized over us as was Ahab to Ben-hadad. Instead of slaying themhewing them in pieces before the Lordwe leave the roots of bitterness in the heart’s soil, and they spring up and trouble us. It is like that peasant of whom we have all read, who found a viper in the field, benumbed with the winter’s cold, and put the venomous beast into his bosom to warm it back into life. The first use it made of its restored power was to wound and destroy its benefactor. How dearly have we often paid for our pleasant vices!

2. The Syrians who were once subjects of Israel. It is well to remember here that these enemies who gave Ahab his death wound at Ramoth were once under the heel of Israel (2Sa 8:6). Now we see their relations reversed. Syria has now become the standing oppressor of the chosen people. We have already pointed out some of the steps which led to this result. The sin of Solomon and the unfaithfulness of Asa alike were factors in the change. But the most influential reason was the godlessness of Ahab. But three years ago Syria lay at his mercy; its power was completely broken. But Ahab, so far from learning that the Lord was God (1Ki 20:13, 1Ki 20:28), had ignored the Lord, and acted as if his own might had gotten him the victory. How fitting that these same Syrians should be the instruments to scourge him.

3. An unknown, unconscious archer. The arrow that pierced Ahab’s corselet was shot “in simplicity,” without deliberate aim, with no thought of striking the king. It was an unseen Hand that guided that chance shaft to its destination. It was truly “the arrow of the Lord’s vengeance.” (Cf. 2Ki 12:17.) It would be deeply instructive could we know the thoughts of that unhappy king, as with the arrow in his side, and the blood draining from his wound, and forming a sickening pool in the well of the chariot, he was stayed up those wretched weary, hours until the sunset against the Syrians. Surely he knew at last that “the Lord was God” (1Ki 18:39; 1Ki 20:13, 1Ki 20:28). His cry would now be, “Thou hast found me, O my enemy.” He would think, it may be, of Elijah’s and Micaiah’s prophecies; he would think of Naboth’s bleeding and mangled corpse; he would think, above all, that his sin had found him out, and that Jehovah had conquered. He had fought all his life for Baal, but it was in vain; he had been kicking against the pricks; he had been wrestling not with flesh and blood, but with an Invisible, Irresistible, Omnipotent God, and now he is thrown, east down never to rise again.

III. It now only remains for us to consider the CIRCUMSTANCES of Ahab’s death. These were of so portentous and exceptional a character as to mark it

1. As a direct visitation of God. The army, that clay defeated, the contingent of Judah, the citizens of Samaria, the subjects of both kingdoms, could not think that a mere chance had happened to Ahab when they remembered

(1) That this death had been distinctly foretold. Not once or twice, but three times had a prophetic voice foreshadowed for him a sudden and shameful end (1Ki 20:42; 1Ki 21:19; 1Ki 22:17, 1Ki 22:28). Moreover Micaiah, the last of these monitors, had staked his reputation as God’s prophet on the fulfilment of his prediction of disaster. And his oracle had not been spoken in secret; he had appealed to the entire assembly gathered round the two kingsand the flower of Israel and Judah alike were thereand even to neighbouring nations (verse 28, Hebrews), to be witnesses of his words, and those words were fresh in their memories.

(2) How the king met his death. For it was of course known to the army that Ahab had disguised himself, whilst Jehoshaphat had put on his robes. After the sinister prophecy of Micaiah, we may be sure that the allied armies would watch, with the gravest anxiety, for the issue. They would perceive that the king himself was not without his fears; they would wonder whether his disguise would procure his escape. And when at the end of the day they learnt that Jehoshaphat who had been arrayed like a king, and who on that account had been exposed to imminent peril, had escaped unhurt, whilst their king, who had never been recognized, had been pierced by a chance arrow between the joints of his harness and mortally wounded, was there one but would see the finger of God in this death? Surely if the Psalmist’s words were then written, they would occur to their minds, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit, and whither shall I flee from thy presence?” etc. (Psa 139:9-12), or that other Psalm, “God shall shoot at them with a swift arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded” (Psa 64:7), and the result would be that all men would fear and declare the work of God (ib. 1Ki 19:9), and confess that this was His doing. The fugitives who stole away in the dark and black night to their homes, like sheep without a shepherd, would have learnt one lesson at least that clay, viz; that there was a God that judgeth in the earth.”

2. As God‘s appropriate recompense for the sins of that age. We have already seen how this history puts its stamp of reprobation on

(1) the calf worship, inasmuch as by the prophets of the calves the king was beguiled into this enterprize. But the sin of Jeroboam was not the special sin of Ahab’s reign. On the contrary, the calf worship was rather overshadowed and eclipsed by the frightful idolatries, which had so much greater fascination for the evil heart of unbelief. It was the characteristic of that reign that the unclean rites of Baal and Astarte, the abominations of the Amorites, were re-established in the land. We see in Ahab’s death

(2) the requital of his share in that sin (1Ki 16:31, 1Ki 16:32). The idolatry which had desolated the church was avenged by a horde of idolaters ravaging the land and slaying the arch-idolater in battle. There is a rough lex talionis here. (Cf. Jer 5:19.) If they would have idolatry they should taste the tender mercies of idolaters. On that field were the predictions of Moses (Deu 28:25), Samuel (1Sa 12:25), and Solomon (1Ki 8:33) fulfilled.

(3) But a recompense still more exact and conspicuous attended the impurities which Ahab had practised under the name of religion. He had filled the land with prostitutes. What a proof of the just judgment of God it was that these infamous persons added dishonour to his death! He had maintained them through life: he should be associated with them in his end. The harlots bathed in the pool that was reddened with his blood (verses 38, Hebrews)

(4) Nor was the connexion of Ahab’s death with the sin of releasing Ben-hadad any less conspicuous. What meant that strange malignant command, “Fight only with the king of Israel?” Was it not that the Syrian king, on whom Ahab would not execute vengeance, had become, in the counsels of God, an instrument of vengeance, a minister to execute wrath, against the anointed of the Lord? “Thy life shall go for his life”it was thus that every religious mind would interpret so singular and, considering the circumstances (1Ki 20:1-43.), so otherwise inexplicable a word of command. It was as if Ben-hadad had proclaimed that his mission primarily was to settle the long arrearages of justice with that wicked Ahab.

(5) How the murder of Naboth was avenged that shameful day, it is hardly necessary to point out. There was a strict retaliationwound for wound, stripe for stripe, blood for blood, dishonour for dishonour. There were many, besides Jehu and Bidkar, who would recall the fierce threatening of the Tishbite (1Ki 21:19); many, besides priests and prophets, would remember the axiom of their law, “blood defileth the land,” etc. (Num 35:33), or would think on that day of the so-called “precept of Noah,” “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen 9:6). The elders of Jezreel, yes, and Jezebel herself, understood that Naboth’s blood had cried from the ground, and that the cry had come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. It was His foot that was dipped in the blood of His enemies (Psa 68:28).

And this ignominious deathin what sharp contrast it stands with the indolent, luxurious, sensual life! “The ivory house that he made,” what an irony we may see in those words! “Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar ….
He shall be buried with the burial of an ass,“ etc. (Jer 22:15, Jer 22:19). The cities he built, the victories he won, how poor and empty do these exploits seem as we stand by the pool of Samaria, and see the livid, blood-stained corpse dragged from the chariot! The Latin poet asks what all his pleasures, travels, knowledge, can avail a man who has to die after all; but the question presents itself with tenfold force when life’s fitful fever is followed by such a sleep, by such a dream, as Ahab’s. “It had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Mat 26:24).

And the death of Ahab was followed by the dispersion of his army. When the proclamation rang through the host, “Every man to his country,” and when the sensed ranks precipitately broke up, and horseman and footman fled for his life, then the share of Israel in the sins of Ahab and Jezebel was in part expiated. There was not a man but knew why “the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies.” “There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel.” (Jos 7:12, Jos 7:13). Baal had troubled them, had made of the heights of Ramoth very valley of Achor.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

1Ki 22:1-8

Bad Company.

According to the order of the chapters in the LXX; which is probably the original or true order, 1Ki 20:1-43. should immediately precede this. Then, after the history of the war between Ahab and Ben-hadad, this chapter opens naturally: “And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel.” In the third year of this peace Jehoshaphat visited Ahab; and from this visit arose serious events, which are admonitory to us that we should avoid the company of the wicked.

I. BAD COMPANY COMPROMISES CHARACTER.

1. It injures morals.

(1) The earlier career of Jehoshaphat was faultless. He is highly commended for his faithfulness to God and zeal against idolatry (2Ch 17:1-6).

(2) His first fault was sanctioning the marriage of his son Jehoram with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab (2Ki 8:18, 2Ki 8:26).

(3) This led the way to the further fault of that friendly visit to Ahab mentioned here, for which he was rebuked by “Jehu the son of Hanani the seer” (2Ch 19:2).

(4) Yet once again we find him falling into a similar snare. He agreed with Ahaziah the son of Ahab, a wicked scion of wicked house, jointly to equip a fleet at the port of Ezion-Geber, on the Bed Sea, to sail to Ophir for gold. In this also he incurred the anger of the Lord and suffered the loss of his fleet (verse 48; 2Ch 20:35-37). Note: A fault is like a seed, fruitful “after its kind.” A fault once committed prepares the way for a repetition.

2. It damages reputation.

(1) Reputation is character as estimated by men. This estimate may or may not be just; for men may judge wrongly through ignorance of circumstances which would put a new complexion upon conduct. Therefore judgments should be charitable, and not too hastily formed.

(2) But it is a maxim among men, generally true, that “you may know a man by his friends.” Friendships involve sympathies. It had been better for Jehoshaphat’s reputation had he never made affinity with the wicked house of Ahab.

(3) This principle will apply to books. Hence the kindred maxim, “You may see a man in his library.” It is bad enough when the newspaper shuts up the Bible; it is worse when the Bible is neglected through preference for sensational fictitious literature.

3. It impairs influence.

(1) This follows. Character is influence. Reputation is influence. Advice will be readily received from a genuine man, which coming from an artificial character would be spurned.

(2) What a power for good or evil is moral influence! See the evil exemplified in Israel under Ahab and Jezebel. See the good in Judah under Jehoshaphat. Lessons: Let your character be true. Jealously guard your reputation. Look to these for the sake of your influence.

II. BAD COMPANY COMPROMISES HAPPINESS. Because

1. Happiness is involved in character.

(1) This truth is abundantly illustrated in sacred history. Examples are furnished in the text. Secular history teaches this truth. Everyday experience evinces it.

(2) Yet is it difficult so to convince individuals of this as to lead them to abandon sin and throw their energies wholly into the blessed service of God. Happiness is proportionate to the completeness of consecration. This consecration cannot be reconciled with the friendship of the world (Jas 4:4).

2. Goodness is grieved in it.

(1) Jehoshaphat was not long in the company of Ahab before his ear was offended by horrible words. “I hate him.” Whom did Ahab hate? Micaiah, the faithful prophet of the Lord. Does not this look like a declaration of hatred against the Lord? (See Pro 14:31; Pro 17:5; Zec 2:8.)

(2) Why does Ahab hate Micaiah? “For he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” Because he does not falsify the truth of God to flatter me. Because he does not play the devil to please me, as these four hundred do! Note: Hatred to God means love to Satan.

(3) Such sentiments were distressing to the feelings of Jehoshaphat. To the revulsion of his righteous soul he gave expression (but too feeble) in the remonstrance, “Let not the king say so.” The conversation of such as are in sympathy with evil will offend the good in proportion to their pureness.

3. It leads the most wary into trouble. For the persuasions of the wicked are subtle.

(1) In presence of Jehoshaphat “The king of Israel said unto his servants, Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria?” It was a considerable city in the tribe of Gad on the other side Jordan, and one of the cities of refuge. It was one of the cities which Ben-hadad, by the letter of his covenant, was bound to restore (see 1Ki 20:34). The cause of Israel was obviously just.

(2) Then turning to Jehoshaphat, Ahab said, “Wilt thou go with me to battle at Ramoth-Gilead?” To which, carried away with the obvious justice of the cause, Jehoshaphat responded, “I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses.” This was too strong a compliment to Ahab and his people, and the response was too ready. We may not champion every just cause. It may be wrong to champion a good cause in wicked company.

(3) Bethinking himself, as a godly man should do, “Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord.” A good man seeks to take God with him, and so long as he abides in this holy company he is safe. But let him beware that he be not persuaded by the wicked to forsake it.

(4) Ahab was equal to the occasion. He had four hundred prophets ready with one mouth to pronounce for the war, and that, too, in the name of the Lord. This hireling company, however, did not satisfy Jehoshaphat, yet he fell into their snare. He should have availed himself of the opportunity to withdraw given him in the prophecy of Micaiah; but, under the spell of Ahab’s evil influence, he went to the battle and got into trouble. There is no safety in the company of the wicked.

4. It provokes judgments of God.

(1) The good partake in the plagues of their wicked associates. Jehoshaphat barely escaped, through the mercy of God, with his life; and he suffered the loss of many of his people (see Rev 18:4). The fly that keeps aloof is not entangled in the spider’s web.

(2) The good incur Divine judgments for their own sin. The sin of friendship with the enemies of God. The sin such friendship must infallibly occasion. Such was the experience of Jehoshaphat (see 2Ch 19:2). Such will be yours. Avoid it.J.A.M.

1Ki 22:9-14

The False and the True.

There would be no counterfeit coin if there were no sterling; so neither would there be false prophets if there were no true. Because there are both, their qualities have to be tested, that we may refuse the spurious and value the genuine (see Jer 23:38). To this end let us consider

I. TESTS WHICH MAY NOT BE TRUSTED.

1. The test of profession.

(1) Ahab’s prophets “prophesied.” That is to say

(a) They used modes usual with prophets to procure information from Heaven. These were sacrifice, prayer, music (see 1Sa 10:5, 1Sa 10:6; 2Ki 3:15), and, when time permitted, fasting.

(b) They used modes usual with prophets to communicate the information when received. “Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them” (cf. Jer 27:2; Jer 28:1-17 :18). The “horn” was the symbol of a king (see Dan 7:24; Rev 17:12). These were “two,” to represent Ahab and Jehoshaphat, Israel and Judah. They were of “iron” to express strength (see Dan 2:40). The prophecy was that, aided by Jehoshaphat, Ahab should push the Syrians to destruction.

(2) They prophesied “in the name of the Lord.” Some think because their number corresponded to that of the prophets of Ashere (1Ki 18:19) these were the same, having escaped when the prophets of Baal were slain at the brook Kishon (1Ki 18:40). If so, then their profession on this occasion was designed to deceive Jehoshaphat (see Jer 23:30).

(3) Anyhow there was profession enough, but it was hollow, and proved conclusively that profession must not be taken as a test of truth.

2. The test of numbers.

(1) Here were “four hundred” who prophesied professedly in the name of the Lord. Against this number Micaiah the son of Imlah stands alone; yet the truth of God is with him against the multitude. “Truth is not always to be determined by the poll. It is net numbers, but weight, that must carry it in the council of prophets” (Bishop Hall).

(2) This instance does not stand alone. The majority was in the wrong against Noah. Elijah was in the minority on Carmel, but he was right. Jesus had the whole Jewish Church against Him, though He was Truth itself.

3. The test of unanimity.

(1) The four hundred were united against Micaiah. Sometimes there is unanimity of this kind against a common object, where otherwise there is little agreement. Herod and Pilate made friends in opposition to Jesus.

(2) But these prophets were agreed among themselves. They all seem to have followed the leadership of Zedekiah. “And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand.”

4. How does this argument bear upon the authority of the Church?

(1) It is pleaded that the Church, which is practically understood to be the clergy in council, has authority to bind the conscience in matters of faith. The arguments relied upon to sustain this view are generally based upon claims of profession, numbers, and agreement.

(2) On the other hand, the. definition of the Church is questioned, and the claims are refused as insufficient for their purpose, since by them Ahab’s prophets might prove themselves true!

II. TESTS WHICH MAY BE TRUSTED.

1. The witnesses should be honest.

(1) Ahab’s prophets were interested in their testimony. They enjoyed the patronage of the king, and they said what they knew would gratify him. Their testimony, therefore, is open to suspicion.

(2) Micaiah, on the contrary, had nothing to gain, but everything to lose, in taking his course. He knew the temper of the king. He was importuned by the king’s messenger to concur with the king’s prophets. He had already suffered for his faithfulness, for he seems to have been brought from the custody of Amen, in whose prison he had probably lain for three years. By flattering Ahab he might now obtain release, but by taking an opposite course he could only expect to go back to jail. Probabilities also were against him, for in the last two battles, Ahab, without the aid of Jehoshaphat, worsted the Syrians. Should the king of Israel now “return in peace” what may Micaiah expect?

(3) Nothing but the consciousness that he was uttering the truth of God could account for the son of Imlah deliberately encountering all this. And only upon this ground could he hope for any favour from God. Suspicion, therefore, as to the honesty of Micaiah is out of the question.

(4) But can it be pleaded that the honesty of the ecclesiastics who framed the decrees of councils is beyond suspicion? In decreeing the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, e.g; were they disinterested, when they knew how pleasing to him would be the reputation of such an attribute, and when they knew what patronage and power to injure were vested in his hands?

2. They should have miraculous athentication.

(1) It is easy to say, “Thus saith the Lord,” but not so espy to evince it. The four hundred could say it, hut they could show no miracle to prove that they spoke from God.

(2) It was otherwise with Micaiah. For, with the Jews, we presume he was that prophet who “prophesied evil concerning Ahab,” and authenticated his message by the sign of the lion destroying his fellow for disobedience (cf. 1Ki 22:8 with 1Ki 20:35-43).

(3) Clergy in council may claim Divine authority for their decrees, but unless they can verify their claim by adequate signs they presume when they impose.

3. Their testimony should be agreeable to the word of God.

(1) “Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak. The one question for us in these days is this: Is the testimony agreeable to the Bible? This we know by infallible proofs to be the word of God. “But,“ it is objected, “the Bible needs authoritative interpretation, and who is to interpret but the Church?” To which we may answer, And the Church still more needs authoritative interpretation, and who is to interpret bus the Bible? The authority of the Bible is admitted; that of the Church is in question.

(2) The right of private judgment must be maintained. For the exercise of this right we shall every one of us give account of himself unto God. That ill-defined thing, the Church, cannot release us from this obligation. We cannot put our judgment and conscience into commission.J.A.M.

1Ki 22:15-23

Micaiah’s Prophecy.

It is evident from the text and from 1Ki 22:8 that this was not the first time Ahab and Micaiah had met. The Jews suppose, apparently with reason, that Micaiah was that prophet who, when Ahab sent Ben-hadad away with a covenant, said to the king of Israel, “Thus saith the Lord: Because thou hast let go out of thine hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people” (see 1Ki 20:35-43). In considering the prophecy of Micaiah now before us, we notice

I. THAT IT IS PREFACED WITH A SALLY OF IRONY.

1. He answers the king in the words of his prophets.

(1) Cf. 1Ki 22:6, 1Ki 22:12, 1Ki 22:15.

(2) These words are equivocal. “The Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.” What king? “The king” may mean either Ahab or Ben-hadad. What? This is not clear; for the word “it” is supplied. Is it Ramoth-Gilead or something else that is to be delivered into the hand of the king (of Israel)? or is it the king of Israel or something else to be delivered into the hand of the king (of Syria)? What kind of prophecy is this?

(3) The utterance of these prophets resembles those of the heathen oracles, the following appropriate samples of which are given by A. Clarke: “The Delphic oracle spoke thus of Croesus, which he understood to his own destruction: ‘Croesus, Halym penetrans, magnum subverter opum vim;’ which is to say, ‘ If you march against Cyrus, he will overthrow you,‘ or ‘you will overthrow him.’ He trusted in the latter, the former took place. He was deluded, yet the oracle maintained its credit. So in the following: ‘Aio te, AEacida, Romanos vincere posse. Ibis redibis hnunquam in bello peribis.’ Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, understood by this that he should conquer the Romans, against whom he was making war; but the oracle could be thus translated: ‘The Romans shall overcome thee.’ He trusted in the former, made unsuccessful war, and was overcome; and yet the juggling priest saved his credit. The latter line is capable of two opposite meanings: ‘Thou shalt go, thou shalt return, thou shalt never perish in war,’ or, ‘Thou shalt go, thou shalt never return, thou shalt perish in war.'”

2. But he repeats those words with significant expression.

(1) The bare repetition, with proper emphasis, of the equivocal words of the false prophets would be a fine stroke of irony. But when to emphasis were added tone, gesture, play of feature, the irony would become very keen.

(2) This sarcasm of Micaiah is worthy to compare with that of Elijah (see 1Ki 18:27). “Go and prosper.” This assurance of thy prophets is vague enough to encourage the confidence of a simpleton!

3. God uses terrible rhetoric in His wrath.

(1) Irony and sarcasm are fitting weapons to be wielded against those who have neither conscience nor reason (see Pro 26:3-5). Ahab was a man of this class. Witness the logic of his hatred (verse 8). He felt the sting (verse 16).

(2) These weapons are formidable in the hands of the Almighty (see Psa 2:4, Psa 2:5; Psa 37:13; Pro 1:24-32; Ecc 11:9; Mal 2:17 and Mal 3:1; Rom 2:1-9).

II. THAT IT COMPARES FAVOURABLY WITH THAT OF HIS COMPETITORS.

1. Its burden is the reverse of equivocal.

(1) There is in sacred prophecy a double sense, but the sound is certain. It is not a dubiousness but a manifoldness of meaning, a development, an evolution, such as we find in a seed that opens first into the blade, then into the ear, and eventually into the full corn in the ear.

(2) This prophecy of Micaiah gave a distinct answer to the question of Ahab (verse 13). The advice was to forbear. These “sheep.” The sheep is not a creature fitted for battle. They have “no shepherd.” Their king, deserted by the Spirit of God, has not the qualities of a shepherd. Therefore “Let them return every man to his house in peace.”

(3) But the advice contains a prophecy. It is to this effect: their king who ought to be their shepherd, shall fall at Ramoth-Gilead, and his people shall be like sheep, “scattered upon the mountains” by the power of the enemy (compare Zec 13:7).

2. The vision shows that all worlds are under Divine control.

(1) “I saw the Lord sitting on his throne.” Here was a comparison with the scene before him, described verse 10. Ahab and Jehoshaphat are enthroned as kings on the earth; but there is a King in the heavens immeasurably above them.

(2) “And all the host of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the, left.” The host of heaven stood while Jehovah sat. They awaited His commands. Those on His “right hand” probably to render services of benevolence; those on His “left,” services of judgment.

(3) Then comes in another kind of agency (verses 20-23). This scene is analogous to that described in the Book of Job (see Job 1:6; Job 2:7). Things in heaven, things in earth, things under the earth, all serve the purposes of Divine Providence (see Job 12:16; 2Th 2:11,2Th 2:12; Rev 20:7, Rev 20:8).

(4) The waywardness of Ahab showed how fully he was under the control of the spirit of falsehood. This is seen in his senseless resentment against Micaiah. Turning to Jehoshaphat, he said, “Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?” as if Micaiah’s own utterances could control the providence of God. Then turning to his officers he had Micaiah marched back to the prison where Ahab knew he could find him (cf. verse 8 with verses 26, 27). Let us give due heed to the more sure word of prophecy.J.A.M.

1Ki 22:24-29

The Argument of Wickedness.

The Bible is a book of texts because it is a book of types. It does not profess to give full histories, but refers to public records for these (see Jos 10:13; 2Sa 1:18; 1Ki 11:41; 1Ch 9:1). Inspiration selects from histories typical or representative incidents to bring out the principles of the grace and truth of God. In the scene before us we have types of wickedness in Zedekiah and Ahab, the one ecclesiastical, the other civil, which may be profitably studied in the arguments they use contending with Micaiah, the representative of the truth of God. These arguments are

I. RAGE AGAINST THE TRUTH. The reason is obvious, viz; because the truth is the worst that can be said of the wicked.

1. It is the worst that can be said of their character.

(1) It shows up their selfishness. The one object of Ahab was that “good” might be prophesied for him. To gain this he sold himself to his four hundred liars. These liars, to gain the patronage of Ahab, sold their consciences. Because Ahab could not gain flattery from Micaiah, he hated him.

(2) It shows up their folly. For what was the selfishness of Ahab but self-deception? The patronage of liars could not convert falsehood into truth, neither could the persecution of a true man convert truth into falsehood. Zedekiah, in deceiving Ahab, deceived his own soul. All sin is folly.

(3) It evinces their degradation, for it proves them to be the dupes and serfs of infernal spirits. Can degradation go lower?

2. It is the worst that can be said of their doom.

(1) The wicked are to be destroyed in time. Ahab in particular was to fall at Ramoth-Gilead. From that battle he was “not to return in peace.” Zedekiah was to “go into an inner chamber to hide himself,” as Ben-hadad had done (1Ki 20:30), and there to meet his fate. While to the righteous death is an entrance to glory, it is the “king of terrors” to the wicked (see 1Co 15:55-57). The sting is here:

(2) The wicked are to be destroyed in eternity. The alarm with which the ancients received predictions of maltreatment to their corpses arose from their apprehension that it presaged a posthumous retribution upon the soul. The dogs licking the blood of Ahab would suggest that devils would not only be the instigators but also the instruments of his ruin.

(3) Who can estimate the horrors of damnation? The truth will prove to be the worst that can be said of the lost. Is it wonderful, then, that the wicked should abhor the truth?

3. They are therefore constrained to hypocrisy.

(1) For their own sakes they have to play the hypocrite. They conceal their selfishness and affect generosity, conscious that were their base soul hunger to come honestly to the day, they would become odious. They hide their folly and affect wisdom lest they should suffer contempt.

(2) For the sake of society wicked men are hypocrites. Were they to be honestly known to each other, respect and confidence would be at an end; in fact, society would be impossible. There are no friendships in hell.

II. THE RESENTMENT OF VIOLENCE.

1. The logic of the wicked is weak.

(1) Zedekiah’s speech was pertinacious: “Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?” He assumed what Micaiah had not conceded, that he ever had the Spirit of the Lord. Micaiah had declared him, on the contrary, to have been influenced by a “spirit” of a very different description. Zedekiah also denied what he should have disproved, viz; that Micaiah had the Spirit of the Lord.

(2) Ahab wanted a prophet of the God of truth to tell lies to please him. He found four hundred to tell him lies, professedly in the name of the Lord. But the one honest man who told him the truth he imprisoned, because the truth did not please him. Yet the truth was what he adjured him to tell. What reason is there in all this?

(3) What sinner is there in our day who can clear himself of folly? (See Pro 13:19; 1Co 3:19.)

2. The strength of the wicked is tyranny.

(1) The reason of Zedekiah was in his fist (1Ki 22:24). “Which way?” From the fist to the cheek? The coward us d this argument with a council of four hundred ecclesiastics about him, and the civil power in reserve. So was Jesus insulted (see Mat 26:57-68). So were the Protestant confessors. False prophets have ever been the worst enemies of the true. Micaiah did not return the blow, but referred the decision to God. True prophets wield other than carnal weapons.

(2) The reason of Ahab was in his bribes and prisons. Micaiah could not be cajoled as the four hundred were, therefore “the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, carry him back unto Amen the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son, and say, Thus saith the king, put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction, and with water of affliction, until I come in peace.”

(3) But truth is not vanquished thus. How confident was Ahab that he should “come in peace”! And this is that Ahab who three or four years before so sagaciously said to Ben-hadad, “Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.” Persistency in sin does not sharpen men’s wits. Time vindicates truth. To this vindicator Micaiah called the attention of the people (1Ki 22:29).

(4) But where was Jehoshaphat? He was silent when he should have spoken for the prophet of God. See the influence of bad company. “So the king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-Gilead.” Alas, Jehoshaphat!J.A.M.

1Ki 22:30-38

Lessons of the Battle.

After disposing of Micaiah by sending him to prison with hard fare as the reward of his faithfulness, Ahab and Jehoshaphat gathered their forces and set out together to fight for the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead. The events of the day show

I. THAT PROPHECY MAY TEND TO ITS OWN FULFILMENT.

1. Micaiah‘s words influenced Ahab‘s conduct.

(1) Though Ahab had imprisoned the prophet he could not shake off the influence of his prophecy. So with a view to obviating its effect he proposed to disguise himself. He speaks of himself in the third person (1Ki 22:30), thus (), “He will [strip] disguise himself’a form of speech, perhaps, considered suitable to an action in which he was to appear as a third person. To complete the deception, if we follow the LXX; he induced Jehoshaphat to put on his (Ahab’s) robes.

(a) Note the subtlety of the wicked. Ahab’s proposal to Jehoshaphat was ostensibly to give him the post of honour in commanding the army. This, too, may have suggested the use of the third person in speaking of himself. Ahab’s real purpose was to divert from himself the fury of the battle; and probably he hoped Jehoshaphat might be slain. In that case his son-in-law would succeed to the throne of Judah, and he might be able so to manage him as to serve his own purposes.

(b) In all this we see the danger of bad company. We see it likewise in the sad fact that Jehoshaphat should become a party to a contrivance to falsify the word of God!

(2) But how useless are disguises when the providence of Omniscience is concerned! Ahab might hide himself from the Syrians, but he could not hide himself from God. Neither could he hide himself from angels and devils, who are instruments of Divine Providence, ever influencing men, and even natural laws, or forces of nature. Note: No disguise will avail to evade the scrutiny and retributions of the judgment day.

(3) Yet by his disguise Ahab, unwittingly, helped the prophecy. “The king of Syria commanded his thirty and two captains that had rule over his chariots, saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel.” Suppose Ahab had been in Jehoshaphat’s place, and had fallen into the hands of the captains, what would have become of the words of Elijah? (See 1Ki 21:19.) But as things worked out these words became literally true.

2. They also influenced the conduct of the Syrians.

(1) The Syrians would be aware of the prophecy of Micaiah dooming Ahab to fall at Ramoth-Gilead. For in a country about the size of North Wales, Samaria being distant from Ramoth-Gilead only thirty miles, the news of this public meeting of kings and contest of prophets could not be a secret. Ahab would facilitate the publication of the encouragement he had from the four hundred, to strike terror into the Syrians; but where the news of his encouragement went the words of Micaiah also would travel.

(2) Probably this intelligence determined the Syrians to “fight only against the king of Israel,” in which they would have the God of Israel with them, the formidableness of whose hostility they had experienced in the last two battles (compare 2Ch 35:21, 2Ch 35:22). To this Jehoshaphat probably was indebted for the sparing of his life, for “God moved the Syrians to depart from him” (see 2Ch 18:31). And probably they were influenced by it to agree to the proclamation to disband, when the death of Ahab became known (cf. 1Ki 22:17, 1Ki 22:36).

3. Note a remarkable illustration of this principle in the zeal of Jehu in exterminating the house of Ahab (see 2Ki 9:25, 2Ki 9:26; 2Ki 10:10, 2Ki 10:11, 2Ki 10:16, 2Ki 10:17). Those who are “looking for,” are thereby “hastening the coming of the day of God” (see 2Pe 3:12).

II. THAT NEVERTHELESS THE HAND OF GOD IS IN IT.

1. This was evident in the case of Ahab. The purpose of Ben-hadad, should Ahab have fallen into his hands, is not recorded. Would he return Ahab’s compliment of releasing him with a covenant? Would he show Ahab how he ought to have treated him?

(2) But God had other means than the captains of Ben-hadad to accomplish His purpose. A man drew a bow at a venture (marg. “in his simplicity”) and smote the king of Israel between the joints and harness.” A simpleton brings clown a king! (See Pro 1:32.) God guided the arrow to the opening in the joints of the armour, as He guided the pebble from the sling of David into the frontals of Goliath. No armour is proof against the shafts of Divine vengeance.

(3) The hand of God also was seen in the sequel. The prophecies of Elijah and Micaiah seem to be in conflict. The one speaks of the dogs licking the blood of Ahab at” Samaria;” the other of Ahab falling at “Ramoth-Gilead.” Who but God could so order events that there should be no conflict here? “The blood ran out of the wound into the midst (Heb. bosom) of the chariot;” perhaps more correctly, “into the bosom of the charioteer,” on which the king leaned. “And one washed the chariot;” or rather, “And the driver washed himself in the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked his blood” i.e; the blood of Ahab which fell from the bosom of the driver. “And the things they washed.” For denotes the several kinds of things, being derived from , a kind or species. Before the person and things defiled with blood were permitted to enter the city, they were to be washed; and the dogs licked up the blood that fell from the driver’s bosom, and off the things, as they lay to be washed (see Psa 68:28).

(4) But were not the words of Elijah “In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth” (viz; Jezreel) “shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine ‘? But in the context there, the vineyard of Naboth is said to be in Samaria (see 1Ki 21:18, 1Ki 21:19), because Jezreel, like Bethel, was one of the “cities of Samaria” (see 1Ki 13:32). In the very vineyard of Naboth did the blood of Ahab flow from the veins of his son (see 2Ki 9:25, 2Ki 9:26). The providence that accomplished is no less admirable than the omniscience that predicted.

2. This was also evident in the case of Jehoshaphat.

(1) Micaiah did not say that the king of Judah should fall at Ramoth-Gilead; but his prophecy did intimate that he would be of little use to the army. The word () in 1Ki 22:17 rendered “master” is plural, and evidently associates Jehoshaphat with Ahab. When Ahab was wounded to death and Jehoshaphat had fled for his life, the people had “no masters,” so the proclamation soon followed which determined “every man to his house in peace.”

(2) Jehoshaphat’s danger lay in his being assimilated to Ahab. He should never have said, “I am as thou art” (1Ki 22:4), then would he not have been persuaded to don Ahab’s robes. By the influence of his company Jehoshaphat was becoming morally like him, and therefore was in danger of sharing his miserable fate (see Pro 13:20).

(3) To avoid this danger he had to become himself again. “He cried out” [to Jehovah] (see 2Ch 18:1-34 :81); and thus was discovered to the captains, who would expect to hear Ahab cry rather to Baal. The hand of God was evident in his deliverance; and this he might read as a parable assuring him that his future safety must lie in his renouncing evil companions and returning to the piety of his earlier years.J.A.M.

1Ki 22:39, 1Ki 22:40, 1Ki 22:51-53

Survival.

After the account of Ahab’s death and burial, and of the manner in which the dogs of Samaria fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah, the earlier verses of our text follow. In the first of these the reader is referred to the archives of the nation for an account of the “rest of the Ac” and works of this monarch, viz; those to which inspiration was not here specially directed. In the second, the succession of Ahaziah is mentioned. With these verses, because of the unity of the subject, we associate the three verses referring to the reign of Ahaziah, with which the chapter closes. Taking the latter first in order, we see

I. THAT AHAB SURVIVED IN AHAZIAH.

1. This was legally true.

(1) “So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.” In law, a man is said to “live in his heirs.” He is never legally dead while he has an heir. There is a good reason for this. Ahaziah would never have mounted the throne of Israel unless his father had been there before him. He reigned in the posthumous influence of Ahab. His representative.

(2) When a man is what is called “the architect of his own fortune,” he is said to have had “no father.” But in this language the fact is ignored that, under Providence, this “architect” is indebted to his ancestry for his existence, for his faculties, and for the circumstances which he may have seized and moulded into this “fortune.”

2. It was also morally true.

(1) In Ahaziah the vices of Ahab were reproduced. “He did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father.” The bad example of his father wrought its influence into his character, and thus Ahab survived in Ahaziah.

(2) The record descends to particulars. “He walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother.” Here not only is Jezebel reproduced in Ahaziah, but Ahab’s sin in marrying Jezebel also survives. “And in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” Here is not only the posthumous influence of Jeroboam, but also of the sin of Ahab in perpetuating it. “For he served Baal, and worshipped him.” The establishment of this Canaanitish abomination was due to Ahab and Jezebel, and they infamously survive in its perpetuation.

(3) Note

(a) A Church is not the more true for being established. Here were two State Churches which were, in the Biblical sense, atheistic.

(b) For concurrent endowment, whatever may be said for its expediency, there can be no moral defence.

3. But there was no necessity for this.

(1) Legal representation is an accident over which we have no control. It is a notable truth that men have influences in spite of themselves, and that these also are posthumous.

(2) But moral representation is in a different category. Ahaziah might have reigned in Ahab’s stead without imitating his vices. “Jehoram the son of Ahab,” e.g; “wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother; for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made” (2Ki 3:2).

(3) Ahaziah should have been admonished by the history of the judgments of God upon the house of Jeroboam. He should have taken the warning given in the judgments of God on the sins of his father. His guilt, therefore, was upon his own head, and he suffered accordingly. He reigned two years. God makes short work with some sinners. His death was provoked by his perversity (see 2Ki 1:3, 2Ki 1:4). We see further

II. THAT AHAB SURVIVES IN HISTORY.

1. He survived in secular history. His acts and works were written in the chronicles of his nation.

(1) Amongst these were mentioned “all the cities that he built.” Perhaps this building of cities simply meant the construction of fortifications for their defence. Whether they reflected credit or discredit upon his memory we cannot pronounce. A man may do a great deal of work to very little profit.

(2) The chronicles mentioned “the ivory house which he made.” This palace had its description probably from the quantity of that valuable substance used in its ornamentation. But this does not seem to have been to his honour. A kingdom impoverished through famines, wars, and idolatries was in no position to bear the cost of such a piece of luxurious and selfish vanity. Amos accordingly denounces this work of pride (Amo 3:15).

(3) The survival of Ahab in secular history was a consequence of his social position. The masons and carpenters, whose skill brought the works of Ahab to perfection, had no mention there. Social status is a talent from God, for the right use of which men are accountable.

2. He survives in sacred history.

(1) The sacred history consists of selections from the secular under the guiding influence of Divine inspiration, with a view to illustrating the principles of the providence, truth, and grace of God. To illustrate such principles is the noblest end of writing. So of reading. What quantities of trash, in which the claims of God are ignored, is both written and read!

(2) In these selections the notices of the wicked are generally brief. Perhaps no wicked man has a larger share of the sacred writings occupied with his acts than Ahab. Such acts are not agreeable to the Spirit of God. But in the hands of inspiration they are made an influence for good. They are recorded, apparently, because of their relation to the actions of prophets and good men. They are made to serve as a dark background to show up to admiration virtuous qualities, and to be made themselves odious in the contrast. The principles of the wicked should only be studied to be shunned. So God brings good out of evil.

(3) The sacred records have survived the secular. “The book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” has long since perished. The sacred records have come down to our times. In these, after a lapse of nearly thirty centuries, Ahab survives. But for these his name would not be known. Note

(a) the Providence which has preserved the Scriptures evinces their Divine authenticity.

(b) Things are permanent as they stand related to the everlasting God.

(c) The posthumous influence points to the immortality of man.J.A.M.

1Ki 22:41-50

Jehoshaphat.

These words give a summary of the life of this king of Judah, and faithfully record, as the Scriptures do to admiration, the good and the bad, as these will be considered in the judgment of the great day. Consider

I. THE PRAISE OF JEHOSHAPHAT.

1. He came of a good stock.

(1) He was “of the house and lineage of David.” The traditions of that house were in many respects a glorious inheritance. David was a “man after God’s own heart.” In no instance was he found inclining to idolatry.

(2) He was the son of Asa. Of his mother we have this significant mention: “And his mother’s name was Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in the ways of Asa his father, and departed not from it, doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” This suggests the healthiness of his mothers moral influence. The reference here to Asa, too, is highly honourable.

(3) The blessing of pious parents is inestimable. It works beneficially in example, in precept, in solicitude. This last is most effectual in prayer to God. Those who are favoured with godly parents should praise God evermore. Wicked children of pious parents are doubly culpable.

2. He improved his advantages.

(1) He “walked in the ways of Asa his father.” These were ways of righteousness. Let the children of godly parents now ask themselves whether they walk in the good ways of their ancestors.

(2) He “turned not aside from it. He showed no favour to idolatry. The note which follows is no impeachment of the truth of this statement: “Nevertheless the high places were not taken away; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places.” The high places that Jehoshaphat spared were those in which the true God was worshipped in accordance with the usage of patriarchal times (see 2Ch 33:17).

(3) He went farther than Asa in the work of reformation:”The remnant of the Sodomites which remained in the days of Asa his father he took out of the land.” The parallel place to this in the Chronicles is: “And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord: moreover he took away the high places and the groves () out of Judah” (2Ch 17:6; 2Ch 19:8). By removing the Sodomites we understand that he demolished their shrines, their Asherim, their instruments of pollution. When the nests are destroyed the rooks fly.

3. This was to his praise.

(1) Others, similarly placed, failed to make this good use of their advantages. Jehoram, his own son, may be mentioned in sad contrast to him. Several of his ancestors had scandalously departed from the godly ways of their father David. Men will be justified or condemned in the light of such comparisons in the last great day (see Luk 11:31, Luk 11:32).

(2) God rewarded him with prosperity (2Ch 17:4, 2Ch 17:5). He had an armyprobably an enrolled militiaof 1,100,000 men. The Philistines, Arabians, and Edomites were subject to him. The note here, that “there was then no king in Edom: a deputy was king,” which prefaces the account of his fleet at Ezion-Geber, was designed to explain how Jehoshaphat was able to have a fleet at a port which belonged to Edom (see 1Ki 9:26), viz; because he appointed the viceroy in Edom which was tributary to him (see Gen 27:29, Gen 27:37; 2Sa 8:14).

II. THE BLAME OF JEHOSHAPHAT. This seems all to have been connected with the “peace” which he made “with the king of Israel.” It appears to have commenced with

1. The marriage of his son.

(1) Jehoram, the eldest son of Jehoshaphat, and with his consent, took Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, to be his wife. Jehoshaphat’s heart was lifted up with the abundance of his “riches and honour,” and “joined affinity with Ahab” (see 2Ch 18:1). tie became too great to be content with an humble match for his son, and sacrificed godliness to grandeur. He has many imitators in this.

(2) Unequal yoking has ever been prolific in mischief. Athaliah inherited the evil spirit of both her parents, and she led away the heart of Jehoram from God to his ruin. The object of this marriage was to build up the house of Jehoshaphat, but it well-nigh proved its ruin (see 2Ch 22:10, 2Ch 22:11). God is the builder of families (see 2Sa 7:11, 2Sa 7:27; 1Ki 2:24; 1Ki 11:38; Psa 127:1).

2. His friendship with Ahab.

(1) This evil grew out of the marriage. The peace between Israel and Judah, which in the abstract was a benefit, was probably a condition of the marriage. But the friendship between Jehoshaphat and Ahab which followed, was too intimate for the good of the king of Judah’s soul

(2) Evils beget evils. This friendship led to Jehosha. plat helping Ahab in his war against Syria, and had nearly cost Jehoshaphat his life. It also sullied his reputation, for he was persuaded into it by Ahab against the voice of Micaiah. This friendship exposed Jehoshaphat to the reproof of the prophet Jehu (2Ch 19:2).

3. His friendship with Ahaziah.

(1) This son of Ahab was no more a companion fit for Jehoshaphat than Ahab. For Ahaziah “walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin: for he served Baal and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.”

(2) Yet Jehoshaphat formed a trade alliance with Ahaziah. They jointly fitted out a fleet at the port of Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, to sail to Ophir for gold. But for this God rebuked him, and “the ships were broken” in the port (see 2Ch 20:35-37). Let no money consideration, no gold of Ophir, induce godly young men to enter into trade partnerships with the ungodly.

(3) This judgment of God had a salutary effect upon Jehoshaphat. For when Ahaziah would renew the attempt at Ezion-Geber, Jehoshaphat declined (1Ki 22:49). Let us be careful never to repeat a blunder.J.A.M.

HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART

1Ki 22:1-28

Crime brings its own punishment.

I. THE WICKED RUSH UPON DESTRUCTION.

1. Ahab provokes the war in which he himself will perish. The peace which had lasted so long might have continued. Every day it was prolonged was a day placed between him and death; and yet with his own hand he brings to an end the period of grace. How often are the calamities of the wicked invoked by themselves, and are the fruit of their own rashness!

2. It came as the prompting of the deepest wisdom. Jehoshaphat’s presence afforded the opportunity of forming a league to which success seemed certain. The selfish cunning of the sinful becomes a snare to them.

3. He closes his ear against God‘s deterring counsel.

(1) When asked to inquire of God, he brings those only who will speak the things that accord with his own determination. The false prophets are called, but not the true.

(2) When compelled to bring Micaiah from the prison (see 1Ki 22:26, “carry him back unto Amon,” etc.), he endeavours to prevent Jehoshaphat being moved by his words. Micaiah is his enemy, therefore a prophecy of good is not to be expected from him.

(3) When warned he will not be hindered, but defies God, who would save him, by insulting and persecuting His servant (1Ki 22:27).

II. THE FALSE PROPHETS.

1. They bind the cords which are leading a sinful soul to death. The word which they profess to speak for God is a word which it pleases the king to hear. It is the echo of his own desires (1Ki 22:6). There are those who by voice and pen proclaim a new gospel It is no longer sought to lead up the world to God and thus reconcile it to Him. It is boldly declared that the reconciliation is already effected. God has come down to it. There is no anger and no threatening and no terrible shadow of judgment. There is nothing but goodness and love. They are the false prophets of today, and these do for the men of their generation what those did for Ahab.

2. Their blasphemy. When a prophet of Jehovah was asked for (1Ki 22:7), they who have hitherto spoken only of Adonai do not scruple to take the name of the Highest into their lips (1Ki 22:11, 1Ki 22:12). We do not escape the false prophets when we appeal from their speech concerning the God of nature to His revealed will, the word of the Lord. They meet us there. It is in vain we seek to rest upon the plainest words; they are explained away. Hell is a superstitious dream, and the cross of the disciples of Christ a mere figure of speech, with no hard, stern reality behind it.

3. They are possessed by a spirit of falsehood (1Ki 22:21-23). Their position is more a punishment of past sin than conscious transgression. They speak with honesty of a sort, but it is out of their heart’s darkness. They were willing to be deceived, and they have been deceived. They did not wish to know God as He is, and they have been left with the god of their own imagination. In which school are we, that of the false prophets, or of the true?

4. They smite the true servants of God. Zedekiah’s blow preceded the king’s judgment. It proved nothing but his own soul’s distance from God. It was the act of a man provoked by zeal for his own honour. He who had been moved by zeal for God’s honour would have stood in silent awe of that terrible but certain judgment which the man was braving.

III. THE TRUE SERVANT OF GOD.

1. In a corrupt court his is no welcome presence (1Ki 22:8). The distance between Ahab and God was reflected in that which separated him from the speaker of God’s word. Continued faithfulness, if it may not win, must be repelled and hated. “Woe unto you when all men speak well of you; for so,” etc.

2. The necessity laid on him to declare the whole counsel of God (1Ki 22:14). He cannot turn to the right hand or the left; the world’s wealth cannot bribe him, its power and cruelty cannot terrify him. What king or people desire to hear, or courtly prophets or current creeds have said, weighs nothing with him. He cannot speak in God’s name aught save what God has said.

3. His message. He speaks first in easily discerned irony (1Ki 22:15, 1Ki 22:16). It was an intimation to the king that he desired to hear no prophecy that would run counter to his inclinations. Then, when he is solemnly appealed to, a picture is presented (1Ki 22:17) of the smitten, shepherdless people, which might well have touched even Ahab’s heart. Next king and people are led up to the throne of God. The servant and his words are forgotten in the revelation of his Master. Even the false prophet’s utterances are turned to account; they and the reliance which the king is placing on them are part fulfilment of the Divine vengeance. There was deeper tenderness and truer love for Ahab in that one breast than in all the four hundred.

4. The greatness of all true service for God. There is a glory about that despised, persecuted man before which that of both kings pales. It is a glory which nothing can tear from the loyal heart, and which shines the brighter amid the world’s darkening hate. It is a glory which may be our own.U.

1Ki 22:29-40

The Certainty of God’s Threatenings.

I. AHAB‘S ATTEMPT TO ELUDE THE DIVINE VENGEANCE.

1. His apprehension of coming evil. If Micaiah’s words were not the words of God, why should he take precautions? His heart gives the lie to his own unbelief; the words cling to him. The bold refusal to listen to God’s word is no assurance that the soul will not afterwards be shaken by a fearful looking for of judgment.

2. His ungenerousness (1Ki 22:30). “I will disguise myself; but put thou on thy robes.” The effect of the counsel was necessarily to concentrate the enemy’s attention upon Jehoshaphat. Sin not only makes a man a coward, it robs him of nobleness.

3. The immediate effect of Ahab‘s stratagem. Ben-hadad’s arrangements for the capture or slaughter of Ahab were rendered of no avail. The captains could not find the man they sought. A momentary success often attends the plans of those who endeavour to flee from God.

4. The chance shot. The success of Ahab’s device only served to make the blow come more plainly from the hand of God. Ben-hadad’s purpose could be baffled, but not His. There is no escape from God.

II. THE FULFILMENT OF GOD‘S WORD.

1. He fell at Ramoth Gilead (1Ki 22:20).

2. “Israel was scattered upon the hills,“ and the command was given to return (1Ki 22:17, 1Ki 22:36).

3. The dogs licked Ahab‘s blood (1Ki 21:19), not in Jezreel, indeed, because the judgment then pronounced was that of the overthrow of the dynasty. This was delayed on account of Ahab’s repentance, and happened, as predicted, “is his son’s days” (1Ki 21:29). But the personal part of the prediction, “The dogs shall lick thy blood, even thine,” was not revoked. There are prophecies both of evil and of good, within the range of which we set ourselves. God’s words are touching us, and will likewise be literally fulfilled.U.

1Ki 22:41-53

Two Life Stories.

I. JEHOSHAPHAT‘S.

1. He prolonged the good influence of his father‘s reign. Judah’s thought was still kept under the light of truth, and its life more fully led into the ways of God: he completed his father’s reforms (1Ki 22:46). The continuance of God s work anywhere is as important as the origination of it.

2. He was consistent. “He turned not aside from it.” He did not merely begin well; over his whole reign there rested the Divine approval; he did “that which was right in the eyes of the Lord.” The life which is ever sinning, repenting, forgetting, achieves nothing. It is like a plant uprooted and planted again, to be again uprooted, etc; and which, even should its life be preserved, will never bear fruit. It is like “a backsliding heifer,” and with such a life the great Husbandman’s work cannot be carried on.

3. There was failure as well as success in his career. “Nevertheless the high places were not taken away.” tie had endeavoured to remove them (2Ch 17:6). But “the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places.” The mightiest efforts in the great warfare with darkness leave something for other hands to do, and must till He come who alone can perfect all things.

4. He sought to be at peace with his brethren (1Ki 22:44). He went further in this, indeed, than he ought to have done (2Ch 19:2), but the desire for peace was laudable.

5. He humbled himself under God‘s rebuke (compare 1Ki 22:48, 1Ki 22:49 with 2Ch 20:35-37). At first he had been beguiled into.fellowship with the idolatrous king of Israel without reflecting upon the danger which lay in it for himself and his people. But when God had manifested His displeasure, nothing could make him renew the confederacy. The judgment might mistake, but the heart was loyal to God.

II. AHAZIAH‘S.

1. A sinful life. “He did evil in the sight of the Lord.” With such a life there was no possibility of blessing for his people. The roots of his usefulness were destroyed. To do, we must first of all become. Our work cannot rise above the level of our life.

2. A disastrous policy (1Ki 22:52, 1Ki 22:53). He continued the work of Israel’s destruction. The departure made by Jeroboam and perfected by Ahab and Jezebel, he accepted in its full rejection of Jehovah. He did not go beyond them, he simply did “according to all that his father had done,” but in doing this his sin was of the deepest dye. His father had been judged, but God was still braved, and Israel was led still nearer to destruction. We may only continue what others have begun; but if we pay no heed to the proofs of God’s anger, and take no thought of the inevitable results of the policy we pursue, our persistence may be one of the deepest crimes against God and man.U.

HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND

1Ki 22:34

The Pierced Armour.

This occurred during the third campaign of Ben-hadad against Israel. Micaiah had forewarned Ahab against the danger he incurred, and was cast into prison for his pains. The warning was, however, taken sufficiently to heart to induce the king to disguise himself. Describe the expedient adopted, and its remarkable failure. Ahab was in many respects a typical sinner. He was an idolater, a persecutor, impenitent, though sometimes touched; and in the plenitude of power he fell. We see here

I. A MAN ARMED AGAINST GOD. True he was fighting against the Syrians, but as he girded on his armour he remembered and defied the words of the prophet. His ominous prophecy should not be fulfilled, he would yet come back safe and victorious to put Macaiah to death, and with this determination he put Jehoshaphat in command, and clad himself with proof armour. In spirit, therefore, he was fighting not only against the hosts of Syria, but against the word of God. Hence let us depict one who is armed against God. Reverse the description St. Paul gives (Eph 6:1-24.) of one armed by God. The impenitent sinner represented by Ahab defends himself.

1. By false hopes (Deu 29:19, Deu 29:20). These constitute his “helmet,” which wards off true thoughts of self and sin. He blindly trusts in Divine mercy, while sin is unrepented, forgetting that “a God all mercy is a God unjust” (Young). “There is none other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved,” etc. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”

2. By a hardened heart. This is his “breastplate.” A man impenitent is a man lost. Some are;’ past feeling,” their consciences are “seared as with a hot iron,” and God gives them over to their “hardness of heart,” and to an “impenitent mind.” “Who has hardened himself against God, and prospered?” We may become “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”

3. By defiant words. There is a tongue which is set on fire of hell Adduce examples. Ahab defied Micaiah.

4. By an unbelieving mind. The king questioned the truth of the prophet’s message. He had more confidence in his own past success and in his military skill than in the declaration of a man who knew something of God but nothing of war. Unbelief ever prevents the inflowing of Divine goodness. Jesus “could do no mighty works because of their unbelief.”

5. By a dumb spirit. No asking for pardon, no cry for mercy rose from Ahab’s heart, or it would not have proved too late; for the Lord is “not willing that any should perish.”

II. A MAN STRICKEN BY GOD. The chance arrow of the Syrian archer fulfilled the Divine purpose.

1. By the arrow of conviction. God’s word is sharp and powerful, and pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

(1) It may be shot unwittingly, as the archer drew at a venture not knowing what he might hit. Let our words for God be pointed, and be winged by faith, and He will see that they hit the mark.

(2) It may touch the one vulnerable spot. That arrow pierced “between the joints of armour” otherwise proof. So David’s stone would have fallen powerless on the greaves or the breastplate of the giant of Garb. God, who knows our hearts, tries every avenue. Through our reason, through our affections, through our conscience, His word seeks to find its way.

2. By the arrow of judgment.

(1) It was foretold (1Ki 22:28). Ahab ran the risk. So do they who continue in sin after hearing of” a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devout-the adversaries.”

(2) It was inevitable. All disguise and precaution were unavailing. The justice of God sooner or later reaches the right man.

(3) It was terrible. The weak, sensuous man, whose promise had sometimes been so fair, fell in a moment from kingship, from life, and from hope. “lie that being reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without often remedy.”A.R.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

C.Ahabs expedition against the Syrians, undertaken with Jehoshaphat, and his death

1Ki 22:1-40 (2Ch 18:1-34)

1And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel. 2And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Jndah came down to the king of Israel. 3And the king of Israel said unto his servants, Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria? 4And he said unto Jehoshaphat, Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead? And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses.

5And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord [Jehovah] to-day. 6Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred1 men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver2 it into the hand of the king. 7And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord [Jehovah] besides,3 that we might inquire of him? 8And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the Lord [Jehovah]: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. 9Then the king of Israel called an officer,4 and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah. 10And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. 11And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them. 12And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper: for the Lord [Jehovah] shall deliver5 it into the kings hand.

13And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word,6 I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. 14And Micaiah said, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, what the Lord [Jehovah] saith unto me, that will I speak. 15So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the Lord [Jehovah] shall deliver it into the hand of the king. 16And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord [Jehovah]? 17And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord [Jehovah] said, These have no master; let them return every man to his house in peace. 18And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? 19And he said, Hear thou therefore7 the word of the Lord [Jehovah]: I saw the Lord [Jehovah]8 sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him9 on his right hand and on his left. 20And the Lord [Jehovah] said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. 21And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord 22[Jehovah], and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23Now therefore, behold, the Lord [Jehovah] hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken evil concerning thee. 24But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] from me to speak unto thee? 25And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself. 26And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor10 of the city, and to Joash the kings son; 27and say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace. 28And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord [Jehovah] hath not spoken by me.11 And he said, Hearken, o people, every one of you.

29So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead. 30And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and enter into the battle; but put thou on thy robes. And the king of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle. 31But the king of Syria commanded his thirty and two captains that had rule over his chariots, saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel. 32And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely it is the king of Israel. And they turned aside to fight against him: and Jehoshaphat cried out. 33And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots perceived that it 34was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him. And a certain man drew a bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness: wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand,12 and carry me out of the host; for I am wounded. 35And the battle increased13 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. 36And there went a proclamation throughout the host about the going down of the sun, saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country. 37So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in 38Samaria. And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armor [and the harlots washed14]; according unto the word of the Lord [Jehovah] which he spake. 39Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 40So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

Exegetical and Critical

1Ki 22:1. And they continued, &c., i. e. Syria and Israel. The three years are those which had elapsed since the war mentioned in chap. 20, that is, since the release of Ben-hadad. In this interval fell the murder of Naboth. The 22d chap. is a continuation of the 20th, and is derived from the same original document. Chap. 21 is from some other authority, but appears here in its proper chronological position. The ground of Jehosha-phats visit to Ahab, according to the parallel account in Chronicles, was the marriage relationship which had been formed between them, viz., Ahabs daughter, Athaliah, had become the wife of Jehoshaphats son, Jehoram. Chronicles also states that Ahab slaughtered a large number of sheep and oxen for Jehoshaphat and his numerous escort, i. e., he entertained them generously. Ahab profited by this opportunity, so soon as he had made sure of the support of his generals who had come to the entertainment, to persuade Jehoshaphat into making an expedition against the Syrians in alliance with him.On Ramoth (1Ki 22:3) see notes on 1Ki 4:13. Ben-hadad, contrary to his promise (1Ki 20:34), had not given up this stronghold, from which, as a base, he could easily make incursions into Israel, and Ahab became more and more uneasy as years passed by, and the promised surrender was not consummated. His words (1Ki 22:3) mean: This important city belongs to Israel as of right, and besides that Ben-hadad has solemnly promised to give it up; yet he has not done this, but, on the contrary, menaces us on that side, while we rest satisfied with this state of things, instead of taking what is ours by a double right (Thenius).

1Ki 22:4. And he said unto Jehoshaphat. Instead of we find in Chronicles , the same expression which is used in 1Ki 21:25 in regard to Jezebel and her influence on Ahab; he seduced him (cf. Jer 38:22; Deu 13:7). This shows that Jehoshaphat ought not to have agreed to the proposition. However, he did not enter into the plan after dinner, thoughtlessly (Richter), but because he wished to confirm the good understanding which had just been established between Judah and Israel, and because he also saw danger to himself in Ramoth, so long as it was in the hands of the Syrians. The horses are especially mentioned, because they formed the essential part of the military power.(Psa 33:16-17; Pro 21:31).

1Ki 22:5. And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel,. &c. Jehoshaphat had some scruples. He wished first to be certain that the undertaking was conformed to the will of Jehovah, a thing in regard to which no anxiety had entered Ahabs mind. He ought to have considered this before giving his consent (1Ki 22:4). The prophets whom Ahab summoned were not, as some of the old expositors inferred from the number four hundred, the Astarte-prophets who had not been upon Carmel (1Ki 18:19; 1Ki 18:22), for their chief, Zedekiah, affirmed that he had the spirit of Jehovah (1Ki 22:24), and all the others unite in this assertion (1Ki 22:12). Nevertheless, they wore not certainly genuine Jehovah-prophets (Clericus), nor pretended Jehovah-prophets (Schulz), nor prophet-disciples (Thenius), for the definite article does not refer to such as these, but to a definite class, different from these, the prophets of Ahab. Hence Junius and Tremellius translate correctly according to the sense: Ahab congregavit prophetas suos. So Micaiah designates them in 1Ki 22:22-23, when he calls them thy or his prophets. Moreover, how could Ahab ever have brought himself to tolerate four hundred prophets, adherents of Elijah, in his immediate circle, when he had not been converted to Jehovah? No one will assert that they belonged to the number of those who wore the well-known penitential robe of the prophets, and went about in goat-skins or in hair-cloth (Zec 13:4; Heb 11:37). It remains that we can think of them only as adherents of Jeroboams Jehovah-worship, that is, of the calf-worship. Hence Jehoshaphat did not recognize them as genuine Jehovah prophets. Although they all agree, yet he asks for another, a true worshipper of Jehovah; and Ahab calls for such a one, though with inward dissatisfaction. Since in 1Ki 18:19; 1Ki 18:22; 1Ki 18:25; 1Ki 18:40, the priests of Baal and Astarte are always called , the conjecture is suggested that these persons were priests of the calf-worship, who at the same time filled, like the Baal and Astarte priests, the functions of prophets. (See notes on 1Ki 18:19.)

1Ki 22:8. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, &c. Micaiah is called once only, in the parallel passage (2Ch 18:14), Micha, and is certainly not, as Josephus and the rabbis assert, the man who is mentioned in 1Ki 20:35 as a prophet-disciple. Ahab could not at the moment give the name of any other whom he could summon at short notice. It was very natural that he should not mention Elijah, even aside from the fact that he did not know where he was. Micaiah was in Samaria, and even, as it appears, on account of some previous prophecy which was unfavorable and displeasing to Ahab, in confinement; hence he could be at once brought forwardTo the words, but evil, the chronicler adds: all his days, i. e., so long as he has filled the office of a prophet. Von Gerlach aptly remarks: We find in Ahab the same heathen conception of the relation between the prophet and Jehovah, as we find in the case of Balak (Num 23:11). He ascribes to the seer some power over his God, and therefore makes him responsible for his unfavorable oracles. Agamemnon says to Calchas (Iliad i. 106), Seer of evil ! how hast thou never foretold to me good! Thou prophesiest to me with pleasure only evil in thy trance, and hast never declared to me a favorable oracle. Jehoshaphats answer: Let not the king say so! refers to Ahabs words: I hate him; I will not now listen to him. Jehoshaphats words, therefore, have not this sense: vaticinabitur prospere (Vatablus, Keil), but they are a reply to his remark, and contain such an encouragement as this: Let him come, though;and this Ahab then does.

1Ki 22:10. Sat each on his throne, &c. 1Ki 22:10-12 carry out into detail that which had been hinted at briefly in 1Ki 22:6. We must, therefore, think here of the same assemblage as there. It is now only described more fully in what a solemn manner this assemblage was held (see Bertheau on 2Ch 18:9). That means in their official (royal) robes is clear from Lev 21:10, where it is said of the high-priest: , i. e., clad in the official (priestly) garments. is repeated before in the parallel passage 2Ch 18:9. It can, therefore, only mean: in area means a smooth open place (Gesenius); hence a threshing-floor, which is such a smooth open place. However, threshing-floor is not the sole meaning, as Thenius asserts. He reads for (since the word for threshing-floor makes no sense) and joins it with , particolored, that is, probably, vestes distinct, acu pict; but this conjecture is as unnecessary as it is violent. Ewald also joins the word with , and says that it can from the connection (?), have here only the meaning, armor, war-dress, but there is no evidence to support this, for the of the Sept. is not a translation of but of the words discussed above .

1Ki 22:11. And Zedekiah, the son, &c. Zedekiah, following the method of the true prophets, performs a symbolical action before the declaration of his oracle (see on 1Ki 11:29). He intended thereby to show himself a prophet of the northern kingdom. He put on horns of iron, which would not break, for Deu 33:17 says of Ephraim: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns; with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth. By a physical reference to this prophecy he intended to represent his present declaration as certain. However, he forgot that the entire fulfilment of Moses blessing depended on the fidelity with which Israel adhered to the commandments, and to the Lord. But Ahab, least of all, had been careful to be thus faithful (Keil). Of the two imperatives , the first is a command and the second an encouragement, as in Gen 42:18; Pro 20:13; Psa 37:27; Job 22:21; Isa 36:16 (Gesen. Grammar 127).

1Ki 22:15. So he came to the king. Ahab meant by his question to Micaiah to represent himself to Jehoshaphat as never having attempted to exert any influence upon the declarations of the prophet (Thenius). He took up the attitude to Micaiah of holding himself ready for any answer, and of demanding only to know the divine will, although ho had really made up his mind, and would be pleased only with one answer (Jo. Lange). Hence we may understand the prophets answer, which is not irony (Keil), nor spoken with ironical gestures and a sarcastic tone (Richter),but certainly a reproof for the hypocritical question. The sense is: How camest thou to the idea of consulting me, whom thou dost not trust? Thy prophets have answered thee as thou desirest. Do, then, what they have approved. Try it. March out. Their oracles have far more weight with thee than mine. Since Micaiah, who, in 1Ki 22:14, had distinctly declared that he would not speak simply according to the kings pleasure, nevertheless repeats almost exactly the words of the kings prophets, he must have spoken in a tone which made it clear to Ahab that what he said was not in earnest (Bertheau). Therefore Ahab adjured him to speak only the word of Jehovah, but did not promise to follow the counsel which ho should give him in the name of Jehovah. He was not in earnest to learn the truth, but only to convince Jehoshaphat that what he had said (1Ki 22:8) about this prophet was true and just, and that no authority ought to be ascribed to him. Micaiah now refuses no longer, but makes known the vision which he has had (1Ki 22:17). The meaning of this vision was clear. Ahab understood it. The king would fall, and Israel would be scattered without being pursued. Each one would take his own way home, and so the war would end. Perhaps Num 27:17 floated before the prophets mind, as Deu 33:17 was in the mind of Zedekiah in 1Ki 22:11. Luther erroneously took the words of Jehovah as a question. The sense is: Since these have no longer any master, let each return. Ahab now assures Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:18; cf. 1Ki 21:20), in order that he may not be influenced by this oracle, that it springs from the malice which he had before declared this prophet to entertain. Then, in order to refute this imputation, Micaiah (ver.19) states, by describing another vision, the reason why the four hundred prophets had prophesied falsely and deceitfully.

1Ki 22:19. Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord. has here its regular signification: for this reason. (Keil: Because thou thinkest [my declaration the result of mere malice], therefore.) It is not, according to the Sept., , equivalent to : veruntamen (Thenius). The speech in 1Ki 22:19-23 is indeed addressed to the king in the first instance, but evidently all around heard it and were intended to hear it. In Chronicles we find for ,, as in 1Ki 22:28. .I saw the Lord sitting on His throne. What Micaiah describes in 1Ki 22:19-22 is not a mere parable invented by him, but a prophetic vision which he saw, and which, as the Berleburger Bibel says, represents God and His government and providence in an appropriate symbolical manner. Peter Martyr says: Omnia hc dicuntur. The separate expressions are not, therefore, to be strained or interpreted in a gross and materialistic manner (Richter).And all the host of heaven, &c. The old expositors, Peter Martyr, Jo. Lange, Starke and others suppose that the prophet described God seated on the throne of heaven and surrounded by the heavenly hosts, in contrast with the two kings sitting on their thrones surrounded by the band of false prophets. It appears, however, that this cannot be correct, for if it were correct, then Micaiah must have had his vision after he came to stand before the kings and to see how they were arrayed, but the revelation, doubtless, came to him some time before this. He rather saw God as the ruler of all in heaven or earth, and as the judge in the full glory of His majesty, entirely independently of the two kings. The host of heaven are not, of course, here the stars, as in Deu 4:19, but all the higher heavenly powers who serve as His organs in the administration of the universe (Heb 1:14; 2Sa 24:16; 2Ki 19:35). Some of the older expositors incorrectly say that those on the right were the good, and those on the left the bad. The latter are nowhere included in the host of heaven. All surround Him and wait for His commands.The question in 1Ki 22:20 : Who shall persuade [delude] Ahab? shows that the fall of Ahab, who had heaped sin upon sin, was determined in the counsels of God (cf. Isa 6:8). The only question which still remained open was as to the way in which his fall should be brought about. Who is able to delude Ahab, so that he may march against Ramoth to his own destruction? (Bertheau). And one said on this manner and another said on that manner. Peter Martyr says on these words: Innuit varios providenti Dei modos, quibus decreta sua ad exitum perducit. The dramatic-figurative form of representation corresponds fully to the character of the vision, in which inner and spiritual processes are regarded as real phenomena, nay even as persons.

1Ki 22:21. And there came forth a spirit., i. e., not a spirit (Luther, and E. V., following the Sept.), but the spirit, a definite one, and it can be, according to the entire connection, none other than the spirit of prophecy (Thenius; Keil), the power which, going forth from God, and taking possession of a man, makes him a prophet (1Sa 10:6; 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 19:20; 1Sa 19:23). The is the (Hos 9:7). This spirit offered itself to fulfil the divine decree. It is a feature in the dramatic-figurative form of representation, that as all the powers of God are represented as persons, so also this power is personified. It steps forth from the ranks of the divine powers and declares its readiness to fulfil the divine will: I ( with emphasis) will persuade him The question in 1Ki 22:22, Wherewith? adds to the liveliness of the delineation. The meaning of the answer: I will go forth and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets is this: The prophets of Ahab shall prophesy to him what he desires to hear, and thus delude him until he shall bring about his own ruin through his own plans. As this view was already decided on in the divine counsels, the Lord answers to the spirit: Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also. Go forth and do so. Because Ahab, who had abandoned God and hardened his heart, desired to use prophecy for his own purposes, it is determined that he shall be led to his ruin by prophecy. As God often used the heathen nations as the rod of his wrath for the chastisement of Israel (Isa 10:5), so now he uses Ahabs false prophets to bring upon Ahab the judgment which Elijah had foretold against him. We have to compare the passage Isa 6:8-9, where the prophet, who has just been cleansed from sin and consecrated to the prophetic office, answers to the Lords question: Who shall I send,Send me, and then the command is given to him: Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed. From this we see that the (1Ki 22:22) is not, as most of the old expositors declared, Satan, who does not belong to the heavenly host (1Ki 22:19), and is, moreover, nowhere called simply (1Ki 22:21). Keil indeed admits that neither Satan nor any other evil spirit is meant, but he adds that the spirit of prophecy, in so far as it is, by Gods will, a stands under the influence of Satan. But the vision has nothing at all to do with Satan. The circumstances are entirely different from those in Job 1:6, which are often compared. It expresses an act in Gods government and judicial administration, in which Satan is neither directly nor indirectly involved. In 1Ki 22:23 Micaiah states the result of what precedes: Now see; the prophets have prophesied to thee pleasant things, but they are deluded and they delude thee. If therefore I have prophesied otherwise, it is not, as thou hast said (1Ki 22:18), out of hate towards thee, but the Lord has thus spoken to me, and has thus determined in regard to thee.

1Ki 22:24. Zedekiah. went near. This leader of the other party felt himself especially insulted, as he had confirmed his prophecy by a symbolical act (1Ki 22:11). The blow on the cheek was intended as an insult (Job 16:10; Lam 3:30). We may see from this how Zedekiah stood in Ahabs favor, and how unesteemed Micaiah was. Chronicles supplies which is wanting with (1Ki 13:12; 2Ki 3:8; Job 38:24). The sense is: How dost thou dare to say that the spirit of prophecy has turned aside from me and gone only to thee? Zedekiah had not, therefore, knowingly prophesied falsely, but his insolence was far from being a proof that he had the spirit of the Lord. On see notes on 1Ki 20:30. The story of Zedekiahs end is wanting both in Kings and Chronicles, but this does not prove that the original document contained much more than now appears in our books (Thenius, Ewald). As Ahab fell, and Zedekiahs definite prediction was startlingly falsified, we may be sure that he did not fail to be persecuted.

1Ki 22:26. And the king of Israel said: Take Micaiah, &c. Josephus narrates that Ahab was disturbed by Micaiahs speech, but when he saw that Zedekiahs hand did not wither as Jeroboams did (1Ki 13:4), and that Micaiah inflicted no punishment, that he took courage and went on to the war. This is an empty rabbinical tradition. Zedekiahs insolence was influential in encouraging Ahab in the determination which he had formed. The latter caused Micaiah to be taken back to Amon the governor of the city, not to his own house (Thenius). He had probably been previously in arrest under this mans charge, but now he was to be put in prison on the bread and water of affliction. Joash, son of the king, was not, probably, a son of Ahab, but a prince of the blood, who, together with the commandant of the city, had charge of the prisoners. If he had been, as Thenius supposes, a young prince who had been intrusted to Amon for his military education (2Ki 10:1), one does not see why he should be mentioned here. In the last words of 1Ki 22:28 Micaiah calls all people to be witnesses of his declaration, i. e., not all the world, or people generally (Keil), but all the people who, besides the two kings and the four hundred prophets, were collected on this solemn occasion. The prophet Micah begins his prophecy (1Ki 1:2) with the words , but we may not infer from this, as Bleek does, that the author confused Micaiah with the much younger prophet Micah, nor, as Hitzig does, that the words in this passage are borrowed from that place. It would be more natural to suppose that Micah borrowed the words from the original document of this author. However, the exclamation is so general that it might occur in the independent works of different prophets. It is remarkable that the pious king Jehoshaphat does not interfere to prevent the maltreatment of Micaiah; and that, in spite of the opposition of that prophet, he goes on the expedition. Peter Martyr says: Affinitas cum impiis contracta sanctitatem plurimum imminuit. It appears that he was not willing to take back the promise which he had given (1Ki 22:4) on account of a prophet whom Ahab declared to be his personal opponent.

1Ki 22:30. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat. The Vulgate and Luther mistakenly take the infinitives (disguise and come) as imperatives addressed to Jehoshaphat. , which immediately follows by way of contrast, shows that this is wrong. The infinitive absolute is the plainest and simplest form of the voluntative for exclamations, and is used when the speaker is excited and filled with the idea (Ewald, 328). It is to he remembered, in connection with Ahabs attempt to disguise himself, that the ordinary custom was for the king to lead the army into battle in full royal costume (2Sa 1:10). Hence he was conspicuous not only to his own army, but also to that of the enemy, who then directed their attack upon him. The words of Micaiah, especially these: These have no master, had caused Ahab great secret anxiety. Moreover, he might well suppose that the Syrians would be more eager to attack him than Jehoshaphat. Though he knew nothing of Ben-hadads command (1Ki 22:21), yet he desired to frustrate the prophets prediction. The sense of his words to Jehoshaphat is, therefore, this: I have every reason to make myself unrecognizable in this war, but thou, against whom the Syrians have no especial hate, mayst go forward in thy royal apparel.When thus taken, Ahabs words contain a sort of justification and excuse of his purpose. Jehoshaphat, therefore, agreed to it without objection. There is no ground for the idea that Ahab had planned cunningly that Jehoshaphat might be killed, in order that he might inherit Judah (Schulz, Maurer, and others). Ahab was anxious to save his own life, not to secure Jehoshaphats death.

1Ki 22:31. But the king of Syria, &c. Perhaps he had learned that the expedition had originated with Ahab, who had proposed it to his generals, persuaded Jehoshaphat, and pushed forward the plan perseveringly. He hoped that Ahabs end would be the end of the war. Hence the command which he gave to the thirty-two chariot-captains, who are also mentioned in 1Ki 20:24. They were the leaders, they made known the command to their men. Neither with small nor great,i. e., do not spend time in conflict with any one else, but all press forward against the king of Israel. in 1Ki 22:32 does not mean certainly (De Wette, Bunsen), but only. They need not be in doubt, since he alone wore royal dress. Instead of the chronicler has , and the Sept. has, in both places. . Bertheau and Thenius regard the latter as the correct reading. But the Syrians certainly had not yet surrounded him; they were pressing forward towards him, but turned aside when they saw that they were mistaken in the person (1Ki 22:33). The Vulg. has: impetu facto pugnabant contra eum. means, to turn from the way and go towards something. When they saw the king, they turned towards him. Jehoshaphat cried out, and, as they recognized him, it seems that he must have called out his own name, not, however, in order to make himself known to them, but in order to call his own people to his aid. It may be, also, that his people called to him and uttered his name. In Chronicles it is added: And the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him. This can hardly have been borrowed from the original document. The cry was understood [by later readers] as a cry to God (Vulg., clamavit ad Dominum), and the rescue as a divine interposition. If this pair of sentences had been in the original, it is inexplicable how they should have been omitted in the text before us.

1Ki 22:34. And a certain man drew a bow, &c. does not mean at a venture (Luther, E. V.), nor in incertum (Vulg.), but, as 2Sa 15:11 shows, without knowing why he aimed particularly at that individual whom he had in his eye (Thenius). According to Josephus this mans name was Aman; according to Jarchi it was Naaman. In the text, however, emphasis is laid on the fact that it was an unknown man. Gesenius and De Wette translate by joints or grooves, but what joints can be referred to? The stem means only to hang on or depend from. , therefore, means that which depends or hangs down, but not a Joint, nor yet the soft parts or flanks (Ewald). Luther, correctly: Zwischen den Panzer und Hengel [between the corselet and the tunic]. The corselet covered the body down as far as below the ribs. The lower part of the body was protected by a hanging skirt of parallel plates (hence the plural ). The arrow penetrated between this skirt and the corselet, where the connection was not close or perfect, and penetrated the lower abdomen (Thenius). This wound was of course, a very severe one, if not a fatal one. We may perceive how far such weapons penetrated, by the instance, for example, of the arrow with which Jehu shot king Jehoram, which entered his body between the arms from behind, and came out obliquely through the heart in front (2Ki 9:24; Lament. 1Ki 3:13; Job 16:13). Hereupon Ahab commanded his charioteer to turn and drive out of the midst of the contending armies, for I am wounded,i. e., I am no longer fit to fight, and must retire from the conflict. Evidently means, in this connection, I am wounded (cf. 1Sa 31:3); Sept., ; Vulg. graviter vulneratus sum). Thenius, translates, I am not well, and observes: He desired to be quickly rid of the arrow, and not to let any one know that he was wounded. Similarly Bertheau: For I am unwell. The charioteer cannot have observed that Ahab had been wounded by an arrow. But a fatal wound in the abdomen, from which blood flowed into the chariot, cannot have passed unobserved, and it is impossible that Ahab should have removed the arrow himself; at least such action is not mentioned in the text. It is certain that he felt so unwell that he asked to be removed from the conflict, and it is difficult to understand how Thenius can say, on the words Against the Syrians (1Ki 22:35), that he kept his face towards them and did not retire from the place of battle. Ewalds assertion that he had to be carried from the field, contradicts the words of the text; also there is nothing in the text of Ewalds further statement, that when his wound had been bound up Ahab returned into the battle, and fell bravely fighting to the last. Only so much is certain, that he was removed from the battle in his chariot, but not that he returned to it, as has been erroneously inferred from 1Ki 22:35.

1Ki 22:35. And the battle increased,i. e., the battle became more violent. The figure is taken. from a swelling river (Isa 8:7). Thenius explains the following words, : He was standing upright, i. e., through his own strength. He forced himself in order that he might support the courage of his followers. But he had given orders (1Ki 22:34) that his charioteer should remove him as incapacitated for further fighting, and it does not show in the text that he caused his wound to be bound up and then returned into the fight; this must be invented and added arbitrarily. The sentence: the battle increased, is a subordinate clause to explain how it came about that Ahab remained standing in the chariot and died at evening. The Calwer Bibel states the connection of thought very correctly as follows: Ahabs charioteer could not escape from the crush of the battle because the fight became more and more violent, and Ahab was obliged to remain standing on the chariot on which he was until towards evening. His wound could not, therefore, be bound up, and he bled to death. When finally, at sunset, the Israelites turned away from the field of battle, it was too late to save the king. does not mean presenting front to the Syrians (Thenius), but in the face of the Syrians (coram, Jdg 18:6; Jer 17:16; Eze 14:3; Eze 14:7; Pro 5:21). The Syrians, however, did not recognize him, because he was disguised. It is once more stated that the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot, on account of the incident to be narrated in 1Ki 22:38. In Chronicles these words are wanting, as also the following verses 3638. The story ends there with the words: and about the time of the sun going down he died, because it is not the history of Ahab which is there the prominent interest, but that of Jehoshaphat.

1Ki 22:38. And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria. As in the case of other cities (2Sa 2:13; 2Sa 4:12; Song Son 7:4), so also at Samaria, there was a pool near the city which served for purposes of washing and bathing. The dogs licked up the water which was mixed with the blood washed from the chariot. The words cannot be translated as in the Syriac and Chaldaic versions, arma laverunt, or, as in the Vulg., habenas laverunt, in the first place because it is contrary to the usage of the language to make the object, and in the second place, because this word occurs in the Old Testament only in the signification harlots. Maurer and Von Gerlach supply, as object of , the chariot, but then this clause would only repeat the previous one: they washed the chariot. Bunsen supplies arbitrarily: the corpse. means here, as in Exo 2:5; Ruth 3:31, to bathe. Harlots are also elsewhere mentioned together with dogs, though, it is true, in the figurative use (Deu 23:19; Rev 22:15), because both were regarded as impure and contemptible. Theodoret remarks that the harlots bathed in the evening, according to custom. They did not intend to wash in the blood, but the water was mixed with it. Probably the women were the temple-prostitutes, so that the blood of Ahab was not only licked up by dogs, but also came in contact with persons who were impure, and prostituted in the service of Baal and Astarte; a double mark of the shameful ruin which had been foretold for him. Peter Martyr: Sordes suas miscebant cum sanguine Ahabi, qu fuit maxima ignominia. Thenius proceeding is very arbitrary when he declares that 1Ki 22:38 is an addition of the redactor, who desired to bring the event into full accord with the, prophecy in 1Ki 21:19. We have no further information in regard to Ahabs buildings mentioned in 1Ki 22:39. The ivory house was a house which was richly decorated within with ivory. Cf. Amo 3:15; Psa 45:8; Son 7:5; Homers Odys. 4:72.

Historical and Ethical

1. Jehoshaphats journey to Samaria is an important incident in the development of the history of the two kingdoms, for this reason: Ever since the division of the kingdom (seventy years) the two parts had been hostile to each other, but Jehoshaphats visit was meant to confirm a peace between them, which had already been brought about by the intermarriage of the prince of Judah and the princess of Israel. A period of peace now began. This new state of things was brought about by Jehoshaphat and not by Ahab, as we see clearly from the account in Chronicles, where also we may learn what considerations induced the pious king of Judah to seek friendship and alliance with Ahab. He had raised the comparatively weak kingdom of Judah to a pitch of prosperity, both internal and external, such as it had not enjoyed since the time of Solomon. Especially against the neighboring nations he had been so successful that all brought him tribute, and no one any longer dared to oppose him (2Ch 17:10). Since now he had attained to great wealth and renown (2Ch 18:1), the wish must naturally arise in his heart, to put an end to the long hostility of the two brother-kingdoms, of which, probably, each was weary. This could not be accomplished by force, for experience had proved that neither kingdom could subjugate the other. Jehoshaphat therefore attempted the peaceful means of a family alliance, and Ahab met him willingly, since he could expect from such an alliance nothing but advantage. It appears, however, that Jehoshaphat aimed at something more than a mere friendly relation between the two kingdoms. When we reflect that he, the faithful adherent of Jehovah, made an alliance between his son and heir and the daughter of the fanatical idolater, Jezebel; that he then went himself in great state to Samaria; that he entered into a military expedition with Ahab in spite of the warning of a prophet of Jehovah; that he afterwards entered into an alliance with Ahabs successor in spite of the warning of the prophet Jehu not to enter into fellowship with apostates (2Ch 19:1); then we cannot understand all this save on the supposition that he aimed to unite once more the two kingdoms under Judahs supremacy. However glorious the aim was, it could never be attained in the way upon which he had entered. The real cause of the division of the kingdom was Israels revolt from the chief command of the covenant with Jehovah. This cause could not be removed by external means such as Jehoshaphat sought to use. The friendship which he sought to establish by intermarriage and by political measures, ignoring the true ground of division, and even setting it aside by denying some features of the theocratic constitution, was a friendship which had no root, and enjoyed no divine blessing, out of which rather mischief arose for Judah. For, far from tending to root up Jeroboams cultus in Israel, this intermarriage helped to transplant it to Judah, and brought that kingdom to the brink of ruin. After seventy or eighty years, in the time of Amaziah, the hostility between the two kingdoms broke out afresh, and was never entirely allayed again until the Assyrians took Israel into captivity.

2. King Ahab appears here in the last act of his career, just as we have seen him always hitherto, devoid of religious or moral character. His penitence, which seemed so earnest, and which certainly falls in the period immediately preceding the renewed war with the Syrians (1Ki 21:27), had, as we see from the story before us, borne no fruit. His attitude toward Jehovah and His covenant remained the same. There is not a sign of any change of heart. He is now enraged against Ben-hadad, whom, after the battle of Aphek, he called his brother, and suffered to depart out of weakness and vanity. He summons his chief soldiers to a war against Ben-hadad, and calls for Jehoshaphats aid also, in order to make sure of destroying him. He had either forgotten the words of the prophet (1Ki 20:42), or else he cared nothing about them. To be still (1Ki 22:3) did not suit him. As Jehoshaphat desired, before engaging on the expedition, to hear an oracle of Jehovah in regard to it, Ahab summoned only those in regard to whose declarations he could be sure that they would accord with his own wishes, and when Micaiah, being called at the express wish of Jehoshaphat, gives another prophetic declaration, Ahab explains this as the expression of personal malice, as he had once done in regard to Elijahs declarations (chap 1Ki 21:20). He allows Zedekiah to insult and abuse Micaiah, and even orders the latter into close confinement. But then again he becomes alarmed at the prophets words, though before he was passionate and excited. He cannot overcome the impression he has received, and so, contrary to military custom and order, he does not go into the battle like Jehoshaphat, clad in royal robes, but disguised. This precaution, which testified to anything but heroism (Eisenlohr says justly: He hoped in this way to escape danger), did not, however, avail. He was shot without being recognized. His command to be removed from the strife, that his wound might be cared for, could not be executed. He bled to death on his chariot. Some moderns have represented his end as heroic, starting from the erroneous exegesis that he caused his wounds to be bound up and returned to the fight (see Exeg. on 1Ki 22:34-35). He had his wound bound up, returned to the battle, and held himself erect in his chariot, though his blood flowed down on its floor until the evening (Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums I. s. 1Kings 212:following Ewald). Thenius even says: If Ahab held himself erect through the whole day with the purpose already mentioned (to encourage his men), then he possessed, aside from the qualities manifested in 1Ki 20:7; 1Ki 20:14; 1Ki 20:32; 1Ki 20:34, a character whose general features were grand. This view is certainly mistaken, since we may be sure that the author did not intend to glorify Ahab in this account of his death. It is so far from his intention to say anything in his honor, that he even expressly narrates how Ahab after his death met with involuntary disgrace (1Ki 22:38). In mentioning the end of Asa, Baasha, and Omri their heroism () is mentioned, but when Ahabs death and burial are mentioned, there is no reference to his valor. Moreover, it is impossible to speak of this king as having a character whose general features were grand, seeing that he was ruled by his wicked wife, that he went to bed and would see no one, and neither eat nor drink, because he could not at once obtain a garden which he wanted, and that he did not recover his spirits until he had obtained the garden by a judicial murder.

3. The congregation of not less than four hundred prophets, who claimed to be prophets of Jehovah, but were not such, is a phenomenon which has no parallel either in the earlier or later history of Israel, and which, for various reasons, deserves attention. In the first place, it appears from this that, although the Baal-cultus had been formally introduced, it had not entirely superseded the Jehovah-cultus; on the contrary, that it existed by the side of that (perhaps as a consequence of Elijahs work), and that, as we may infer from the number of the prophets who were assembled, a great portion of the people must still have been well disposed towards the national cultus. Secondly, it appears that there was in Israel, besides the class of prophets of whom Elijah and Elisha and their pupils were the leaders (2Ki 2:3; 2Ki 2:5; 2Ki 2:7; 2Ki 2:16; 2Ki 6:1), also another class of prophets, who did not oppose the cultus of Jeroboam or the idolatrous dynasty, but rather joined hands with these, and sought a compromise with them. This latter class was no doubt, for the most part, identical with the priests of Jeroboams cultus, and formed the official privileged class of prophets. The union of the priestly and the prophetic offices occurred in the Baal-religion (chap. 18). No ancient people considered any cultus complete without a class of men through whom the god might be questioned. This class was naturally identified, in the first place, with the priesthood, through whom all dealings with the gods must be brought about. The calf-worship of Jeroboam must, therefore, have prophets in order to be a complete religious system, and its priests became its born prophets. Since, however, this cultus, with its priesthood, was not a legitimate outgrowth of the national constitution and the divine covenant, but a creation of political policy (1Ki 12:31-32; 1Ki 13:33), the prophecy also, which was connected with it, did not stand upon the covenant with Jehovah, and the spirit which animated this prophecy could not be the spirit of Jehovah. It was a lying spirit, since the whole existence of this class of persons was rooted in apostasy and in revolt from the theocratic constitution. These prophets of Samaria (Jer 23:13; Eze 13:1) were false prophets. They were not servants of Jehovah or men of God, but creatures of Jeroboams royal power, court prophets, who stood ready for the service of the king. This is the character in which they here appear. Ahab knew that they would prophesy good concerning him; hence he called them and would not listen to Micaiah. It is not necessary to consider them conscious and intentional deceivers, but, though they may have believed in their own oracles, yet they were deceitful prophets, since the spirit of Jehovah was not in them.

4. The prophet Micaiah, of whom we know nothing more than is to be learned from this chapter, unites, in contrast with the prophets of Ahab, all the chief features of a genuine Jehovah-prophet in a manner in which they are not to be found in a single appearance of any other prophet. We are first struck by the fulfilment of his prediction. He announces, on the authority of a vision, the fall of Ahab as a thing settled in the counsels of God, and does this in such a clear and definite way that Ahab and all the others who were present at once understood what was predicted, and there was no place for a dim misgiving of the defeat which was to be suffered (Ewald). According to human foresight, a great defeat was the less to be expected on this occasion, since Ahabs army was considerably strengthened by the addition of Jehoshaphats, and the only thing sought was the capture of one city. Hence the four hundred prophets unanimously promised victory. The passage is certainly historical: according to Thenius, the vision of Micaiah is to be regarded as a proof of the historical truth of the passage on account of its peculiarity and originality; we have here, therefore, a definite prediction, which can have proceeded only from divine revelation, from which Micaiah expressly asserts that he received it. Then with this gift of prediction Micaiah unites also the heroic courage which marked all the true prophets. He steps forth in the face of the king and his four hundred prophets, as once Elijah stepped forth in the face of the same king and the four hundred and fifty priests of Baal on Mount Carmel. Though he came from captivity, and had now an opportunity to receive the royal favor, and although the attendant begged him, as he came, to prophesy good, yet he speaks only what God has revealed to him, and fears neither the wrath of the king, nor the outcry and rage of the four hundred. He recognizes no fear of men and no desire to please men. The word of his God is more to him than all else, and with that he stands firm, no matter what may threaten him. To this heroic courage he adds, finally, the patient endurance of insult and abuse which he is called to endure for the sake of truth. He does not repay Zedekiah in kind, but refers him to the experience which awaits him. When the enraged king orders him into close confinement on the bread of affliction, he does not murmur, but calls on all present to remember his prediction, and submits to his lot, leaving judgment to Him who judges righteously. So this servant of God appears as a forerunner of Him in whose mouth no deceit was found, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, and did not threaten when he suffered (1Pe 2:22 sq.), as if the great example had already appeared before him, and he had only followed in His footsteps.

5. The vision of the prophet Micaiah (1Ki 22:19-22) is original and peculiar. It has no parallel in the Old Testament. In meaning it corresponds most nearly to Isa 19:14 sq. It is very important for the elucidation of the idea of God as contained in the Old Testament. In so far as it proceeds upon the supposition that the deceitful prophecy of the four hundred prophets had its source in God, it seems to stand upon a religious idea which is not reconcilable with the holiness of God. In order to escape the offence which is involved in this view, the action of God has been described as a mere permission. Theodoret, for instance, whom nearly all the ancient expositors follow, says of this vision: , . But this is clearly a case in which Jehovah himself appears ordering and regulating independently and spontaneously, not merely permissively. We must bear in mind that the vision represents an executive or judicial act of God. As judge, God stands to evil not in the attitude of permission, but in one of punishment. Since evil does not come from God, but from man, who rebels against God, chooses evil, and opposes it to God, so punishment comes upon man through evil. God proves His holiness most of all by this, that He punishes evil by evil, and destroys it by itself. It is an essential feature in the divine government of the world that the evil which springs up in the world is made an instrument in the hand of the Holy One for neutralizing and destroying itself, and that it becomes a means of ruin to him who chooses it, and brings it into being. The idea of holiness as applied to God excludes all idea of His indifference as between good and evil, and therefore forbids us to think of Him as permitting evil. The theory of permission does not therefore reconcile this incident with Gods holiness, but rather is directly inconsistent with Gods holiness. Hence it has been abandoned in modern theology (cf. Rothe, Ethik, II. s. 204210). It is also entirely foreign to Holy Scripture (cf. Hengstenberg, Beitrge, III. s. 462 sq.). The notion that God punishes evil by evil, which forms the basis of Micaiahs vision, runs through all the Scriptures, and is not at all, as Thenius says, an outgrowth of the opinions of the time. Thenius is even inclined to regard its close conformity to the prevalent notions of the time as an especial proof of the historical character of the passage. But this general notion is found in the writings of the greatest prophet of the Old Testament (Isa 19:14), and in those of the greatest Apostle of the New Testament (2Th 2:11; Rom 1:24-28; Rom 9:17). The saying, frivolous in itself, Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur, may be applied to Ahab, at least in this sense: He who seeks and chooses falsehood will be ruined by falsehood, against his choice (Psa 18:27).

6 Ahabs end was truly tragical. It was brought about, not by a blind fate, but by a God who is just in all His ways, and holy in all His works (Psa 145:17), whose judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out (Rom 11:33). The conflict which Ahab had sought, and which no warning could induce him to abandon, became his punishment. He fell in battle with that very enemy who had once been delivered into his hands, and whom he had released, out of vanity and weakness, to the harm of Israel, and so he made good just the words of the prophet in 1Ki 20:42. He thought that a disguise would render him secure from the Syrian leaders who sought to find him out, and he did indeed escape them; but an unknown man, who did not know him, and had no intention against him, shot him, while Jehoshaphat, though undisguised, escaped unharmed. The arrow which struck him was not warded off by his corselet, but just struck the narrow opening between the corselet and the skirt, where it could penetrate and inflict a fatal wound. Every one, therefore, who does not regard all incidents as accidents, must recognize the hand which guided this shaft. The words of the Psalmist held true: If he will not turn, he will whet his sword, he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors (Psa 7:12-13). Finally, Ahab did not die at once, but at evening, in consequence of the loss of blood. His blood flowed down in the chariot, which was so besmeared by it that it had to be washed. It was washed at the pool before the city, where dogs drank and harlots bathed. So it came to pass, although he was buried with all honor, that he was marked in his death as one condemned by God, and Elijahs word (1Ki 21:19) was fulfilled.

Homiletical and Practical

1Ki 22:1-38. Ahabs last undertaking, (a) What led him to it (1Ki 22:1-4); (b) the question which he put to the prophets in regard to it (1Ki 22:6-28); (c) how it resulted (1Ki 22:29-38)

1Ki 22:1-4. The coalition of the two kings, (a) It is proposed by Ahab. (He aims to bring about the war under an apparently just pretext, whereas he was himself to blame for the loss of Ramoth, because he let Benhadad go. So, often, strife is stirred up under the pretext of a just occasion, when the real cause is an evil and godless feeling. Instead of using the time, of peace for peaceful industry the restless man begs for Jehoshaphats help in a new war. He was willing to borrow Jehoshaphats aid for such an undertaking, but did not care to borrow anything of his piety. [He cunningly proposed the war to recover Ramoth at a time when Jehoshaphat was on a visit to him, and was most anxious to please him.]) (b) Jehoshaphat agrees to it (without due consideration. He was bribed by Ahabs friendly reception and hospitality. He thus brought himself into great danger, 1Ki 22:32. We must not enter into alliances with men like Ahab, who are given over to do evil. Still less ought we to form relationships with them, for we are thus liable to be led into ways which are displeasing to God and lead to ruin. 2Ch 19:2. We ought to be at peace with all men, but to enter into alliances and relationships only with those who stand on the same ground with us as regards the highest interests)

1Ki 22:1. Starke: God gives time and place for repentance even to the greatest sinners. If they will not repent he will whet his sword (Psa 7:12-13)

1Ki 22:3. Wrt. Summ.: It is a misfortune when great men have a fondness for war. They are not satisfied when they must be still, but seek war without necessity and imperil their country.Pfaffsche Bibel: Do ye not know that heaven is ours, yet we be still! So should those cry out to their hearers who are charged with the cure of souls, and should encourage them to take the kingdom of heaven by force (Mat 11:12).

1Ki 22:5. Wrt. Summ.: We should undertake nothing without Gods approval, for how can a thing prosper in which God does not help? Hence we ought to seek counsel of God in his word and in prayer, and, when the word of God does not counsel us to proceed with the undertaking we should give it up, satisfied that it would not succeed. It is well to ask Gods will, but do it always before, not after thou hast asked or promised.J. Lange: It often happens thus, a man determines on something displeasing to God, following his own notion, and then convinces himself that it is according to Gods will. Question the word of God! the best counsellor (a) for all who seek truth and are tossed about by doubts, 2Pe 1:19; Psa 19:8 sq.; (b) for all who seek consolation and peace for the soul, Psa 119:82; Psa 119:92; Psa 119:105; Jer 15:16.

1Ki 22:6-12. The congregation of prophets, (a) The question which Ahab submitted to them. (He did not ask in the simple desire to learn the truth and submit to it, but to obtain divine approval before the world for that which he had already determined on. If any one prophesies to him in any other manner he becomes angry with him. The world demands prophets, but calls only those good preachers whose words please its ears, 2Ti 4:3, and whose words are not a hammer to break the rock, but a cradle-song to lure to sleep in the midst of vain folly.) (b) The answer which the assembled prophets gave to Ahab. (The answer did not proceed from the spirit of truth any more than the question, for these prophets did not stand on the ground of the divine word. He who has abandoned Gods word may speak as finely as he will; he is a false prophet. [This holds true as well of the dogmatist as of the rationalist] Ahabs prophets say to him: Go and prosper! He goes and falls into hell. So also now the false prophets promise salvation to all who walk in the broad way, Eze 13:18. Therefore, Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, &c, 1Jn 4:1)

1Ki 22:7-8. In many a city and country where there are preachers enough, one is still obliged to ask, as Jehoshaphat did: Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides? Is there not one who proclaims the word of God simply and purely, without fear or favor of men, and who can say what Paul says: Gal 1:10? There was indeed one other prophet of the Lord in Samaria, but he was in prison, and the king was hostile to him. Starke: Pious people esteem a single genuine prophet or preacher more than four hundred false ones.Let not the king say so. When a servant of God touches thy conscience, say not: I will go to that church no more; I do not like that preacherStarke: A Christian should not keep silence when the godless speak sinfully, but interrupt and rebuke them. The Lord did so on the cross (Luk 23:39)

1Ki 22:10-12. Pfaff. Bibel: There is nothing which is more sinful and worthy of punishment than to flatter the great, who need to hear the truth. This is more sinful, however, in the clergy than in others.Berleb. Bibel: Who is not disgusted by those who fashion their words by popular favor? Yet he who would go on smoothly and easily and prosperously must do this. Then he will not meet with opposition, nor lose his place at Jezebels table (1Ki 18:19), nor his other emoluments. All the four hundred agreed unanimously, and yet their prophecy was false. In matters of divine truth it matters not how many agree. Here voices ought to be weighed, not counted. The number of the unbelieving or the superstitious was always greater than that of the believers, for men agree in error or falsehood much more easily than in truth. Be not deceived, though thousands may think and say the same thing, and though the greatest and most learned may be amongst them, but cling thou to the word of Him who has said: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.Starke: Unanimity of opinion, even in the largest congregations of theologians, is not always a proof of truth, for a great company may err.

1Ki 22:12-28. Wrt. Summ.: Here we see the marks of the true and false prophets. The false teachers say what is popular, so as to enjoy rewards; they rely upon their number; they say that they have Gods word, though they have it not and claim to be in all things equal to the true teachers; they dispute more with blows and screams than with proofs from the word of God; they are held in high esteem. On the contrary, true teachers do not speak to please anybody, but they preach fearlessly the truth of Gods word, letting it strike whom it will, refusing to be turned aside, and submitting to persecution. Micaiah, the type of a true prophet (see Histor. 4).

Vers, 13 and 14 Micaiah on his way to the king, (a) How he was tempted. (The witnesses to the truth often have to withstand the strongest temptations from those who appear to be their sincere friends. They are begged for their own sakes, and for the sake of those who depend on them, not to oppose the great and mighty, and not to declare other teachers false prophets. They are told that their declarations will do no good, but will only excite enmity against them, and deprive them of bread and of respect. Cf. Mar 8:32 sq.) (b) How he repels the temptation. (Neither allurements nor threats can turn aside a faithful servant of God from the word of the Lord. That is the rock on which he takes his stand, the sword and shield with which he fights. What he has already suffered has not made him submissive; what yet a waits him cannot turn him aside. All other considerations must yield to the duty of saying what the Lord gives him to say. Act 4:20.)

1Ki 22:13. Hall: Those who offer earthly good as an inducement think that every one worships their idol

1Ki 22:14. Starke: We ought to be firm against allurements and not let ourselves be drawn from the truth by favor or disfavor. What the Lord saith unto me that will I speak ought to be the vow of every preacher when he enters on his office, (a) What pertains to the fulfilment of this vow? (Knowledge of the truth, power from above, prayer for the gifts of the spirit. 2Ti 4:2 sq.) (b) What is promised to one who makes, such a vow? (Jer 1:8 sq.; Luk 12:12; Mat 10:10; Dan 12:3; 2Ti 4:8; 1Pe 5:4.) 1Ki 22:15-16. Berleb. Bibel: This is a wonderful thing. People demand certain ones to speak the truth, to them, yet when the truth is spoken they are displeased by it. How many demand the truth, yet are angry when they hear itCramer: The godless often ask about the truth, not in order to make themselves better, but in order to spend their malice on the pious (Mat 2:3 sq.; Mat 26:63).Hypocritical questions deserve no earnest answer, but only such a one as may put the questioner to shameStarke: It is not wrong to sometimes answer the fool according to his folly, but with wit, in order to make him better (Pro 26:5)

1Ki 22:17-27. Micaiahs prediction, (a) Its contents, in their reference to the king (1Ki 22:17), and to the four hundred prophets (1Ki 22:19-23). (b) Its reception by the prophets (1Ki 22:24) and by the king (1Ki 22:26-28)

1Ki 22:17. Kings should be the shepherds of the people. Israel had in Ahab a master, but not a shepherd. He led the people not in the right path, but astray (Jer 2:13). It is the greatest misfortune for a people when it has no leader who is a true shepherd

1Ki 22:18. Cramer: The godless murmur against preachers, saying that they can do nothing but scold, but they do not murmur against their own sins (Lam 3:39).

1Ki 22:19-23. The truths which are presented to us by the prophets vision, (a) The Lord in heaven stands above all earthly thrones. He appoints and deposes kings, and has power over all kingdoms (Dan 2:21; Dan 4:14; 1Sa 2:7). Therefore let all the earth fear him, &c. (Psa 33:8). (b) The Lord is pure to the pure, and perverse to the perverse. He gives over the perverse and hard-hearted to the judgment of obstinate error; he sends mighty errors to inthrall those who resist the truth (Joh 12:40; 2Th 2:11; Exo 14:4; Exo 14:8). Therefore harden not your hearts, &c. (Heb 3:8)

1Ki 22:21. Pfaff: It is a great judgment of God upon a country when he allows false prophets to lead it astray, and to put on the mask of true prophets. It is, however, a judgment which the world does not recognize as such.

1Ki 22:22. Kyburz: He who seduces others is himself seduced as a just punishment. Ahab led the people from God to Baal, therefore he is here led by a false oracle to march out upon his own scaffold. That, however, is the mightiest seduction which is brought about through those who ordinarily stand highest in authority,the prophets.

1Ki 22:24-28. Micaiahs suffering for the truth, (a) He is publicly insulted by Zedekiah the chief of the prophets (Mat 5:11). (b) He is throw into prison by the godless king Ahab (1Pe 2:19). (c) He is left unprotected by the pious king Jehoshaphat (Mat 26:56).

1Ki 22:24. Kyburz: When the disputants cannot oppose anything to the truth, they turn to blows instead of arguments, or the controversy ends in scolding, and calumny, and blasphemy. Those are the weapons which are forged in hell against the truth Let every one who intends to speak and write the naked truth make up his mind that he will be attacked by these if he disregards the favor of men. This salt [the truth] has lost nothing of its savor; it bites to-day as it did 3,000 years ago.Berleb. Bibel: A false light makes men self-willed; they become like those who stand in a mist. Each one sees an open light space about himself, but seems to see that every other is enveloped in mist.Hall: None boast more of having the spirit of God than those who have it not at all. Vessels which are full give only a light sound or none at all. In vituperation and abuse clerical disputants, to whom it is least becoming, are unfortunately often most vigorous. By their sensitive vanity, which can endure no contradiction, their envy, their arrogance, and their anger, they show plainly that they have not the spirit of God, which does not dwell in an arrogant and quarrelsome and self-willed heart, but in a humble one, and its fruits are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, &c. (Gal 5:22). The Lord resisteth the proud. 1Ki 22:25. Cramer: Those who are boldest in prosperity generally become the most timid when their affairs begin to decline (Jdg 9:38).

1Ki 22:26-28. Ahabs conduct towards the witness of the Truth, (a) It was tyrannical. (There is no greater, tyranny than to suppress by force the divine word and the truth.) (b) It was foolish. (We cannot accomplish anything against the truth, 2Co 13:8. We can put the advocates of it in prison, but not the truth. It cannot be bound in chains, nor starved. It escapes and spreads, and only gains in glory by our attempts to oppress it.)

1Ki 22:28. Starke: Threats of death or of imprisonment may not frighten a true servant of God from confessing the truth (Act 5:25-29).He who makes a good confession can without fear call all the world to witness it (Mat 10:14). Such a confession always leaves a sting behind, which one can never again get rid of (1Ki 22:30).

1Ki 22:29-38. The war with the Syrians, (a) A war which was undertaken without, nay, even against, Gods will, and therefore with no good conscience, (b) An unfortunate war, which resulted in danger to Jehoshaphat, death to Ahab, and rout to the army.The two kings before, in, and after the battle.

1Ki 22:29. So. We should expect: So the two kings abandoned the war. However they went, one out of self-will, the other out of weakness.Calw. Bib.: Men do far too readily what they want to do, although it is contrary to Gods will, putting aside Gods word, or the warnings of others, or the voice of conscience. The event is never good. How often men ask for advice, yet follow their own will only. Kyburz: Jehoshaphats example ought to make us shy of the society of the wicked. The sun of grace in his heart became gradually dimmed. At first he had courage to remonstrate with Ahab, but gradually he comes to silence and indifference, even while Micaiah is abused and remanded to prison. In the end this evil companionship would have cost him his life, if God had not wonderfully interposed.

1Ki 22:30. Unbelief, in Ahab, joined hands with superstition. The king despises and rejects the word of God which is announced to him, and yet he is frightened, and seeks to escape the threatened dangers by disguising himself. This stratagem was intended to prove the prophet false. Neither cunning nor might avails against Gods will. Thou mayest disguise thyself as thou wilt, God will find thee when and where no man recognizes thee (Psa 139:7-12). Multi ad fatum venere suum, dum fata timent.

1Ki 22:32. Cramer: God sometimes lets his children come into distress and danger when they have formed companionship with the wicked, but he saves them again through His goodness and might, that they may be the more careful another time. Into what distress and danger one is thrown by a careless promise (1Ki 22:4), an ill-timed concession, and the false shame of taking back ones promise!

1Ki 22:34-35. If not a sparrow falls, nor a hair, without His will, how much less can an arrow or a ball strike thee unless His hand guides it.Berleb. Bib. The less of the human there is in those things which we commonly call accidents, the more there is of the divine. The weal or woe of whole nations often depends on those things which are called accidents.

1Ki 22:36. Whatever any men, though they were kings, have brought together and set up, without Gods approval, that is certain to fall to pieces and perish again.

1Ki 22:37-38. Ahabs end (see Histor. 6). (a) It was sudden (1Sa 20:3; Luk 12:20. From sudden death, good Lord, deliver us). (b) It was unrepentant (without conviction of sin, or repentance for it, or longing for grace and pardon). (c) It was shameful. (He was indeed buried with honor, like the rich man, Luke 16, but the dogs lick his blood, and his memory does not remain in honor, Psa 73:19. Therefore, Psa 90:12; Psa 39:5.)Starke: As he lived, so he died; as he died, so he was judged. The death of Ahab is a testimony to Rom 11:33; Gal 6:7; Isa 40:8.

1Ki 22:39-40. What is the profit of leaving behind a great and grand house, if one has not set ones house in order (Isa 38:1; 1Jn 2:17)?

Footnotes:

[1]1Ki 22:6.[The Alex. Sept. reduces the number to three hundred.

[2]1Ki 22:6.[The Sept. emphasizes the assurance of the prophets: = the Lord will surely deliver, &c. It is noticeable that the prophets do not say , but .

[3]1Ki 22:7.[The Sept., by neglecting the word (besides, yet) here and In 1Ki 22:8, makes it evident that they understood by the other prophets men who were not really prophets of the Lord. In 1Ki 22:8, however, the Alex. Sept. has . The Vulg. also: non est hic propheta Domini quispiam. The other VV. follow the Heb. very exactly.

[4]1Ki 22:9.[The Sept. has , but whether because it was known in the time of the translators that such persons were officers under Ahab, or whether simply because they were usual in the courts of their own time, does not appear.

[5]1Ki 22:12.[The Sept. changes the last clause of 1Ki 22:12 into Shall deliver into thy hands even the king of Syria (Alex, omits the word Syria), as if Zedekiah would promise Ahab a repetition of his formerly neglected opportunity.

[6]1Ki 22:13.The singular, which Chronicles, the kri, and many MSS. have, is to be preferred to the ktib. [All the VV., except the Sept., which has, another construction, follow the kri.

[7]1Ki 22:19.[The author (Exeg. Com.) considers the of the Sept. here as a mistranslation of the Heb. taken for , The same expression, however, is introduced by it into 1Ki 22:17, . . ., and the full reading here is , . . .

[8]1Ki 22:19.[Sept. = the God (Alex, the Lord God) of Israel.

[9]1Ki 22:19.[ the primary idea of above, seems to be here purposely preserved; the ministers standing behind or even beside, their sitting Lord are raised above him, and thus appear to the beholder as standing over him. Isa 6:2; Gen 18:8, Keil.

[10]1Ki 22:26.[For Amon the governor the Vat. Sept. has Semer the king.

[11]1Ki 22:28.[The Vat. Sept. omits the latter part of 1Ki 22:28.

[12]1Ki 22:34.[The A. V., like the Vulg., follows the singular of the kri in preference to the plural of the ktib, which is adhered to by the Vat. Sept.

[13]1Ki 22:35.[ , lit the battle rose, perhaps, as Keil suggests, a figure from the rising of a river, growing more rapid as it swells. The expression of increase by words of the general sense of rising is, however, very common in many languages.

[14]1Ki 22:36.[ . The A. V. Is here certainly wrong, although following the Chald. and Syr. Not less erroneous is the Vulg. habenas laverunt. must be the subject of the verb, and can only mean harlots, The Sept. has here translated rightly, but has unwarrantably inserted the same words also in the prediction (1Ki 20:42) of which this is the fulfilment. Here, as there, they associate with What these harlots washedwhether themselves, or the chariot, or clotheshas been much questioned, nor is its determination at all necessary to the translation. like the English wash, may be either transitive or intransitive.F. G.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

In this chapter, some account of the history of the kingdom of Judah, which hath not been taken notice of during the five preceding chapters is again revived. After a three years peace between Syria and Israel, war is sounded afresh, and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, joins Ahab, king of Israel, in the battle at Ramoth-Gilead. Ahab is slain. Ahaziah succeeds him. Some account of Jehoshaphat’s reign.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(1) And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel. (2) And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel.

It is a little extraordinary that Jehoshaphat, whose conduct is said to have been right in the sight of the Lord, should visit so impious a prince as Habakkuk. Reader! depend upon it, the people of God can have no profitable society or fellowship with carnal men. That is an universal precept, and founded upon the soundest principles: 2Co 6:14-18 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Unpossessed Possessions

1Ki 22:3

I. What is ours, and not ours? Every Christian man has large tracts of unannexed territory, unattended possibilities, unenjoyed blessings, things that are his and yet not his. How much more of God you and I have a right to than we have the possession of.

( a ) How much inward peace is ours? It is meant that there should never pass across a Christian’s soul more than a ripple of agitation, which may indeed ruffle and curl the surface; but deep down there should be the tranquillity of the fathomless ocean, unbroken by any tempests, and yet not stagnant, because there is a vital current that runs through it, and every drop is being drawn upward to the surface and the sunlight. The peace of God is ours; but ah, in how sad a sense it is true that the peace of God is not ours.

( b ) What ‘heights’ for Ramoth means ‘high places,’ what heights of consecration there are which are ours according to the Divine purposes, and according to God’s gift. It is meant, and it is possible and well within the reach of every Christian soul, that he or she should live day by day in the continual and utter surrender of himself or herself to the will of God. But instead of this absolute submission and completeness and joyfulness of surrender of ourselves to Him, what do we find? Reluctance to obey, regret at providences, self-dominant or struggling hard against the partial domination of the will of God in our hearts.

( c ) What noble possibilities of service, what power in the world are bestowed on Christ’s people. The Divine gift to the Christian community, and yet look how, all through the ages, the Church has been beaten by the corruption of the world.

II. Our text hints for us not only the difference between possession and realization, but also our strange contentment in imperfect possession. Ahab’s remonstrance with his servants seems to suggest that there were two reasons for their acquiescence in the domination of a foreign power on a bit of their soil. They had not realized that Ramoth was theirs, and they were too lazy and cowardly to go and take it. Ignorance of the fullness of the gift and slothful timidity in daring everything in the effort to make it ours explain a great deal of the present condition of Christian people.

III. My text suggests the effort that is needed to make our own ours. God does exactly in the same way with regard to a great many of His natural gifts as He does with regard to His spiritual ones. He gives them to us, but we hold them on this tenure that we put forth our best efforts to get and to keep them. His giving them does not set aside our taking.

A. Maclaren, Christ’s Musts, p. 127.

References. XXII. 8. A. G. Mortimer, The Church’s Lesson, vol. iii. p. 185. J. Keble, Sermons for Sunday After Trinity, part i, p. 363. XXII. 13, 14. Christian World Pulpit, 1891, p. 194. XXII. 19-23. F. B. Woodward, Sermons (2nd Series), p. 299. XXII. 23. T. Arnold, The Interpretation of Scripture, p. 85. Bishop Bethell, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 293. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi. p. 85. XXII. 32. M. Briggs, Practical Sermons on Old Testament Subjects, p. 153.

The Word of the Lord

1Ki 22:5

This was a suggestion worthy of the pious King of Judah in his best moments. What are the thoughts for ourselves?

I. The Bible is the Great Index of the Will of God. You have missed the great intention of your Bible if you have not taken it, day by day, as the guide-book of life. The Bible is altogether a practical thing. You lose yourself in it the moment you begin to theorize. It was not intended to satisfy the curiosity, but to rule conduct. It could not help having deep mysteries, but even the mysteries are always subordinate and conducive to right action. It is not, indeed, a book which draws lines, and makes out specific paths for each individual, under separate circumstances; it does better it gives great principles, which you are to expand at leisure. It gives motives which, if imbibed, will influence the whole man and his nature. It breathes a spirit by which everything is sweetened and alleviated. It warns with judgments; it comforts with promises.

II. It is the Holy Ghost which Teaches; and the result of all is one comprehensive and magnificent development of the mind of God. Were one assurance, were one undertaking, were one warning, were one principle, were one argument taken out of that system, the great portraiture would be lost. But now it is exactly what you want an everyday directory; what you are to think, what you are to feel, what you are to do, to glorify God and get to heaven. There is not a phase of life which is not represented here: there is not a doubt which is not met; there is not a question, affecting any part of man’s being and responsibility which cannot answer itself and find a resting-place here.

III. Go to your Bible more in this its Oracular Character. When you open the book have a distinct question, for which you look for a distinct reply. Read consultingly. Probe its high principles and its holy motives. Attend to the little occurrences of everyday experience. Do not read a chapter, but explore a truth. Do not generalize a system, but particularize a duty.

The Things That Matter

1Ki 22:39

I. Who can doubt that if Ahab had been asked for what he expected to be remembered after his death, it would have been for those very things that the sacred writer dismisses in this one sentence ‘The ivory house that he made, the cities which he had built?’ And who can doubt, too, that to the ordinary historian the reign of Ahab, which we have come to regard as infamous, would have appeared in a different light? Ahab, from one point of view, might evidently have been regarded and would have been regarded as a wise and successful ruler. If we want proof of ‘the inspiration’ of the Old Testament history, I do not think we can find a better one than in the fact that to the writer of the book of Kings the reign of Ahab appeared in such an entirely different light To him, we may say the great central fact of interest in the reign of Ahab is his treatment of Naboth the Jezreelite. We know the story. Naboth was a little man, perhaps, an obscure man, the owner of a vineyard, which his royal neighbour desired to annex. Naboth refused to surrender the inheritance of his fathers. Then we have the vivid picture of Ahab and Jezebel the weak husband ‘letting I dare not wait upon I would’; the strong determined wife; the plot by which Naboth was betrayed and slain; the king walking in his new possession only to meet the stern form of the prophet. It is on this this great injustice, this great moral failure that the eyes of the sacred historian are centred. It stands out, this glittering injustice, above and beyond all else; the rest compared with this, mattered little.

II. We cannot recall this old story without being reminded once more how different lives may appear from what we may call the human and Divine points of view. In writing, for instance, of the times of Ahab, the writer of the book of Kings does not pause to deal with the commercial advantages arising from the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel. He is intent on what seems to him a much more important matter the moral results of their union; the social corruption resulting from contact with the impure rites of Baal and Ashtoreth; and we sometimes wonder how it would be if a prophet were to apply such tests to our own day.

III. And what is true of the age at large is true of each single life. There are three points of view from which our lives can be regarded: ( a ) There is our own estimate of ourselves. ( b ) There is the judgment of ourselves by others; and ( c ) finally there is the judgment of ourselves by God, and the life of Ahab as recorded in the book of Kings tells us this very clearly, if we only listen to the message, that when we ‘sleep with our fathers’ it is not by the cities we have built, or by the ivory palaces which we have made that we shall be judged at the last, but by our secret choices, by our fidelity in small things, by our hidden and obscure loyalties or disloyalties to God and man.

H. R. Gamble, Christianity and Common Life Sermons, p.l.

Human Solidarity

1Ki 22:40

I. Put yourself back into the time of these events which the Church has put before us in the chapter from the book of Kings. And then think of it all passing away. All this conglomeration of passion and impulse apparently as if it had never been; the history of Israel gathering to a point at Ahab, and then snapping and letting him vanish as if he had never lived. Think of the hundreds and thousands who have lived and moved with all their throbbing cares and eager lives, as if all this universe was made for them and depended upon their efforts; and then think how few names, even comparatively speaking, survive. One generation passeth away and another generation cometh. Our greatest power becomes little, our greatest trouble seems light as we stand beneath the majesty of God, who sits unmoved and unchanged as new empires rise and fall before His eternal presence. This is the just and obvious thought which strikes us as we read of king succeeding king and of power and cruelty and evil buried in the silence of the grave.

II. But there are other and more solemn thoughts still, to which we should do well to turn our attention. There is no life, did we but know it, which can be said to have absolutely no bearing upon anything but itself. Mankind is a great whole, bound up in its solidarity, in its nations, its cities, its communities, its families; and on one life depends the well-being or the reverse of other lives as well. When Ahab died that was not an end of him. Ahaziah succeeded to that which Ahab had made. He succeeded to a kingdom made idolatrous, to a kingdom alienated from God, to great political mistakes, to embittered enemies and estranged friends, to the dower of a curse. He leaves the kingdom more weakened still to his successor. It is a wonderful thing this solidarity of life. God apparently so prodigal of human life, is yet so careful for the work of His hands, so sparing in His expenditure of human failures. And yet it has become almost a commonplace of the unbelieving controversialist in the case against his opponents: ‘What a curious conception,’ he says, ‘you must have of a beneficent God, who you imagine is a Being, Who, you tell us, is perfect love, Who, you confess, has infinite forethought and prescient accuracy with which He can measure every temptation, knowing the exact force which they will exercise on man, and Who yet creates or suffers to enter the world a creature like Ahab, who, according to all known laws, is bound to go wrong, and merit the awful punishment of his wrongdoing.’ God Almighty can never have before Him, we may say with reverence, a sole, an isolated individual, not an Ahab alone, nor an Ahaziah alone, but the whole race of Israel and of all the kingdoms of the world. To suppress a man may be to suppress a race. In refusing existence to one bad man He may be refusing existence to a hundred good ones.

III. ‘So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.’ Do not make a mistake, do not think that it is unimportant what we do, that we are but dolls held in the steady hands of God, who will play our parts for us whether we consciously move or not. No; we are dowered with free will, and it makes the greatest difference in the world, not only to ourselves but to those who come after us how we act. Surely we need to feel more than we do our responsibility to the nation not only in the vote which we give, or in the influence which we shed abroad or in the party principles which we follow, but in the life of the good citizen, law-abiding, reverent, dutiful, and true. Ahab slept with his fathers, and Ahaziah his son succeeded him; but both Ahab and Ahaziah went to swell, if it were only with tiny drops, the stream of national life to which they belonged.

W. C. E. Newbolt, Words of Exhortation, p. 215.

Reference. XXII. 48. T. Spurgeon, Down to the Sea, p. 204.

The Contagion of Sin

1Ki 22:52

We are studying once more the history of a fall; we are studying one of those failures of God’s agents which are histories always full of warning and full of disappointments. And it is not without a sad significance that we see here, as elsewhere, that we will note it in passing the father is associated, in the record of his son’s failure.

I. Why, we may reverently ask, is Jeroboam dowered with this heritage of doom? Why has he been placed there before others as the prominent agent in a national disgrace ‘who made Israel to sin’? Because he made the calf in Bethel and the calf in Dan, and said, ‘Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt’. We have surely here God’s eternal disapproval, cut in deep letters, of the doctrine known as expediency. It is a common opinion that the precept ‘Let us do evil that good may come’ is the peculiar property of a certain religious order not unnaturally distrusted and feared. There cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose this. It is ingrained in the very texture of human nature. It was so here. Jeroboam was definitely commissioned to sever the ten tribes from Rehoboam’s influence. If he was to do this completely, he must sever utterly, and once for all, that centripetal force which would draw these tribes constantly back to Jerusalem as the religious centre of the whole nation with its tradition, its prestige, its opportunities for a political propaganda. Antecedently it was not desirable to multiply centres of devotion; politically there was nothing else to be done. And so principle bows down its head before expediency. Jeroboam’s calves of gold were put up, no doubt with the best political motives, and with a minimum of religious rancour, to represent in the least offensive way a religious use whose exercise had become dangerous. But the first step in expediency was the very spot over which God raised the epitaph of his far-reaching sin, ‘Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin’ the man who sacrificed principle to expediency.

II. It has been pointed out that there are three stages of decline in the downward career of the wicked with regard to sin against truth. First the obstinate setting of self against it, ‘they received not the love of the truth’. This by a wilful act of self. Then the judicial infatuation which overtakes the sinner at a certain point. ‘For this point God shall send them strong delusion,’ followed by the final punishment which overtakes those who ‘believe in the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness’. Trifling with truth is a serious matter, wherever we find it. The worship of God enshrined in the second commandment was not a positive order merely, which Jeroboam might obey or disobey as he liked with impunity. It rested on the fundamental needs of man and the axioms of religious appreciation of God. Truth is not a series of propositions which we keep in a book and polemically defend in argument. Truth is a spiritual force which penetrates every corner of our religious life. ‘Who made Israel to sin.’ In the end after all, it is God’s verdict against the underlying selfishness of sin. It is a sad end no doubt to a life meant only to be glorious, and to snatch the good out of evil circumstances, but it is the end which awaits all selfish working, all tampering with the commission which God entrusts to us.

W. C. E. Newbolt, Words of Exhortation, p. 199.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

The End of Ahab

1Ki 22

This chapter is really a continuation of chapter 20. In the Septuagint version the twentieth chapter immediately precedes the twenty-second. The three years without war is a period which is reckoned from the peace which was so rashly made by Ahab with Benhadad ( 1Ki 20:34 ). It is clear that Benhadad has recovered his independence, and is probably in a position of superiority; it is certain that he has not restored Ramoth-gilead as he had promised to do, and his re-constructed army seems to him to be now sufficient to encounter successfully the united hosts of Israel and Judah. In 1Ki 22:42 of the same chapter we have seen how Ahab was rebuked for allowing the enemy to escape. It has been supposed that this conduct on the part of Ahab may have been due partly to compassion and partly to weakness. The judgment of the Lord was, however, expressed in the severest terms: “Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people” ( 1Ki 20:42 ). In 1Ki 22:3 we see these words signally fulfilled: The king of Israel seems to have had a good cause when he said to his servants, “Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria?” On this occasion Ahab entered into an alliance with Jehoshaphat king of Judah for the purpose of taking back the city which belonged to Israel. Jehoshaphat made a deferential as well as a friendly reply, but insisted upon the fulfilment of a religious condition. Jehoshaphat would make inquiry at the word of the Lord. Thereupon four hundred prophets were gathered together, and with one consent they advised that the attack should be made upon Ramoth-gilead. Surely this was enough to satisfy the judgment and the conscience of the most religious man, yet Jehoshaphat was not content with the unanimous reply which four hundred prophets had returned. “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” All external unanimity goes for nothing when the conscience itself dissents from the judgment which is pronounced. There is a verifying faculty which operates upon its own responsibility, and which cannot be overpowered by the clamour of multitudes who eagerly rush down paths that are forbidden. Even when imagination assents to the voice of the majority, and when ambition is delighted with the verdict of the prophets, there remains the terrible yet gracious authority of conscience. Through all the clamour that authority makes its way, and calmly distinguishes between right and wrong, and solemnly insists that right shall be done at all hazards and in view of all consequences. A vital lesson arises here to all who are anxious to know the right way under difficult circumstances. It is not enough to have great numbers of authorities on our side; so long as the conscience remains unsatisfied all other authorities are “trifles light as air.” Jehoshaphat was, therefore, uneasy, notwithstanding the prophets had said, “Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.” He inquired, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might inquire of him? The word which Jehoshaphat used was the great word Jehovah. It was not enough for him to use a religious or sacred term, he must have the prophecy identified with the awful Name Jehovah, then it would come with final authority. The king of Israel knew that there was another man whose very name signified “Who is like Jehovah?” Ahab frankly declared that he hated Micaiah because he never prophesied good concerning him, but always evil.

Observe the madness of Ahab’s policy, and note how often it is the policy which we ourselves are tempted to pursue. We suppose that if we do not consult the Bible we may take licence to do what seems good in our own eyes, and we imagine that by ignoring the Bible we have divested it of authority. We flatter ourselves that if we do not listen to an exposition of the divine word we shall be judged according to the light we have, forgetting the solemn law that it is not according to the light we have that we are to be judged, but according to the light we might have if we put ourselves in right relations to the opportunities created for us by divine providence. We know that if we go to hear a certain preacher he will insist upon “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come;” and, supposing that we already know everything that he will say, we turn away from him and listen to men who do not profoundly treat vital subjects, or press home upon the conscience the terrible judgments of God. What is this but closing our eyes to light, and supposing that darkness is safety? What is this ostrich policy, but one that ought to be condemned by our sense as well as shrunk from by our piety? Our duty under all critical circumstances is to go to the truth-teller, and to get at the reality of things at all costs. Where the truth-teller disturbs our peace and disappoints our ambition, we ought to learn that it is precisely at that point that we have to become self-rectifying. The truth-teller is only powerful in proportion as he tells the truth; officially, he is nothing; his power is simply the measure of his righteousness. But do not men love to be flattered, even in courses of evil? Is it not pleasant to go out to forbidden war amid the huzzahs of thoughtless and irresponsible multitudes? Jehoshaphat, however, was a just man, and, as such, he protested against the sin of the king of Israel, saying, “Let not the king say so.” Jehoshaphat being so bent upon having a complete judgment of the case, Micaiah was sent for. The king of Israel wished to overawe the despised prophet by the pomp and circumstance under which he was introduced to the royal presence. “The king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria;” and to increase the impressiveness of the occasion, all the prophets prophesied before the kings. A singular addition was made to the surroundings of the occasion which was intended to impress the imagination and stagger the courage of the despised Micaiah. A man bearing the name of Zedekiah (righteousness of Jehovah) made him horns of iron. The use of symbolical acts is quite common in biblical history. We have already seen Abijah engaged in an act of this kind: he “caught the new garment that was on him and rent it in twelve pieces: and said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces.” The enthusiasm of Zedekiah inflamed the other prophets to the highest point of excitement, and they shouted as with one voice, “Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king’s hand.” In this instance the prophets, overborne by the enthusiasm of Zedekiah, actually ventured to use the name of Jehovah which had not been used in the first instance. The excitement had passed the point of worship and had become more nearly resembling the frantic cry that was heard on Mount Carmel “O Baal, hear us.”

Is it possible that there can be found any solitary man who dare oppose such unaminous testimony and complete enthusiasm? The messenger who was sent to call Micaiah was evidently a man of considerate feeling who wished the prophet well. Seeing that the words of the prophets had all declared good unto the king with one mouth, the messenger wished that Micaiah should for once agree with the other prophets and please the king by leaving undisturbed their emphatic and unanimous counsel. Thus the voice of persuasion was brought to bear upon Micaiah, and that voice is always the most difficult to resist. The temptation thus addressed to Micaiah was thus double in force; on the one hand, there was the pomp and the terror of the king who had sold himself to do evil, and who would shrink from the infliction of no cruelty that would express his unreasoning and unlimited anger; on the other hand, there was the goodwill of the messenger who wished Micaiah to escape all danger and penalty, and for once to take the popular side. Micaiah’s reply is simply sublime: “And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak” ( 1Ki 22:14 ). The humility of this answer is as conspicuous as its firmness. Its profound religiousness saves it from the charge of being defiant. Micaiah recognises himself merely in the position of a servant or medium who has nothing of his own to say, who is not called upon to invent an answer, or to play the clever man in the presence of the kings; he was simply as a trumpet through which God would blow his own blast, or a pillar on which God would inscribe his own message, or a voice which God would use for the declaration of his own will. It is unjust to attribute obstinacy or any form of self-will or self-worship to Micaiah. If he had consulted his natural inclination alone, he would have sought favour with the king, and the logical effect of his subsequent position would have been that Ahab would have endeavoured for ever to silence him by constituting him the prince and leader of the four hundred prophets. Micaiah said in effect, what was said centuries afterwards: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.” Micaiah lived in God, for God, and had nothing of his own to calculate or consider. Until preachers realise this same spiritual independence, they will be attempting to accommodate themselves to the spirit of the times, and even the strongest of them may be betrayed into connivances and compromises fatal to personal integrity and to the claims of truth.

Now came the critical moment. Now it was to be seen whether Micaiah was to be promoted to honour, or thrust away in contempt and wrath. It is easy to read of the recurrence of such moments, but difficult to realise them in their agony. Yet these are the moments which make history in its sublimest lines. It is not too much to say that there have been points of time at which if certain men had given way, the whole economy of the world would have been wrecked. The king addressed himself to the prophet, saying: “Shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?” The answer of Micaiah must have been a surprise to all who heard it, for he said, “Go, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king” ( 1Ki 22:15 ). This is an answer which cannot be understood in print. It was evident, however, that Ahab was in no doubt as to its meaning, for the tone of the prophet was a tone of almost contemptuous irony. If king Ahab had taken Micaiah’s literal answer, he would have gone forth to the battle comforting himself with the thought that he was carrying out the will of heaven; but he knew in his own soul that Micaiah was not uttering that which expressed the reality of the case. With anger the king said unto him, “How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord?” ( 1Ki 22:16 ). Then Micaiah replied in symbolic language, the meaning of which was vividly clear to the mind of Ahab; for, turning to Jehoshaphat, he said, “Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?” ( 1Ki 22:18 ). Thereupon Micaiah charged the whole band of prophets with being under the inspiration of a lying spirit, and thus he put a stigma upon and extracted from their judgment every particle of dignity and authority. But this was not to be borne, for Zedekiah went near and smote Micaiah on the cheek and taunted him as being the only prophet in Israel. Micaiah had to bear the sarcasm conveyed in the angry inquiry, “Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?” ( 1Ki 22:24 ). Micaiah like a true prophet leaves his judgment to the decision of time. He will not stoop to argue, or to exchange words either of anger or of controversy; he simply says that Zedekiah will one day see the meaning of the whole prophecy, and until that day controversy would be useless. Micaiah had to pay for his fearlessness: he was carried unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son, and was to be put in prison and fed with the bread of affliction and with the water of affliction until Ahab returned in peace. Micaiah thus disappears from history. Of his fate we know nothing; but there can be no difficulty in forecasting it a cruel death. Micaiah knew well the meaning of the king’s message. It may be difficult for the commentator to explain the expression “bread of affliction, and water of affliction,” but Micaiah knew the full meaning of the terms, and yet, whilst their cruel sound was in his ears, he looked at the king and said, “If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me.” Micaiah made also his appeal to the people, and thus committed himself to the verdict of history, saying, “Hearken, O people, every one of you” ( 1Ki 22:28 ). See whether it is not a moment to be proud of when Micaiah turns away in the custody of his persecutors, having delivered his soul with fearlessness that did not cower or blanch even at the sight of death in its most ghastly forms. Surely it is due to history to recognise the fact that there have been men who have not counted their lives dear unto themselves when they were called upon to testify for truth and goodness. The martyrs must never be forgotten. Dark will be the day in the history of any nation when the men who shed their blood that truth might be told and honour might be vindicated, are no longer held in remembrance. In vain do we bring forth from our hidden treasure the coins of ancient times, the robes worn in high antiquity by kings and priests, the rusty armour of warriors, if there is no longer in our heart the tenderest recollection of the men who wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, that they might save the torch of truth from extinction and the standard of honour from overthrow.

Away the kings have gone, and instead of relying upon the word of the Lord, or taking refuge in the sanctuary of great principles, they invent little tricks for the surprise and dismay of the enemy. The king of Israel disguised himself, and Jehoshaphat made himself as the king of Israel, but all their inventions came to nothing. A certain man drew a bow at a venture and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness. The poor king was fatally struck, he “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…. 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.” So will perish all the enemies of the Lord. Differences of merely accidental detail there will always be, but no honour can mark the death of those who have gone contrary to the will of heaven, and taken counsel of their own imagination. How long shall the lesson of history be wasted upon us? How long will men delude themselves with the mad infatuation that they can fight against God and prosper? Horsemen and chariots are nothing, gold and silver are valueless, all the resources of civilisation are but an elaborate display of cobwebs: nothing can stand in the final conflict but truth, and right, and purity. These are the eternal bulwarks, to these are assured complete and unchangeable victory. If God be for us, who can be against us? and if God be against us no matter what kings are for us, they shall be blown away of the wind as if contemptuously, and cast out as refuse which is of no value. My soul, be thou faithful to the voice of history nor tell lies to thyself, nor operate merely through imagination, ambition, or selfish calculation, for the end of this course is death: not heroic death, not death over which coming men and women will weep; but death that shall be associated with dishonour, a thing to be forgotten, an event that never can be named without bitterness and shame.

Selected Note

The Books of the Kings. This section of Jewish history originally formed only one book in the sacred writings. It was customary with the Jews to name the sacred books from the word or words with which they commenced; and, while this practice may have given rise to the designation, “Kings” ( 1Ki 1:1 ), it is right to observe that the title is well fitted to indicate the character of these historic compositions.

The annals given in these sacred registers are necessarily brief; but they extend from the close of David’s reign till the commonwealth was dissolved, a period of four hundred and twenty-seven years. Succinct as is the history contained in these books, there are some peculiarities in them which should not be overlooked, and from which not a little may be learned. There is not here a simple biography of the various kings that occupied the thrones of Judah and Israel, nor is there a mere detail of national movements and events, nor even a tabular register of ecclesiastical affairs. The throne, the state, and the church, are all exhibited in their mutual relations and bearings upon each other. Kings and people are held up to view as existing and acting under the immediate government of God; and hence the character of the ruler is always tested by the mode in which he adheres to the laws of the Almighty, and developes the moral excellences of the people. The notice of his accession to royal office is generally accompanied with an estimate of his conduct, and the standard to which he is likened or contrasted is either the character of David, of his own father, or of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, “who made Israel to sin.” All the political events which are recorded, are brought forward chiefly to exhibit the influence of religion on national prosperity: and, in this way, to show how the divine King of Israel observed the conduct of his subjects, and rewarded their fidelity or avenged their wickedness with expressions of righteous indignation. And the affairs of the Church are all portrayed with the design of giving prominence to the same important truth. Idolatry in Israel was treason against their King; religious defection was open revolt; and every act of overt wickedness was an act of rebellion. Hence there is a constant comparing or contrasting of religious state and feeling with those of former times, and especially are the oracles of truth continually elevated as the perfect standard to which the thoughts and actions of all should all be conformed. The Mosaic promises and warnings are strikingly verified in the Books of Kings for this object they were written; and to the manifestation of this the author has made his whole narrative conduce.

Much variety of opinion exists with reference to the author of these records, and the period of their composition. Jewish tradition ascribes the authorship of the treatise to Jeremiah the prophet; a supposition which is greatly strengthened by the similarity of style and idiom which is traceable between the language of the Books of Kings and that of Jeremiah.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

V

THE REIGN OF JEHOSHAPHAT, KING OF JUDAH

2 Chronicles 17-20; 1Ki 22:1-53

The reader will observe that I omitted in the last chapter any special reference to the contemporaneous affairs in Israel, in the close of the reign of Asa, and do now limit this chapter to the record in 2 Chronicles 17-20. This limitation is to secure unity in the discussion of the two great kings of Judah: Asa and Jehoshaphat; and for the same purpose two or three later chapters will be devoted exclusively to the great house of Omri in Israel, and its battle royal with Elijah, the Tishbite.

I pause here to remark that there are some matters so very critical in this section, that I am not willing to trust myself in an offhand statement of the meaning, and so every word of this chapter is written out beforehand, just as I want it to stand verbatim, et liberatum, et punctuatim.

The glorious seventeeenth chapter of 2 Chronicles has no parallel in Kings, and well illustrates the valuable supplementary character of the later history. The history opens with Jehoshaphat devising military measures of defense against Israel. He placed regular garrisons in all the fortified cities of Judah, established and garrisoned new military posts in all the territory captured from Ephraim by his father, Asa, and grandfather, Abijah. This was the very beginning of his reign.

His moral measures of defense are far more sublime. They constitute a great lesson worthy of study in all subsequent ages. On this section, therefore, we must place our greatest emphasis. What, then, were these moral measures of defense adopted by Jehoshaphat?

(1) “He walked in the first ways of his father David” David, the ideal king, not Solomon, was his model. And the first ways of David are followed, not the last. Thus, his pattern was his lost illustrious ancestor, the man after God’s own heart, and he at his best, not at his worst. We would do well while finding a perfect ideal in Jesus, to select some human model that reflects our highest ideals of manhood or womanhood. For instance, how many young preachers say in their hearts, “I will keep my eyes on William Carey, or on Adoniram Judson, or on Charles Spurgeon”?

(2) “He sought not unto Baalim” that is the Hebrew plural, like Seraph Seraphim; cherub cherubim; so Baal Baalim. “He sought not unto Baalim, but sought unto the God of his fathers.” He whom one worships is more important than whom he makes his model. To him Jehovah alone was God. He counted as nothing Baalim, that is, the male and the female deities. Baalim being plural) that signified Baal, the male) and Astoreth the female. Astoreth has its own plural, Astoroth, and is about the same as the Venus of the Romans, or the Aphrodite of the Greeks. Baal and Ashtoreth, under some name or form, represented the world’s debased and sensual idolatry.

(3) The record tells us that he refused to find in Israel an example for his people, which under the house of Omri, turned to these infamous Phoenician deities, the Baalim-Baal and Ashtoreth.

(4) The record says that his heart was lifted up in the ways of Jehovah. That is a strong expression in the original. It is not a perfunctory service; he gloried in it; his heart exulted in it; his fervor glowed like a furnace.

(5) In such a spirit and zeal there could be no compromise; hence the record says, “He took away the high places and the Asherim out of Judah.” “The high places,” that is, the top of the hills, even when Jehovah was the object of worship, detracted from the central place of worship in Jerusalem with its holy Temple, and its glorious unifying services and feasts. The Asherim were symbolized in wooden columns that sometimes stood like groves, as when Gideon went out and cut down a grove of them in one night. The Asherim stood as a perpetual temptation to superstition and idolatry.

(6) He made abundant and systematic provision for the instruction of the people of God in the Pentateuch, “The book of the law of Jehovah.” Princes, priests, and Levites, were constituted as itinerant teaching corps. Up and down, to and fro, through all the land this great traveling faculty carried and taught the one great textbook, the Law of Moses. The word of God was not bound. Its precepts were brought by the mightiest and most honorable in the land into every village and home. And as the priests and Levites of all the tribes were assembled into one tribe, magnifying the teaching force of that tribe, Judah, under this itinerant system of instruction) became one great religious university an itinerant theological seminary.

(7) He established a graded judicial system for the determination and enforcement of civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical law (10:5-8) and here is his charge to the judges of the lower courts: “Consider what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but Jehovah; and he is with you in the judgment you render. Now, therefore, let the fear of Jehovah be upon you; take heed and do it; for there is no iniquity with Jehovah our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of bribes.” I would like to read that to all the judges of the lower courts of the United States. Here is what he says in his charge to the Supreme Court, the head of the judicial system in Jerusalem: “In the fear of Jehovah ye shall do faithfully, and with a perfect heart. And whensoever any controversy shall come to you from your brothers that dwell in the villages and cities, between blood and blood [that is, if it is a murder case], between the law [in its principles] and [their expression in] commandments) statutes, and ordinances, ye shall warn them that they be guilty toward Jehovah and so wrath come upon you [the judges] and your brethren [the appellants]. This do ye and ye shall not be guilty. Deal courageously and Jehovah be with the good in your judgment.” (2Ch 19:6-9 ). I would like to read that to our state and national supreme courts.

I pause here to remark, first, that the civil and criminal code of Moses surpasses the codes of Lycurgus, Solon, Justinian, or Napoleon, and as a foundation it underlies all of the best of modern law among the most civilized nations. I was boarding once with a very brilliant lawyer, and he asked if I could give him a digest of the Mosaic law, civil and criminal. I told him he would find it in Hitchcock’s Analysis, and I made him a present of the book. I said to him, “Now, when you read this let your quick mind answer this question as you go over its constitution, the decalogue, or each statute. How much of your law does the principle of this statute underlie?” When he got through he said, “I find that all the best of our laws, at least in their principle, come from Moses.”

Now, imagine the effect of such a trained force of teachers going over Judah teaching that law, and then such a judicial system interpreting and enforcing that law. I repeat again that mere human law, separated from the idea of responsibility to God, can never challenge respect nor be righteously enforced. The most shameful thing of modern civilization is that we cannot get Juries to render a verdict according to the law given by the judge and the evidence given by the witnesses. To this add the law’s delay, the wrangling of the paid attorneys, and the wonder is explicable that the people dread the courts more than anything else. A man in Fort Worth recently remarked to his family: “If ever I am murdered I charge you to ask the grand jury not to indict the murderer; don’t you have anything to do with the prosecution. For, if the murderer is never prosecuted, murder is all that comes to me. But if you put the case in the courts with the lawyers trying to justify the murderer, there will not be a shred of my reputation left. Not content with murdering my body, they will murder my good name.”

(8) He did not isolate himself from his people, living luxuriously in a palace and leaving subordinates to watch over the affairs of the kingdom. But the text says that “he dwelt at Jerusalem, and went out again among the people from Beersheba [the most southern part] to the hill country of Ephraim [the most northern part] and brought them back unto Jehovah the God of their fathers.” When kings become missionaries like that, and the princes become itinerant teachers like that, happy is the land.

(9) He organized and trained a vast militia corps, or war reserve, not indeed as a standing army, but ready at all times to respond to a call to arms in any emergency. Judging from the muster roll given in the record, it must have included like the German Landwehr, all the male population capable of bearing arms. There were three army corps from Judah, numbering respectively 300,000, 280,000, and 200,000: total from Judah 780,000. There were two corps from Benjamin, respectively, 200,000 and 180,000: total from Benjamin, 380,000: grand total from the two, 1,160,000 men, and all of them with a full quota of officers. The world never saw anything like the German system of war, as developed in 1870, between Germany and France. The very minute that Emperor William I signed his name to the declaration of war, that minute Von Moltke, the commander-in-chief, touched a button that rang a bell, and over a million men responded to it in twenty-four hours: and every man knew his company, colonel, regiment, major general, his division, his starting point, his line of travel) the system was so perfect.

Murphy’s Commentary on Chronicles thus explains this immense number of Jehoshaphat’s militia. He says, “First, every man fit to bear arms is enumerated. Second, Judah at this time included Simeon, part of Dan, and the auxiliaries from the Philistines and Arabs who were tributary; and Benjamin included the cities of Ephraim that were annexed to the Southern Kingdom. Third, many Israelites had, on religious grounds, attached themselves to the kingdom of Judah (2Ch 15:9 ). Hence, there were three captains, or marshals, in Judah: one for Judah proper, one for Dan and the auxiliary Philistines, and one for Simeon and the auxiliary Arabs. There were two for Benjamin, one for Benjamin proper and one for the annexed part of Ephraim. Moreover, in the text (2Ch 15:16 ) Amasiah is described as a volunteer in the service of the Lord, and had under his command, no doubt, a body of volunteers from the north.” The explanation by Murphy is very plausible in view of the context.

Now, that this 1,160,000 was a militia reserve is evident from the fact that it is contradistinguished from the regular army garrisoning the fortified cities.

The glorious results of these measures are thus set forth in the text: first, Jehovah was with Jehoshaphat, and established his kingdom; second, fear of Jehovah fell on all the kingdoms that were round about Judah, so they made no war on Jehoshaphat; third, all Judah brought to Jehoshaphat tribute; fourth, some of the Philistines brought to Jehoshaphat presents and silver for tribute; fifth, the Arabs brought him flocks of 15,400 rams and goats; sixth, and Jehoshaphat had riches and honor in abundance, and waxed great exceedingly, and built in Judah castles and cities of stone, and he had many works in the cities of Judah.

If just here the record ended with “And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers,” we would have before us a faultless monarch; but as no man is perfect, fidelity to history requires that we pluck three roses from his wreath of glory, to wit:

First, beginning with 2Ch 18 the record says that “he made affinity” with the infamous Ahab, king of Israel. Thus by marrying his son and successor to Athaliah, the murderous daughter of Ahab and the wicked Jezebel, which led his son into idolatry, and into the shame that denied him burial with his fathers, and, as I think, into the loss of his soul, he later corrupted the kingdom of Judah and brought the seed of David down to one helpless baby, and helped to bring the kingdom of God nearer to destruction than at any period since the flood. That will be evident when we come to discuss Elijah the Tishbite.

Second, this marriage led him to visit Ahab (2Ch 18 ) in Samaria, where he was beguiled to join Ahab in his disastrous war, that did not concern Judah, against the king of Syria. That war is set forth from 2Ch 18:2-19:1 .

Third, later in his reign he joined himself with Ahaziah, the wicked son of the wicked Ahab, to build ships at Eziongeber, “to go,” as the text says, “to Tarshish” (but I say, “to go to Orphir”), thus seeking to revive the old commerce of Solomon (2Ch 20:35-37 ).

I here raise this question on 2Ch 20:35-37 : Why build a fleet at Eziongeber to reach Tarshish? Eziongeber is at the head of the gulf of Akaba, a part of the Red Sea. Tarshish is in Spain, and to reach Spain the fleet would have to circumnavigate Africa to reach Tarshish from Eziongeber. Jonah took shipping at Joppa to reach Tarshish (Jon 1:3 ). Solomon reached Tarshish from the Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon. The explanation of this difficulty is that “Tarshish” is a model of a ship called Tarshish and the text in 2Ch 20:36 is corrupted, it should read, “Ships of Tarshish” instead of “Ships to go to Tarshish.”

These three acts of Jehoshaphat, which were the three roses plucked from the wreath of his fame, all deserve special treatment. The disastrous marriage, the most important one, will be considered in a later chapter on Elijah the Tishbite. The other two evils will be considered now. RAMOTH-GILEAD

The second evil was accepting the invitation of Ahab to visit him in Samaria. He was there beguiled into making an alliance with Ahab to go to war against Benhadad, the king of Syria, for the recovery of Ramothgilead, a town east of the Jordan.

I will relate now a part of the history which precedes this (but which we have not yet treated, as I am reserving the history of the house of Omri for a special chapter), that Ahab had captured the king of Syria and ought to have killed him, but let him go on the pledge that he would give up Ramothgilead, which he had stolen from Ahab. But when free he would not give it up, and now Ahab is considering the reconquest. We will now continue the discussion of 2Ch 18 .

While royally entertained in Samaria by Ahab, the host embarrassed his guest by proposing joint action in the recovery of Ramoth-gilead, still held against treaty stipulations by the king of Syria. On the impulse of the moment the enticed guest responded) “I am as thou art, and my people as thy people, and we will go with thee in this war.” Sober reflection, however, imposed a condition which is stated in the next verse: “Inquire, first I pray thee, for the word of Jehovah,” i.e., “I will go with you if Jehovah says so; inquire for the word of Jehovah.” We must put this condition to the credit of the beguiled but pious Jehoshaphat.

What followed is most difficult to understand in several particulars, greatly perplexing the commentators, and calls for careful exposition. The reader should read attentively the whole paragraph of 2Ch 18:4-27 , and then note:

(1) Jehoshaphat demands an inquiry for the word of Jehovah, not for the word of Baal.

(2) Then, of course, the prophets who respond must be the prophets of Jehovah, not Baal’s prophets.

(3) Four hundred prophets, assembled by Ahab, when asked: “Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle or shall we forbear?” unanimously responded, “Go up; for God will deliver it into the hand of the king.”

(4) Jehoshaphat is not satisfied: the promptness of assembling 400 prophets, the readiness and the unanimity of their response, or something in their bearing, awakened suspicion on his part that something was wrong. Hence his question: “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah besides, that we may inquire of him?” Now, does he imply by that question that the 400 are not Jehovah’s prophets at all, or does the “besides” mean that they were Jehovah’s prophets, but that he wants another one?

(5) Ahab’s reply evidently claims that the 400 are Jehovah’s prophets, but admits that there is one there in the city whom he hates, because he uniformly prophesies evil and not good against Ahab.

(6) Jehoshaphat’s rejoinder, “Let not the king say so,” plainly intimates his continued dissatisfaction, and he insists on hearing this other prophet, Micaiah, the son of Imlah. In the meanwhile, while waiting for Micaiah to be brought, Zedekiah, the leader of the 400 prophets recalled the famous promise of Moses concerning Joseph (Deu 33:17 ), and put on the symbolic horns promised there, and acted out the manner in which the Syrian king would be gored to death, with all the other prophets shouting, “Go up to Ramothgilead and prosper.” This dramatic action must have made an impression. Now the reader must not take my word for the horns promised by Moses, but let him turn back and read what Moses said. Evidently Zedekiah takes what Moses said concerning the children of Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim, to show that he is giving a true prophecy; he puts on those iron horns and shows just how the Ephraim bull will gore the Syrian king to destruction. It must have been a funny scene.

(7) The method of sending for Micaiah and disposing of him after he is heard, implies that he was in prison in the city at the time, and is remanded back to prison because he would not prophesy smooth things to Ahab.

(8) The officer hinted to him, while bringing him before the king, to conform his reply to that of the four hundred like I have known sheriffs, when bringing in a witness, to whisper how he had better testify; to make a confession and to imply what he is going to say with what the 400 said, clearly shows how this officer, at least, was aware that the prophets around Ahab must prophesy as the king wished. It seems to place Ahab’s conception of the prophetic office on a line with Balak’s when he sent for Balaam to come and curse Israel: that a king’s money or a king’s favor could get just what he wanted from the subservient oracle. Or, it is on a line with any fortuneteller, who will gauge his forecast of the fortunes according to the fee, or according to his fear of the inquirer.

(9) We find it hard to reconcile Micaiah’s grand reply to the officer, that he would not prophesy anything except as Jehovah gave it, I say, we find it difficult to harmonize that grand reply to the officer with his first reply to Ahab, which is exactly in harmony with what the 400 advised. Now, was that first reply to Ahab sarcasm, and meant to be so understood? Did it mean: “You do not want to hear the truth, and you know it; you want to hear only what is pleasing, and I give it to you”? Or, does it mean that when a man incorrigibly insists upon being deluded, then Jehovah sends him a delusion? The last seems to be the true explanation and puts his reply in harmony with his reply to the officers. But Ahab evidently understands it according to the first explanation) and so he presumptuously demands Jehovah’s true attitude toward the proposed expedition. Thus adjured, Micaiah turns a flood of light on the whole situation. He commences by recounting a vision of all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Ahab’s side remark to Jehoshaphat did not stay him. He draws a vivid heaven counterpart over the earth scene. On earth, as our text tells us, the throned kings are sitting in the open space in the gates of Samaria, surrounded by a throng of courtiers, and inquiring, “Shall we go up to Ramothgilead?” Now, above this the prophet’s vision sees Jehovah and his session of angels considering what answer to the question shall heaven inspire, and the means of that inspiration. More than once I have taught my students two great lessons, both illustrated right here: First, that evil angels, including Satan himself, must at intervals attend the convocations of angels on the summons of Jehovah, and must report at Jehovah’s inquisition where they have been and what they have seen and done in regard to God’s people, and must limit their deeds to what Jehovah permits (see Job 1:6-12 ; Job 2:1-7 ).

What then do they directly, since it is by the permission of God, he does indirectly. Second, that when Pharaoh continues to harden his heart, then will Jehovah himself harden it; that when men continue to shut their eyes to the truth, then Jehovah afflicts them with judicial blindness; and when men incorrigibly prefer delusion to the truth, then Jehovah sends them a strong delusion that they may believe a lie and be damned (see 2Th 2:11 ; Isa 66:4 ).

Now, in this convocation of angels Jehovah inquires for an angelic messenger, who will delude Ahab to his ruin. A lying angel responds, “I will inspire Ahab’s prophets to answer him in a way that will destroy him,” and Jehovah tells him to go and do it. Yes, the 400 prophets were inspired, but they were inspired of Satan to say, “Go up to Ramothgilead and prosper.” Had these 400 been faithful to their prophetic office, and not subservient to Ahab’s wishes, they would not have become the dupes of Satan; they would have tried the spirits attempting to inspire them, and would have been able to discern the evil kind. Micaiah thus exposes the source of the spiritual suggestion governing Zedekiah and the 400. They were conscious that an outside spirit was telling them to say what they said, and they supposed it to be Jehovah, but Micaiah shows from whom that inspiration comes.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the length of Jehoshaphat’s reign?

2. Why in the latter part of Asa’s reign and all of Jehoshaphat’s does the author omit temporarily all scriptures that relate exclusively to Israel?

3. At the beginning of his reign, what were Jehoshaphat’s measures of defense against Israel?

4. State in order the moral measures of defense.

5. Give an account of his militia organization and Murphy’s explanation.

6. Give in order the glorious results of that measure.

7. What the meaning of 2Ch 18:1 , “he made affinity with Ahab”?

8. What, then, were the three acts of his life, condemned of Jehovah and which detract from his glory?

9. What were the results of the first act?

10. Tell how he was beguiled into the second act.

11. What condition did Jehoshaphat exact?

12. Were the 400 subservient prophets of Ahab prophets of Baal or of Jehovah?

13. Did they speak by inspiration?

14. What promise had Moses made concerning the tribes of Joseph, and how did Zedekiah act out what seemed to be a fulfilment?

15. Judging from Ahab’s hatred of Micaiah, what must have been his conception of the prophetic office?

16. Where was Micaiah when sent for?

17. What suggestion did the officer make to him while conducting him before Ahab and what does this prove?

18. What was his reply to the officer and how do you harmonize it with his first reply to Ahab?

19. When adjured to give Jehovah’s attitude toward the proposed expedition what his reply?

20. What two great truths concerning God’s supreme rule have been diligently taught by the author and what the Scripture proof and application of both to Micaiah’s revelation?

21. Who then inspired the 400 and why permitted?

22. Give dramatic setting of the earth scene and the heaven scene.

23. May men now be inspired by an evil spirit?

24. What is the condition of mind that makes one susceptible to such inspiration as evidenced in the 400?

25. What is the New Testament provision that enables a Christian to discern between an evil and a good inspiration?

VI

THE REIGN OF JEHOSHAPHAT, KING OF JUDAH (CONTINUED)

In the preceding chapter we considered the marvelous prophecy of Micaiah, the son of Imlah, explaining how the 400 prophets of Ahab were deluded. The difficulties of that partakelar paragraph are so great that many commentaries skip it altogether they do not try to expound it. Even the “Speaker’s Bible” commentary, merely gives the text but does not give a word of exposition. Even my great favorite, Hengstenberg, from whom I supposed that I could get some help, passes it with a single allusion. Now, to me, there do not appear such great difficulties.

The questions of difficulty are these: Were these 400 men really the prophets of Jehovah? They were the prophets of Jehovah in the sense that they represented the calf worship in Israel: they pretended under the calf worship to still worship Jehovah. Another difficulty is Jehovah’s permitting and even directing an evil spirit to inspire these 400 men to bring about the ruin of Ahab, a moral difficulty that is more seeming than real. It is on par with the existence of all evil in the world. A little child, for instance, asked the question: “Mama, is God greater than the devil?” “Yes.” “Then why doesn’t he kill the devil?” In other words, it is simply the inquisition into Jehovah’s permission of moral evil in the world, and his inclusive government over everything, good and bad, in which he makes the wrath of man to praise him, and overrules the evil of both men and demons.

There are some other difficulties graver to my mind in the section before us. One is, to reconcile the text of certain places in Kings with the corresponding text in Chronicles. That appears in the records of events near the end of Jehoshaphat’s reign. And a still greater difficulty is to reconcile the text of both of them with the Septuagint Version. The Septuagint Version is not inspired, and it follows its own sweet will every now and then in dealing with matters. Sometimes it makes marvelously good hints and sometimes it simply follows Jewish legends and traditions.

We are now to consider the effect of Micaiah’s exposure of Zedekiah, the leader of the 400 prophets, on Ahab and on Jehoshaphat. We have Zedekiah’s effort to break the force of Micaiah’s exposure and that prophet’s response, as follows: “Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?” i.e., “since you say that an evil spirit inspired us, and that Jehovah inspired you, I put it to the test by this blow. Which way went the spirit of Jehovah from me and to you?” In other words, “Here are 400 of us, all conscious of inspiration, knowing that we speak from some impulse outside of ourselves. You stand up there by yourself and say that a lying spirit inspired us, and that Jehovah inspired you.” To that Micaiah says, “Behold, thou shalt see on the day when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.” That means: “You wait until after the battle is over, and the army is defeated and Ahab is slain, and you are running to hide, and then you will know which one of us is speaking from Jehovah.” All this seemed to have little effect on Ahab and Jehoshaphat.

Josephus accounts for the little effect of Micaiah’s exposure on Ahab and Jehoshaphat (for we see they went right ahead into the war, both of them, notwithstanding Micaiah’s marvelous representation of the scene in heaven on this day) thus: “When Zedekiah smote Micaiah he challenged his credentials by calling for a sign: If you represent Jehovah, paralyze my hand that smote your cheek, as the prophet of God dried up the hand of Jeroboam at the altar. And if you cannot accredit what you say by a miracle of that kind, then it is because you are false and we are true.’ ” Of course, I do not know where Josephus gets his information about that, certainly not from the Bible. But it is interesting to know that this is the way this Jewish writer accounts for it, and Josephus is following the tradition of his people in thus accounting for it. What he says at least accounts for Jehoshaphat’s disregard of Micaiah. What Ahab said to Micaiah and his response are as follows: “And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son; and say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with the water of affliction, until I come in peace.” So Ahab did not believe what Micaiah said because he did not want to believe it. Micaiah made this noble response: “If thou returneth at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me.” He appeals to the old prophetic test: If a prophet shall foretell an event and it does not come to pass, then that prophet is a lying prophet, but if his word is fulfilled, then he is a true prophet.

A certain clause is wanting in the Septuagint and a conjecture is based on it in view of Mic 1:2 . This is the clause that is not in the Septuagint: “And he said, Hear, ye peoples, all of you.” That is, Micaiah appeals to both the men of Israel and to the men of Judah to listen to the text. Now, these words were not in the Septuagint, but they are in the Hebrew of both Chronicles and Kings. The conjecture based on it is exceedingly idle. Mic 1:2 uses precisely these words: “Hear, ye peoples, all of you,” and so the conjecture is that Micah the prophet, whose book we have, is the same as the Micaiah here. But Micah the prophet belongs to a much later date. It was customary for the prophets to appeal to the people to bear witness to what they said.

There seems to have been no effect on Jehoshaphat. It was at his instance that Micaiah was called in; now he had heard Micaiah, but notwithstanding what he says, he goes right on to the war with Ahab. He must have been influenced by Zedekiah’s smiting Micaiah. So Jehoshaphat leads a force of Judab into this battle, but I do not see a word anywhere that tells us just what that force was. There is certainly no summons to any of the tribes of Judah. It may be that Jehoshaphat simply took with him into the battle the guard that he had with him when he came to make this visit and in the absence of any historical notice I suppose that this is so. Ahab made a proposition to Jehoshaphat before they went into the battle. The text says this: “And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself and go into the battle, and put thou on thy robes.” Now, the Septuagint says, “put thou on my robes.” And I think the Septuagint is right. And the Septuagint in a later verse says (where these captains center on Jehoshaphat), “it seemed to them that it was the king of Israel.” Now the seeming could be only by external uniform; they would not have any other way of knowing. So, then his proposition was: “I will go into the battle disguised, and you put on my robes . . . you seem to be Ahab.”

Readers of romance will recall in Scott’s famous novel, Quentin Durward , that when the Wild Boar of Ardennes had captured the city of Ghent, and the Duke of Burgundy and Louis of France were coming to oust him, he disguised himself and had a number of men put on his garb, and also had a number of others put on the garb of the noted French knight, Dunoia, in order to make the Burgundians think that the French were fighting against them instead of with them. Readers of Shakespeare will recall that when Henry IV fought his battle with “Hotspur” Percy and Douglas, a number of men had on the armor of Henry IV, and that Douglas killed several of them, thinking he was killing the king. Now, that was Ahab’s expedient, and I think Jehoshaphat was a very simple fellow to agree to it.

There are at least two reasons why Ahab disguised himself: First, there seemed to be a lingering fear that maybe Micaiah was right, and that the result of this battle would be that Israel would be without a shepherd, and he thought to thwart that prophecy, and in disguise thought to lessen the danger. And the other reason appears immediately after, as follows: “Now, the king of Syria had commanded the two and thirty captains of his chariots, saying, Fight with neither small nor great, save only with the king of Israel.” Ahab had doubtless learned that special directions had been given to the Syrian officers to single him out. Jehoshaphat did not know it, but Ahab did. “Now, brother Jehoshaphat, my ally, put on my robe, and go into the fight; I will disguise myself.”

The king of Syria had made an improvement in his army since the last battle with Ahab. We have not had that part of the history yet because we have not considered the house of Omri particularly, and I will say this: that in the first battle in which he was defeated by Ahab, the Syrian king let the thirty-two subsidiary kings command their own forces, and kings are not necessarily good captains. Anyway, they turned tail and fled, and lost him the battle. So this time he substituted war men to command these troops. At the beginning of all wars we may notice that favorites have positions, but after they lose a few battles, and matters get desperate, the success of the war demands that only real generals be put in command. So, instead of thirty-two kings, he has thirty-two real soldiers commanding.

The result, then, to Jehoshaphat of this expedient of Ahab was that it put him in extreme danger. These thirty-two captains of the chariots turning not to the right nor to the left, struck at nobody else but Jehoshaphat, supposing him to be Ahab the king of Israel.

In 2Ch 18:31-32 of the Chronicles account, it is said that when the Syrian captains centered on Jehoshaphat, “He cried out” and they turned away. Now, on that account there are two questions: First, what was his cry and to whom; and second, what caused those captains to turn away from him? Was it an impulse from Jehovah, as 2Ch 18:31 gives it, or was it the mere fact that they perceived that the man they were after was not the king of Israel, as the next verse says? One commentator says, “When he saw them coming around him he cried out, I am not your man,” or that he cried out, “Rally around me, men of Judah.” But that was not his cry. My own answer is that he cried to God, and Jehovah’s response is recorded in 2Ch 18:31 : “But Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him.” They themselves were not conscious of that divine impulse, and they turned away because they believed that this was not the man they were after, as the next verse says. We frequently see these two forces combined: God overruling, and the natural human impulse governing at the same time.

The Vulgate, the Latin Version made in the fourth century, A.D., by Jerome, says that Jehoshaphat cried unto Jehovah. It says, “clamavit ad Dominum,” “He cried out to the Lord,” and certainly the context supports the Latin Version.

The text says that the expedient of Ahab failed to save him: “And a certain man drew his bow at a venture and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness, wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand and carry me out of the host; for I am sore wounded.”

May we attribute Ahab’s death to chance, fate, or providence? That is, to chance because the man that shot did not know he was shooting at him, but drew his bow at a venture? Or, may we attribute it to fate, as Josephus says, “Fate, the inevitable, found Ahab out without his robes”? Or, may we attribute it to providence because of Micaiah’s words in 2Ch 18:16 ; 2Ch 18:19 ? Micaiah said the result of that battle would be that Israel would be without a shepherd; and 2Ch 18:19 represents Jehovah as saying, “Who will go and entice him to Ramothgilead that he may fall?”

Now, this question probes all the philosophies of the world as to the cause of things. The Epicureans say, “Chance” that the world itself is the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms. This is also the theory of modern evolution as expounded by such radicals as Haeckel and others all design eliminated. Zeno, the stoic, says that everything happens according to fate, inexorable fate. The Bible says that with God, there is neither chance nor fate, but that providence overrules all things. So far as the archer himself is concerned he, in his simplicity, shot an arrow in the battle; we might say that it was an accident, so far as he was concerned, that he killed Ahab; but it was no accident so far as God was concerned, and it was not blind, inexorable fate; it was all according to the great purpose of God, who had foreseen it and foretold it.

There is a connection of providence with this death of Ahab, as shown by a previous prophecy, and by the history of the fulfilment of that prophecy, and there is an additional degradation which this imposes on the dead Ahab. Elijah the Tishbite, as we will show in a subsequent discussion, when he met Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard (Naboth through false testimony, having been put to death in order that Ahab might obtain possession of his property) said to Ahab, that as the dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, so would they lick up his blood at the very same place. A passage from 1 Kings gives the fulfilment: “So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria. And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood: (now the harlots washed themselves there;) according unto the word of the Lord which he spake.” That parenthetical remark is the additional degradation: “Now the harlots washed themselves there” those obscene women that worshiped Ashtaroth; that was their place of bathing. Now, in this place, in the very pool, where these women bathed, shall your blood go, and the dogs shall lick up your blood. So, there is evident connection between that and the man drawing the bow at a venture, the arrow striking Ahab between the breastplate and the lower part of his armor. The history says that his blood ran down into the chariot, and that he stayed there in the chariot until the evening, when he died, and they took him, dead, in that chariot back to Samaria, and after he was taken out of the chariot they drove it to Naboth’s vineyard, where this pool was, and the dogs came and licked up his blood, and the blood ran into the very pool in which the harlot worshipers of Ashtaroth bathed. That recalls the question, Did he die by chance, or by fate, or by providence?

Jehovah announced his displeasure at this alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab: “And Jehu the son of Hanani the Seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the Lord? for this thing wrath is upon thee from before the Lord. Nevertheless, there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast put away the Ashtaroth out of the land, and hast set thine heart to seek God.” So God disapproved that alliance.

This wrath was fulfilled. In the same connection we see that the Moabites revolted against Israel when Israel lost the battle of Ramothgilead, and counting Israel a negligible quantity in view of this defeat, they warred with Judah. A conspiracy was made between the Moabites, the Ammonites, and other tribes beyond the Ammonites, reaching into the Arabian Desert all those wild hordes of people. A confederacy was made to strike secretly at Jehoshaphat; they became an ally of the house of Israel. That is the way the wrath came.

Now, in 2Ch 20:1 we have this statement: “And it came to pass after this, that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them some of the Ammonites, came against Jehoshaphat to battle.” Now, we must account for the “and with them some of the Ammonites,” after just saying “the children of Ammon.” That is a corruption of the text. In one manuscript it reads: “The children of Moab, the children of Ammon, and others besides the Ammonites,” and in another verse of that chapter it says, “The children of Moab, the children of Ammon, and the children of Mount Sier,” which would mean the Edomites.

The story of that wrath is intensely interesting. This Ammonite confederacy, coming south of the Dead Sea where their approach would not be observed, had gained the western shore of the Dead Sea at Engedi, and before anybody knew they were at hand, they were within a few miles of Jerusalem. Whereupon Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast, got all the people to come up before Jehovah and pray, and one of the most remarkable prayers in the world is the prayer of Jehoshaphat to Jehovah to avert this wrath. He appealed to God as the ruler of the universe. He then appealed to him as the friend of Abraham (that is the first place in the Bible where Abraham is called the friend of God, though we find it in the New Testament and in Isaiah). He then appealed to God on the score of the covenant with David. He piles up the reasons. He then appealed because they had built him this Temple for his service, and this vast confederacy is formed to come and take away the place that God had given to these people in the land of Canaan. Then he adds, “When we would come into this country you would not let us smite the children of Edom and of Ammon and of Moab, and now they are manifesting their gratitude by turning on us.” It was a great gathering. One of the sons of Asaph, Jahaziel, answered for Jehovah. He says, “You will be delivered: it will not be your battle, you will not have to strike a blow. You simply stand still and see the salvation of the Lord. Do not go out like you are going to battle, but put your singers in front, and let them go singing praises to God. Go to a certain point, and you will overlook the destruction of this great host.” The destruction of the host is accounted for by an ambush that some of the Edomites, tributary to Judah, had laid. While some of the Edomites were working with the king of Moab, others of them still faithful to Judah, laid the ambush and when they attacked, the Moabites and the Ammonites thought the same ones in their army would be against them, and they killed all of them. And when they had killed the Edomites in their own army, they began killing one another. It was a regular “Kilkenny cat fight,” like an Irish wake. They turned their hands against each other until the whole army was destroyed, and Judah simply stood on the hill singing praises to God. The spoils that they gathered from the battle were immense, and when they came back they came back praising God. It was a marvelous demonstration of divine power. Psa 83 commemorates this alliance with Moab and Ammon and these other nations. The Moabite Stone furnishes a remarkable confirmation of the Scripture story. It tells of this very king of Moab, and how he revolted against Israel, and how many cities he captured from Israel.

QUESTIONS

1. What can you say of the treatment of the difficulties in the account of Micaiah and the 400 prophets by the commentaries?

2. What are the questions of difficulty here and what is the solution of each respectively?

3. How did Micaiah expose Zedekiah, the leader of the 400 prophets, and what was the effect on Ahab and Jehoshaphat?

4. How does Josephus account for the little effect on Ahab and Jehoshaphat and what do you think of his account?

5. What did Ahab say to Micaiah and what was his response?

6. What clause is wanting in the Septuagint, what conjecture is based upon it in view of Mic 1:2 and what was the reply to such conjecture?

7. What was the effect on Jehoshaphat and what force did he lead into the battle?

8. What proposition did Ahab make to Jehoshaphat before they went into battle, what light from the Septuagint and what illustrations from profane history and literature?

9. Why did Ahab disguise himself?

10. What improvement had the king of Syria made in his army since the last battle with Ahab and what the result of this in view of the expedient of Ahab?

11. Explain Jehoshaphat’s cry in 2Ch 18:31 and the result of this cry.

12. What light on this from the Vulgate?

13. How did the expedient of Ahab fail to save him?

14. May we attribute the death of Ahab to chance, fate, or providence? Discuss.

15. What was the connection of providence with the death of Ahab as shown by a previous prophecy and the fulfilment of it and what the additional degradation imposed on the dead Ahab?

16. How did Jehovah show his displeasure at this alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab?

17. In what event was this wrath fulfilled?

18. Who were the “Ammonites” of 2Ch 20:17 ? Explain.

19. Tell the story of the averted wrath of God here.

20. What psalm commemorates the alliance of Moab and Ammon with the other nations?

21. What testimony of the Moabite Stone?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1Ki 22:1 And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel.

Ver. 1. And they continued three years. ] No longer. Reconciliations are but fox-like friendships, and covenants with enemies hold not long:

“ Flamma redardescit, quae modo nulla fuit. ”

Witness the wars betwixt Charles V, emperor, and Francis I king of France, whom being his prisoner, he had dismissed, as Ahab did Benhadad, upon a covenant made at Madrid; but it lasted not many months, for the French king quickly combined with the Pope and State of Venice against the emperor, &c.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

three years. Probably reckoned from the peace of 1Ki 20:34. During this time Jehoshaphat “strengthened himself against Israel” (2Ch 17:1): not mentioned here because esoteric. See book comments for 1 Kings.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 22

So they went for three years without war between Syria and Israel. And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat who was the king of the southern tribes Judah, he came up to visit Ahab. And the king of Israel [that would be Ahab] said to his servants, Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria? So he said to Jehoshaphat, Will you go with me to battle at Ramothgilead? And Jehoshaphat said to the king, I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses are as your horses. So Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, Let’s inquire of the Lord and see if we’re to go to battle. So the king of Israel gathered his prophets together, and he said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. So Jehoshaphat said, Is there [the king from Judah said] you have any other prophet that we can ask ( 1Ki 21:26-29 ; 1Ki 22:1-7 )?

So he said there is this one guy Micaiah but that guy never gives me a decent prophecy. He’s always saying something evil. And he said, “Oh, don’t say that. Let’s call him in and see what he has to say.” In the meantime this one prophet Zedekiah made some iron horns and he put them on his head and he went running around with these iron horns on his head and he said,

Thus saith the LORD, With these shall you push the Syrians, until you have consumed them. And all the prophets said, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: the LORD is going to deliver it in the king’s hands. So the messenger who went over to get Micaiah spake unto him, said ( 1Ki 22:11-13 ),

Now look, all of the guys have given him good prophecies so come on in and say something good. Don’t lay a heavy one on him, you know.

So he said, “the prophet answered, he said,”

As the LORD lives, [I’m only going to tell him and I can only tell him what the LORD tells me to tell him. And] what the Lord says, that’s what I’m going to speak. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead or shall we forbear ( 1Ki 22:14-15 )?

And no doubt he answered him in a very sardonic, sarcastic way so that Ahab realized that the guy was, you know, just he probably said just,

Go, and prosper: for the LORD is going to deliver it into the hand of the king ( 1Ki 22:15 ).

And he said it in such a way that he knew that the guy wasn’t sincere.

And he said, How many times have I told you don’t tell me anything that is not true in the name of the LORD ( 1Ki 22:16 )?

He said, “All right. You want to know the truth.”

I saw all of Israel scattered on the hills, like sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace ( 1Ki 22:17 ).

In other words, he’s prophesying the death of Ahab, “the shepherd over the people. The people are all scattered over the hills because their shepherd has been destroyed.”

And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Didn’t I tell you that this guy gave me a bad one ( 1Ki 22:18 )?

He never says anything good.

And the prophet Micaiah went on to say, Hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and the host of heaven was standing by him on his right hand, on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he might fall, be killed at Ramothgilead? And one suggested this and another suggested another thing. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, How? And he said, [I will go forth, and be a lying spirit in his mouth and in the mouth of all.] I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And he said, That will work. Go ahead ( 1Ki 22:19-22 ).

Very interesting thing. Micaiah’s vision of heaven. “I saw the throne of God, all of the host standing around God.” God said, “How we going to get Ahab over there to Ramothgilead that he might fall there?” And the angels were suggesting different things until one spirit came up and said, “I’ve got an idea.”

“What is it?”

“Well, I’ll be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets.”

The Lord said, “That will work. Go ahead.”

Why would God commission a lying spirit? It doesn’t seem, you know, quite foil. Something that we don’t often consider is that in a sense, Satan is a servant of God. He is serving God’s purposes. That is why God has allowed him to exist. That’s why God has allowed him freedom. He is acting in the sphere of his own free will, but yet the controls are ultimately held by God. We have made a tragic mistake in our thinking processes as we think of Satan as an opposite of God. Satan is not an opposite of God.

God is an eternal, omnipotent, self-existent being, whereas Satan is a created being and is in the rank of angels. So if you’re looking for an opposite of Satan, you’d have to look at maybe Michael, one of the archangels. There you would have opposites. But in no way is he an opposite of God. No way does he rank even near God. He is existing under the total sphere of God, and though he is opposed to God, he is not an opposite of God in any sense of being an opposite to God Who is God, the eternal, omnipotent God.

Satan is definitely limited in his understanding, in his abilities, in his powers. They are limited by God. God says you can go so far, no further. Satan complained to God the fact of his limitations in the case of Job. “You put a hedge around that guy. I can’t get to him.” And he was complaining that God had put limitations on what he could do. So Satan is only allowed liberty within a limited spoke. God puts the limitations on him, but he does serve purposes of God. Thus, God can use and often does use Satan or his emissaries to fulfill God’s purposes. Here is the case where God uses a lying spirit to fulfill His purpose.

He comes and the false prophets give to Ahab these lies, encourage him to go against Ramothgilead. So Ahab then ordered the true prophet Micaiah, said, “Put him in prison until I return in peace.”

And he said, “If you return at all, then I’m not a prophet of God.”

So they headed for Ramothgilead. Jehoshaphat the king from Judah was going with Ahab. And as they were getting to Ramothgilead against the Syrians, Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, “Hey, you take my chariot and all. I’m going to put on just a common garb. I want to get into the battle.”

And so he took off his king’s robes in order that he might just really get into the battle himself. He was just sort of thirsty for a little excitement. And so he left his chariot, the king’s chariot, got in another chariot and so that he could get into the thick of the battle.

And in the meantime, the Syrian commander said to his fellows, “Now look, all we want is the king. So let’s concentrate and get hold of Ahab. And if we kill him, then, you know, the rest of the people will be so demoralized that that’s all we have to do.”

So they saw Jehoshaphat sitting in Ahab’s chariot with Ahab’s robe on. And so they figured it was Ahab so they started to pursue the one chariot until Jehoshaphat started going on the lamb, you know. And these guys were chasing him because they weren’t really concentrating on the battle, just on the one guy. That’s all they wanted. And when they finally got up to him, they realized that it wasn’t Ahab, that it was Jehoshaphat.

But, and of course, this is an interesting scripture.

A certain man drew a bow at a venture ( 1Ki 22:34 ).

In other words, he just, you know, let go, let fly an arrow in the direction of their enemy. And actually the arrow hit Ahab.

and he turned to the driver of his chariot and he said, Turn and carry me out of the battle; because I am wounded. And the battle increased that day: and the king was propped up in the chariot against the Syrians, but he died at the evening time: and the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot. And there went a proclamation throughout all of the host about the time the sun was setting, saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country. So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria. And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according to the word of the LORD which he spake. Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, all that he did, the ivory house that he had made, all of the cities which he built, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel ( 1Ki 22:34-39 ).

Interestingly enough, in the city of Megiddo, which is one of the cities that Ahab had rebuilt, actually at Megiddo there are about twenty different levels of cities that had been built over cities. It’s been the battleground of many ancient battles. And so when a city was destroyed, then they just built a new city on top. And they have dug down in one cut there, the archaeologists, and there are about twenty different civilizations or different levels of the city.

Now in the level that dates to Ahab’s time, next to the temple of Baal, the ruins of the temple of Baal that Ahab built, they found several hundred jars with the skeletons of babies that had been sacrificed by their parents to Baal worship. This is what Jezebel and Ahab had introduced to the people. And the archaeologists uncovered next to the ruins of the temple of Baal built in Megiddo by Ahab these jars with these skeletons of babies sacrificed to this god Baal. We understand from this why God wanted this horrible religious system to be utterly wiped out, because it did involve the sacrifice, the human sacrifice of their own babies unto their worship of their god.

So we come to the close of Ahab, and his son Ahaziah reigned in his place. Now Jehoshaphat and now shift gears. You remember last week we told you we had two kingdoms, the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom. So meanwhile, back in the ranch, back in the southern kingdom. Now we spent a lot of time up in the north, not because of Ahab but because of Elijah. Really he became the central character of the story. And so a lot of print is given to Ahab only because of the fact that Elijah was a prominent character during this particular period of their history.

But back in the southern kingdom where the descendants of David are on the throne,

Jehoshaphat who was the son of Asa [who was a good king for the most part] began to reign over Judah in the fourth year that Ahab was reigning in Israel ( 1Ki 22:41 ).

So they were co-regents for quite a period of time.

Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign; he reigned for twenty-five years. And he walked in all of the ways of Asa his father [who I said was a fairly good king]; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD: nevertheless the high places [for pagan worship] were not taken away; for the people offered burnt incense yet there in the high places. And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel ( 1Ki 22:42-44 ).

You remember he had come up and was invited by Ahab to go in battle against Ramothgilead. So there was an alliance between the two kings.

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, the wars and so forth, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the king of Judah ( 1Ki 22:45 ).

So we will get that story when we get into Chronicles because we do have the chronicles of the kings of Judah, though we do not have the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land. And there was then no king in Edom: but a deputy ( 1Ki 22:46-47 ).

That is, in the area south of the Dead Sea and on the far bank, there is no king, only a governor over the land.

Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken up [no doubt in the storm] at Eziongeber. And so Ahaziah the son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with your servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not. And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. Now Ahaziah who was the son of Ahab [back up in the north] began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, and he reigned for two years. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, he walked in the ways of his father Ahab, and in the ways of his mother [that wicked Jezebel]: And he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger Jehovah, the God of Israel, according to all that his father had done ( 1Ki 22:48-53 ).

May the good hand of our Lord be upon you to lead and to guide you in His way that you might walk in His love. That you might be filled with His Spirit and that you might discover what is God’s plan for your life, that which God would have for you this week. And may the Lord speak to you and may you be very sensitive so you begin to understand the voice of the Lord. That you might be led by the Spirit of God.

God bless you. May He watch over you and keep you in His love. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

The final movement in the downfall of Ahab is here chronicled. Jehoshaphat visited Ahab, who suggested the alliance against the king of Syria. Jehoshaphat suggested an appeal to Jehovah. Ahab produced certain prophets of his own. Jehoshaphat sought a true prophet of the Lord and found Micaiah, who predicted the king’s defeat. Evidently in the heart of Ahab there was a suspicion that, much as he hated him, Micaiah was right. By a mean and cowardly act he put Jehoshaphat in the conspicuous place of the battle. An arrow, however, shot at a venture, found its true mark, and Ahab was slain. Thus ended the personal career of the worst man who ever occupied the throne of the chosen people.

The last verses of this book are not in strict chronological order, for the story of Jehoshaphat is resumed in the next book. They serve, however, to give us a general view of Judah and Israel. Jehoshaphat reigned over the former. In all the main set of his government he followed in the footsteps of his father Asa, doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord. But, like his father, he failed in the completeness of his reform by allowing the high places to remain.

Following Ahab in Israel came Ahaziah, who continued in all the evil ways of his father and mother. He was by no means as strong as Ahab, but gave himself wholly to the most abominable idolatry by serving and worshiping Baal.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

a Prosperous Nation

1Ki 4:1-7; 1Ki 20:1-43; 1Ki 21:1-29; 1Ki 22:1-53

What a picture is here given of national contentment and prosperity! We can almost hear the gladsome voice of the myriad-peopled land, teeming with young life and laden with golden harvests. It was the summer of their national existence. The sacred scribe enumerates first the high officials of the court, then the daily provision of the king, his studies, and his fame. Abundant proof was yielded by all these circumstances to the manner in which God kept the pledges which had been made to David, his father.

Here is Solomon in all his glory, but as we turn from him to the lowly Carpenter of Nazareth, who had nowhere to lay His head; who found His friends among the poor; and who ultimately laid down His life a ransom for many, we realize that, even apart from His divine nature, His was the nobler ideal and the richer existence. A greater than Solomon is here. Who can measure His empire or resources? What tongue can recount His wisdom? Happy and safe are they that sit at His table, hear His words, and are joint-heirs with Him in His Kingdom! Rom 8:17.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

1Ki 22:6-8

As against Benhadad, Ahab was in the right when he sought to capture Ramoth-gilead. But he had also to reckon with God. Face to face with God, Ahab’s real position at this period of his life was that of a condemned criminal, and he therefore was not in a moral position to represent and act on behalf of the rights of Israel.

The four hundred prophets whom Ahab consulted would seem to have been prophets of Jehovah, worshipped illegally under the symbol of a calf, an order of men who had arisen in the reign of Jeroboam, who practised prophecy as a trade without any true call from God, and who at the present time were in the pay, or at least under the influence, of the court of Samaria. Ahab’s tragical fate was the immediate consequence of preferring his own will, backed up by the advice of the four hundred, to the revelations of Micaiah. His mind at this the last crisis of his sad and eventful life is seen in two respects: in his willingness to consult the prophets of the calves; in his prejudice against Micaiah. They are the two sides of a disposition towards religion which in its principle is one and the same. It is not downright, contemptuous, bitter opposition; still less is it the loyalty of faith and love. It is a willingness to welcome religion if religion will only sanction the views, projects, and passions of its patrons.

Ahab welcomed the four hundred because he knew exactly what the four hundred would say. He disobeyed a voice which he could not silence, which willingly he would not have heard. He took his own way, and his tragical end was the consequence of his doing so.

Let us learn two lessons from this story.

I. The first is a principle of Church polity: the importance of making religious teachers, if you can, independent of those whom they have to teach. The clergyman who, with a number of children depending on him, has to think from the first day of the year about the collection that will be made for him at the end of it, must be heroic if he never yields to the softening down of a truth which will be unwelcome to his paymasters or the extenuating a fault which is notoriously popular among them. It is the laity who suffer much more by a dependent clergy than the clergy themselves.

II. Notice here a lesson of religious practice. They who do not seek false teachers may yet take only so much of true teaching as falls in with their own inclinations. If God will only say what His creature approves of, His creature will be well content; but if the Gospel or the Creed, like Micaiah of old, has its warning clauses, so much the worse for Creed or Gospel when Ahab has made up his mind, come what may, to go to Ramoth-gilead. In the last contest with death, which is before every one of us, we shall know that He who spoke by Micaiah was surely right.

H. P. Liddon, Penny Pulpit, No. 598 (see also Church Sermons, vol. ii., p. 401).

References: 1Ki 22:8.-J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. ii., p. 132; Homiletic Magazine, vol. vi., p. 78; C. Girdlestone, Course of Sermons for the Year, vol. ii., p. 237; Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. i., p. 196; J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year: Sundays after Trinity, Part I., p. 428; J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 2nd series, p. 24.

1Ki 22:14

God’s truth is broader than any human statement of it, or than any systems which men, in perfect honesty of heart, may build on their conceptions of it; hence the existence of godly non conformity in every age of the world. In the region of political as well as spiritual life, the great impulses which have been the commencement of a vital expansion and progress have mostly come from men outside the established order of things, from men dissatisfied with it, and who saw something more true, more fair, in their visions, which they would not resign the hope of seeing established visibly in our world.

Micaiah, son of Imlah, is a nonconformist of the grandest type. Ahab had his regular college of prophets. Zedekiah prophesied in the name of the Lord, and was familiar, at any rate, with His Spirit as the agent of inspiration. He may have believed that he and his fellows were the recognised organs of the Divine voice, and that what they uttered had the sanction of the Divine name. The pious king of Judah did not venture to question their title to the name “prophet,” but he felt that they were blind guides, more perilous in that they were masked by a sacred name. Ahab recognised Micaiah, too, as a prophet. He does not recognise any formal official distinction between him and the rest. The difference was within and vital. To stand well with the “powers that be” was the glory of Zedekiah; to stand well with the heavenly powers, to hear the Lord’s “Well done,” was the glory of Micaiah. A supreme loyalty to truth was the essential element of Micaiah’s position, as the nonconformist prophet in Israel; and this is the one vital element in all nonconformity which has been worth anything to, or done anything in, our world.

J. Baldwin Brown, Christian’ World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 406.

References: 1Ki 22:15, 1Ki 22:16.-J. G. Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 353. 1Ki 22:20-22.-H. Melvill, 2he Golden Lectures, 1854 (Penny Pulpit, No. 2194); J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. ii., p. 200.

1Ki 22:23

This chapter gives us an insight into the meaning of that most awful and terrible word “temptation.” And yet it is a most comforting chapter, for it shows us how God is longsuffering and merciful even to the most hardened sinner; how to the last He puts before him good and evil, to choose between them, and warns him to the last of his path and the ruin to which it leads.

I. What warning could be more awful and yet more plain than that of the text? Ahab was told that he was listening to a lie. He had free choice to follow that lie or not, and he did follow it. After having put Micaiah into prison for speaking the truth to him, he went up to Ramoth-gilead; and yet he felt he was not safe. He went into the battle and disguised himself, hoping that by this means he should keep himself safe from evil. But God’s vengeance was not checked by his paltry cunning.

II. This chapter tells us not merely how Ahab was tempted, but it tells us how we are tempted in these very days. By every wilful sin that we commit we give room to the devil. By every wrong step that we take knowingly we give a handle to some evil spirit to lead us seven steps further wrong. And yet in every temptation God gives us a fair chance. He sends His prophets to us, as He sent Micaiah to Ahab, to tell us that the wages of sin is death, to set before us at every turn good and evil, that we may choose between them, and live and die according to our choice. The Bible is a prophet to us. Every man is a prophet to himself. The still small voice in a man’s heart is the voice of God within us; it is the Spirit of God striving with our spirits, whether we will hear or whether we will forbear, setting before us what is righteous, and noble, and pure, and Godlike, to see whether we will obey that voice, or whether we will obey our own selfish lusts, which tempt us to please ourselves.

C. Kingsley, Village Sermons, p. 59.

References: 1Ki 22:23.-T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 85; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 101.

1Ki 22:34

I. There is a singular analogy between the present state of knowledge and of piety; in this age literature and religion fare much alike. In the Dark Ages literature was the monopoly of the few; gross ignorance was the condition of the many. Now every one knows a little, few know much, and fewer still know profoundly. Is it not the same with piety? The tendency of modern times has been to diffuse among the many the piety which was once concentrated in the few. The public are religious as a public, but in individuals the salt has lost its savour. If any remedy is to be applied to this state of things, we must first set ourselves to inquire into its causes.

II. Is there any flaw in our ministry which may in some measure account for the low standard of personal religion prevalent among us? We fear there is. We believe that the Christian ministry having by God’s design and constitution two arms wherewith to do its work, one of these arms has become paralysed by inactivity. The office of the ministry as regards the word of God is twofold, to rouse consciences and to guide them, and for a long time past ministers have contented themselves with rousing, while they have scarcely done anything to guide, them. The sermon is thrown every Sunday into the midst of the people, very much as the arrow which found out King Ahab was darted into the host of Israel, to take its chance amid the thousand arrows which on that day were winging their flight to and fro. There is in our exercise of the ministry no systematic plan on which people are taught and brought on gradually towards “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” The Apostolical Epistles are the great model of what Christian teaching in a Christian country should be. Our Lord bids His disciples “teach” first as a preliminary to baptism, teach with a view of making disciples, and subsequently to baptism “teach” the converts so made to “observe all things, whatsoever He had commanded.” The object of the one was to arouse the conscience of the heathen; the object of the other was to direct the conscience of the Christian.

E. M. Goulburn, Thoughts on Personal Religion, p. 1.

Reference: G. Moberly, Sermons in Winchester College, 2nd series, p. 63.

1Ki 22:37-39

I. Such glimpses of Ahab’s life as we have in ver. 39 reveal him to us in a very different character from that which appears on the face of the Bible history. He would seem to have been one who encouraged arts and industry, one who did a great deal for the temporal improvement of his people, and one concerning whom a flattering historian might have said many things which would tend to raise our thoughts of him as a useful king. We have here an awful commentary on such godless lives as his. His ivory palace and the cities which he built have passed away, together with that book of chronicles which contained their history; but what has remained, and will remain for evermore, is the fearful testimony that neither before nor since was there ever any king in Israel like Ahab, who gave himself up so completely and unreservedly to work evil in the sight of the Lord. We see here a commentary upon this truth, that the question of lasting importance to each man is this: whether he has set himself with all his heart to serve the Lord, or whether he has determined to be rebellious; and that lasting praise belongs, not to him who builds cities and ivory palaces, but to him who fears the Lord and walks in His ways.

II. Let us lay this well to heart, that we too may possibly be walking in a vain show; we may possibly be judging ourselves, and may be judged by others, differently from the judgment of God. “The fashion of the world passeth away”-its cities and its ivory houses-“but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 2nd series, p. 33.

1Ki 22:48

I. Notice first the disaster to Jehoshaphat’s shipping. The eastern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Akabah, is much deeper than the western; indeed, it is a narrow, deep ravine, with steep and rocky sides, the valley of which it forms part stretching far away to the north, till where it holds in its trough the waters of the Dead Sea. Down through the mountain gorge swept the mad hurricane with resistless might, shattering the ships of Jehoshaphat to pieces, and leaving the grey morning to look upon only pitiful wreckage all along the shore.

II. Notice the cause of this disaster. It was a judgment from Heaven. The grand mistake and sin of Jehoshaphat lay in associating himself with the enemies of God. This was the signal error of his life. If he had been an openly wicked man or a mere man of the world, probably this great shipping disaster would not have occurred, but God would not allow one of His own servants to prosper in such an undertaking.

III. The lesson which the disaster teaches is this: Do not choose your associates amongst those who fear not the Lord. It is always safest to keep under Christian influences. A man is rarely better than the company he keeps. Jehoshaphat may hope to bring Ahaziah up to his own level; but Ahaziah is much more likely to bring Jehoshaphat down. The lesson of the text bears also, and with peculiar point, upon all business alliances. You will do well even to sacrifice a measure of financial interest and worldly prospect rather than be associated in business with a man who is out of all sympathy with you in religion.

J. Thain Davidson, Forewarned-Forearmed, p. 191.

References: 1Ki 22:48.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 13; T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 28. 1Ki 22-R. S. Candlish, Scripture Characters, p. 28; Parker, vol. viii., p. 59.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 22 The Death of Ahab

1. Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1Ki 22:1-12)

2. The prophet Micaiah (1Ki 22:13-28)

3. The battle and Ahabs death (1Ki 22:29-40)

4. Jehoshaphat of Judah (1Ki 22:41-50; 2 Chron. 19-20)

5. Ahaziah, King of Israel (1Ki 22:51-53)

Three years passed without war between Syria and Israel. In the third year Jehoshaphat of Judah came down to Ahab. Jehoshaphats son and heir-apparent had married Athaliah the daughter of Ahab. An unholy alliance had therefore been formed between the royal families. Jehoshaphat, who knew better, was in this very unfaithful, and though the Lord did not forsake him chastisements came upon him and his house. The prophet Jehu, son of Hanani, met him after he came back from the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and said to him: Shouldst thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD (2Ch 19:2). Ahab, under the predicted judgment of God, asked Jehoshaphat: Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-Gilead? And gladly the good King of Judah answers: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses. And Ahab in all his wicked apostasy had prophets, four hundred of them. Jehoshaphat was, no doubt, troubled in his conscience, and demanded that Ahab inquire of the LORD. The prophets he had, used no longer the name of Baal, but the name of Jehovah. And they all prophesied success. Jehoshaphat, however, was suspicious and asked for a prophet of the LORD. From this we may gather that there was something about them by which the King of Judah knew that they were not Jehovahs prophets. Ahab then sent for Micaiah the son of Imlah. Both kings occupied thrones and were clad in their robes in the entrance of the gate of Samaria. All the false prophets prophesied and one Zedekiah made horns of iron to produce a vivid impression of the coming victory. Then Micaiah appeared. The faithful prophet tells the kings what he had seen. It is a revelation he had. Jehovah permitted a lying spirit to possess Ahabs false prophets and they were prophesying lies. And Micaiah predicted the defeat of Israel. The words of Micaiah are of much importance. What happened in Ahabs day, when the Lord permitted a lying spirit to deceive and lead the wicked into ruin, will happen again at the close of this present age. God will send a strong delusion that they should believe a lie (2 Thess. 2). Unclean spirits will then be on the earth, even as they begin already and by lying words, lying miracles and signs, lead the Christ-rejecting masses into judgment.

Then the battle. Ahab disguised himself and Jehoshaphat wore his robes. It was more than cowardice in Ahab; he feared the judgment which was hovering over him and tried to avert the coming fatal stroke. Jehoshaphat was almost miraculously saved, but Ahab was miraculously killed. A soldier drew a bow at venture. That arrow was guided by a higher hand. It found the disguised King of Israel. It found the small opening in the Kings harness. A little while later the dogs were licking his blood as they washed his blood stained chariot. Thus the word of the Lord was fulfilled. Jehoshaphats full record we shall consider in Chronicles and Azariahs in the beginning of the second book of the Kings.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

am 3104-3107, bc 900-897, 1Ki 20:34

Reciprocal: 1Ki 22:2 – in the third

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Ki 22:1. They continued three years That is, three years were spent; without war between Syria and Israel Computed from the last war and league wherewith it was concluded. Both Ahab and Ben-hadad were so weakened and broken by the late wars, that they needed and desired peace to recruit themselves, and repair their former losses.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Ki 22:2. Jehoshaphat had married his son Jehoram to Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel; probably from the idea that the connection would prevent internal war for the future: oh fatal mistake!

1Ki 22:7. Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides? It was a maxim, even of the ancient pagan priests, that nothing of importance was to be undertaken without consulting the gods.

1Ki 22:17. As sheep that have not a shepherd. Cyrus and David are called shepherds. Here then is a plain inference, that Ahab should be killed, and the Israelites lose their shepherd. Ministers must still prophesy evil against the wicked: to them they are prophets of disasters. Iliad 1.

1Ki 22:38. The dogs licked his blood, as Elijah had foretold: 1Ki 21:19.

REFLECTIONS.

After the sentence of the Lord on Ahab by Elijah, we left him penetrated with the deepest appearance of true repentance, which was at least so sincere that it obtained a personal respite. But on the removal of the rod, Ahabs old habits and old company drew him back into his former sins. He neither demolished his altar, nor dismissed the order of his pensioned prophets. Hence God resolved to destroy him, and such is his way with those who spare their sins. Hence the great difficulty, the almost impossibility of converting an old and a hardened sinner.

It is always dangerous, and often fatal, for a good man to visit and associate with the wicked; more especially to contract matrimonial connections, as we shall find was now the case. Jehoshaphat was indeed courteously entertained in Samaria; but Ahabs court attempted to improve this visit to their interest, and to involve him in a war with Benhadad his old ally, for the recovery of Ramoth-gilead, a frontier town. And to human appearance there was the fairest prospect of success; for if God saved Israel with seven thousand men, how much more when the king of Israel and the king of Judah were joined. There was however a moral difference: when God first saved Samaria the Israelites had just renewed their covenant on Carmel: now they had reverted to all their former sins. The errors of those kings were productive of some good to the church, in causing to be laid more fully open the manner in which God governs the world, and reveals himself by vision to the prophets. Micaiah, supposed to be the disguised prophet who reproved Ahab for letting Benhadad go, saw in a vision the Lord sitting on a throne, and surrounded with a throng of angels. He asked who would go and persuade Ahab, that he might go up, and fall at Ramoth? A spirit, evil no doubt in his disposition, offered to go and be a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets. Conformably to this vision, the whole phalanx of those prophets, though scattered in different places, began in the most extravagant terms to augur the success of the expedition. And who could doubt, when statesmen and prophets were agreed, but that the assurances were from God.

Whenever we have serious doubts and misgivings of mind concerning any eventful step, we ought to be cautious how we act. Jehoshaphat saw something in these men he did not like, and would not be satisfied without farther intimations; for God had promised the Theocracy of Israel instruction of this superior kind. Therefore he asked for another prophet: and Ahab was obliged either to consult Micaiah, or lose the company of the king of Judah. Micaiah presently appeared; and was full proof against all secret efforts to make him temporize with his ministry. But finding that the company resolved not to hear a dissentient voice, he said, Go up and prosper, taking care that his looks and the inflections of his voice should sufficiently convey his meaning to the king. This method produced the desired effect: the king perceived his meaning, and abjured him by the living God to tell the truth. Then at once he said, that he saw all Israel scattered on the mountains as sheep without a shepherd; a most delicate declaration that the king should surely fall in the expedition. What a multitude of remarks crowd upon us from this vision. How safe are the righteous while God watches over them in an angelic council. How infatuated was Abab to follow his passions against a warning so clear: and how weak was Jehoshaphat to go without God, against his own ally. Happy that he escaped with his life.

We have now in Ahab a model of the hardness and infatuation to which a man may attain by a long course of crimes, and by a disregard of sacred truth. Hitherto he had always shown some reverence or awe when divinely reproved; but now he set revelation at defiance, and reserved the prophet in the fortress, that he might die on his safe return. He suffered the lying prophet to strike him in his presence, and meanly disguised himself in the battle, that he might elude the sentence of God. Oh how just for heaven to strike at last. How instructive is the fall of this king to audacious characters in all future ages! How sure is the long suspended blow to fall at last on the impenitent. A thousand circumstances, all trivial, all chance, all accidents in appearance, shall conspire to avenge the quarrel of heaven on those who defy the sanctifying power of Omnipotence!

Let all good men learn to shun too intimate a connection with the wicked. Good from them they cannot get; they may get harm, and harm of the most serious kind. How calamitous that Jehoshaphat, who seemed resolved to do nothing without God, should be so far misguided by seeing an obscure prophet so degraded as to doubt whether he were a prophet. The torrent was strong, and he was borne away with the stream. He became a partaker of Ahabs sins; and it was a special favour of heaven that he was not a partaker of his punishment. Happy that he returned with his life. And as the Lord did not bless him in this connection, so he did not bless him in his connection with Ahabs house in the fleet of Ezion-geber. This was driven on the rocks almost as soon as it left the port. Learn then, oh my soul, that God is sufficient to protect thee without seeking the aid of the wicked, or carnal connections in marriage.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Ki 22:1-40. Ahabs Attack on Ramoth-gilead and his Death.The death of Ahab must have taken place before or during the year 854 B.C., when the battle of Qarqara was fought, and his name is mentioned in the Assyrian inscription (p. 69). The question is, did he take part in that battle as a vassal of Biridri (Ben-hadad) before or after the war related in 20. In the latter case his death was probably later in 854 B.C. The chapter is a continuation of the latter case his 20, and from the same source with additions. Jehoshaphat, whose son married Ahabs daughter (2Ki 8:18), is present as Ahabs ally. Here, as in 1 Kings 20, 21, there is no allusion to the Baal worship. Ahabs prophets are prophets of Yahweh, and the king can muster four hundred. The rivalry is between true and false prophecy. It is not known where Ramoth-gilead (the heights of G.) actually was. It was a most important place, mentioned (1Ki 4:13) in the list of Solomons provinces, and in 2Ki 9:2; 2Ki 9:14 as the scene of the anointing of Jehu, so that it had been evidently retaken from the Syrians. The general opinion that it is the modern Es Salt has not much to recommend it, this being too far S. (1 Kings 13 ff.). Micaiah, the son of Imlah, is the one true prophet. His vision (1 Kings 19) may be compared with the scene in Job when the sons of God present themselves before Him (Job 1:6). Whether the prophets tell the truth or no, it is acknowledged that they are inspired by Yahweh (1Ki 22:24). The Chroniclers account of Micaiahs prophecy and of the battle is given in 2 Chronicles 18. There Jehoshaphats cry (1Ki 22:32) is explained (2Ch 18:31) as a prayer which God answered. Ahabs death is told in a manner creditable to him. He bore himself bravely, and was the soul of the battle. 1Ki 22:38 looks like an addition. Elijahs words in 1Ki 21:19 were not fulfilled, for Ahab was buried at Samaria. Even here, the point that the dogs were to lick up his blood where they had done that of Naboth, i.e. outside Jezreel, was not made.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

AHAB WARNED BUT DETERMINED

(vs.1-28)

Three years later the show of repentance on Ahab’s part had worn off. There had been no war between Israel and Syria, but rather than leaving matters as they were, Ahab was aiixious to regain Ramoth in Gilead from the Syrians. Jehoshaphat king of Judah was a godly king, but made the serious mistake of showing friendliness toward Ahab. He went down to visit Ahab, and Ahab told him that Ramoth belonged to Israel, but Syria had taken it (v.3). He did not say that God had allowed Syria to take Ramoth because of the wickedness of Ahab. But he asked Jehoshaphat to join him in fighting against Syria (v.4).

Jehoshaphat foolishly responded, “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses” (v.4). He committed himself without any thought of inquiring of God. Yet after this he asked Ahab to enquire as to the Word of the Lord. He evidently felt uneasy, and he had reason to.

Ahab therefore gathered his idolatrous prophets, numbering 400, and asked them if he should go up to Ramoth or not. The prophets knew that Ahab had engineered this project and they therefore all agreed that he should go through with it. This was not at all inquiring of the Lord, but inquiring from men who were pleasing to him.

Jehoshaphat saw through this vain show of the false prophets and asked Ahab if there was not just one prophet of the Lord of whom they could enquire. Ahab admitted there was one, Micaiah, the son of Imlah, but Ahab hated him because he did not prophesy with the object of pleasing Ahab, but against him. When Jehoshaphat heard this he realized that Micaiah might be a true prophet of God, and wanted to hear him.

Ahab sent a messenger to call Micaiah (v.9), as the two kings sat on thrones at the gate of Samaria. We are told also that one false prophet had made horns of iron to back up his false message that Ahab would gore the Syrians until they were destroyed (v.11). All the prophets were agreed in telling Ahab that the Lord would deliver Ramoth into Ahab’s hand. But Jehoshaphat knew that these prophets were only Ahab’s “yes men,” with no authority to speak for the Lord at all.

The messenger who called Micaiah urged him to agree with the false prophets because they were all agreed (v.13), but Micaiah told him that whatever the Lord told him to speak he would speak (v.14).

When Ahab asked Micaiah if he should go to Ramoth or not, Micaiah answered just at the false prophets did, “Go and prosper, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king” (v.15). But Ahab knew that Micaiah spoke sarcastically, and he reproved him for not telling the truth in the name of the Lord (v.16). Why did he not tell the false prophets the same? Because they spoke by the power of evil spirits and sounded convincing. Micaiah had no such power behind what he had said, and Ahab knew the difference.

Therefore Micaiah now spoke by the power of the Spirit of God, giving a message that was far from welcome to Ahab, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, These have no master. Let each return to his house in peace” (v.17). He said nothing about a battle, whether Israel or Syria would win,. but only that Israel would be left without a leader. Of course this pointed to the death of Ahab, and Ahab petulantly reminded Jehoshaphat that he had said Micaiah always prophesied evil against Ahab (v.18).

However, Micaiah had more to say, telling them, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord.” He had a message from God of vital consequence. He had seen the Lord on His throne and all the host of heaven standing by. It may seem strange that this included evil spirits, but God is in perfect control of satanic powers as well as all other powers.

God had already determined that Ahab would fall at Ramoth Gilead, and God questioned the spirits as to which of them could persuade Ahab to go to Ramoth Gilead. Some spoke in different ways as to how they could accomplish this (v.20), but one said he would go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets (vs.21-22). The Lord told him, “Go out and do so,” for this would persuade Ahab.

Thus God, who is in perfect control of every matter, had put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets, and He had declared disaster against Ahab (v.23). In this prophecy we see how God can use even those who are most opposed to Him to accomplish His own ends. One of the false prophets, Zedekiah, became bitterly angry at Micaiah and struck him on the cheek, saying haughtily, “Which way did the spirit go from me to speak to you?” (v.24).

Micaiah however did not respond angrily to this injustice, but faithfully prophesied, “Indeed you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide” (v.25). Zedekiah would certainly remember these words when this prophecy was fulfilled. He would then be convinced of his own folly, whether he would repent or not.

But Ahab gave orders that Micaiah was to be put in prison on a diet of only bread and water until Ahab returned in peace (v.27). This was gross cruelty, for Ahab had asked Micaiah to give him the word of the Lord and Micaiah had done so. But even this sentence did not intimidate Micaiah. He firmly declared, “if you ever return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me.” More than this, he appealed to every one present, “Take heed, all you people.” Why did Jehoshaphat at least not reason with Ahab against his unjust treatment of Micaiah? Because he had already compromised righteousness by his alliance with Ahab, and evil associations will always rob us of courage of faith.

In spite of such warning as Micaiah had given, Ahab was determined in his course and wanted to make every effort to defeat Micaiah’s prophecy, so in going to battle he disguised himself, yet told Jehoshaphat to wear his kingly robes (v.30)! Did Jehoshaphat not realize that Ahab wanted him to die rather than Ahab himself? The king of Syria had instructed his men to fight only with the king of Israel and with no one else. Naturally, when the soldiers saw Jehoshaphat with his kingly attire, they thought he was Ahab and came to attack him. Jehoshaphat cried out, but evidently not to Lord. The soldiers realized he was not Ahab, and left him. Thus the Lord preserved Jehoshaphat by pure grace (vs.32-33).

THE DEATH OF AHAB

(vs.34-40)

While Jehoshaphat in his kingly robes was spared from death, not so Ahab in his disguise, for a man shot an arrow from a bow at random and the arrow struck Ahab, penetrating between the joints of his armor (v.34). Certainly it was God who directed that arrow. Ahab told his chariot driver to take him out of the battle, for he was wounded. Though he was propped up in his chariot, he died at evening (v.35). Israel was left without a leader, as Micaiah had prophesied.

Then a shout was heard telling every man to return to his own city or country. The battle was over without Israel gaining its objective. The king was buried in Samaria, but the blood washed from his chariot was licked up by dogs, as Elijah had prophesied to Ahab (ch.21:19). Such was the end of the most wicked king Israel ever had. Things he did during his life are mentioned in verse 39, his building an ivory house and several cities, but he is remembered for his wickedness rather than for his accomplishments. His son Ahaziah took the throne at his death.

JEHOSHAPHAT’S REIGN IN JUDAH

(vs.41-50)

Not a great deal is said about Jehoshaphat in Kings, though more is recorded of him in 2Ch 17:1-19; 2Ch 18:1-34; 2Ch 19:1-11; 2Ch 20:1-37. He became king at 35 years of age and reigned 25 years. He followed the exaniple of his father Asa, in general doing what was right before God. However, he allowed the high places of worship to remain, where the people offered sacrifices and burned incense (v.43). These high places had an idolatrous association, so the sacrifices were not really sacrificed to the Lord. They were like the present day religious show of “every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” (2Co 10:5). Hezekiah later had the spiritual energy to remove the high places (2Ki 18:4). Yet they were brought back after this, and Josiah “defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense” (2Ki 23:8). But Jehoshaphat did not have the same godly zeal as Josiah.

Jehoshaphat failed also in his making peace with Ahab, king of Israel. Perhaps he thought he was being gracious in this friendship, but this was a mistaken view of grace, for it ignored faithfulness to God.

Verse 45 tells us that other activities of Jehoshaphat are recorded in the book of the Chronicles. But it is added that he banished from the land those morally perverted people who had remained in the land after the death of Asa (v.46). Edom had no king, being in subjection to Israel (v.47).

Jehoshaphat evidently wanted to follow Solomon in building ships to bring gold from Ophir, but the ships were wrecked at Ezion Geber. 2Ch 20:37 shows us the reason for their wreckage. Jehoshaphat had unwisely allied himself with Ahaziah the son of Ahab, who followed his father in wickedness, so God sent a prophet to Jehoshaphat to tell him that He would destroy his works. Ezion Geber means “the counsel of a man.” Jehoshaphat had sought such counsel, not the counsel of God.

Even after this Ahaziah asked Jehoshaphat to let his servants go with those of Jehoshaphat in the ships, but Jehoshaphat had learned a serious lesson, so he refused (v.49). Why should he have more ships wrecked? Yet we might ask, was he more concerned about the consequences of making wrong alliances, such as having his ships wrecked, than he was about simply honoring God by abstaining from making wrong alliances? Whether we suffer for this kind of thing of not, the fact is that God has told us. “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” and simple faith will desire obey the Word of God without questioning. But it seems Jehoshaphat was slow to learn, for he should have realized through the history of Ahab’s attempt to regain Ramoth Gilead that his friendship with Ahab was foolish. Why are we so slow to learn?

Jehoshaphat’s death is recorded in verse 50, his burial being in Jerusalem. In the main had had been a good king, and God fully approved of this, though we cannot ignore the blemishes that were found in him, but rather should deeply learn not to fail in the same sad ways that he did. Jehoram his son then took the throne of Judah.

AHAZIAH’S REIGN IN ISRAEL

(vs.51-53)

Ahaziah began to reign in Israel in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat. But he reigned only two years in Samaria, adopting the same evil course as Ahab and Jezebel who followed Jereboam the son of Nebat who made Israel sin. He worshiped and served Baal, which provoked the Lord to anger.

Thus ends the first Book of Kings, a history that confirms the fact that authority put into the hands of men ends in general failure. How true is the word of Eze 21:27, “Overthrown, Overthrown, I will make it overthrown! It shall be no longer, until He comes whose right it is, and I will give it to Him.” Every kingdom of man will have its turn in being overthrown. What a relief for the entire world when Christ who alone has the right of authority will take His great power and reign!

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

22:1 And they continued {a} three years without war between Syria and Israel.

(a) Ben-hadad the king of Syria, and Ahab made a peace which endured three years.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Yahweh’s plan to terminate Ahab 22:1-28

Another significant battle occurred between the battle of Ramoth-gilead that the writer recorded in chapter 22 (853 B.C.) and the battles he recorded in chapter 20. Ahab and his Aramean ally Ben-Hadad II (860-841 B.C.) defeated their mutual foe King Shalmaneser III of Assyria at Qarqar on the Orontes River in Aram (also in 853 B.C.). [Note: William H. Shea, "A Note on the Date of the Battle of Qarqar," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29 (1977):240-42.] Assyrian records set the date for this battle making it one of the clear benchmarks in Old Testament chronology. [Note: R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 733. See the map "The Assyrian Empire" in Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., p. 362.] The writers of Scripture did not refer to this battle, but a record of it that Shalmaneser wrote has survived and is now in the British Museum. [Note: See James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 278-79, for a translation of it.] Perhaps it was this victory that encouraged Ahab to challenge his ally at Ramoth-gilead.

King Jehoshaphat of Judah had come to Judah’s throne in 873 B.C. and had formed an alliance by marriage with Ahab (2Ch 18:1). He had undoubtedly come down from Jerusalem (topographically, and symbolically) to Samaria at Ahab’s invitation. 1Ki 22:1-2 seem to introduce the events in 1Ki 22:3-40 as they read in the text. However, several years passed between Jehoshaphat’s visit in 1Ki 22:2 and Ahab’s invitation to him in 1Ki 22:4 (cf. 2Ch 18:1-2). [Note: Morgenstern, pp. 385-96.] Evidently the three years of peace mentioned in 1Ki 22:1 followed the Battle of Aphek (1Ki 20:26-30; 873 B.C.). Ahab’s invitation to Jehoshaphat to join him in battle against the Arameans at Ramoth-gilead (1Ki 22:3-4) must have taken place in 854 or 853 B.C.

Ramoth-gilead had been one of the chief cities in Gad, east of Jezreel about 33 miles, but the Arameans had captured it. Jehoshaphat was a devotee of Yahweh. It was typical of him to inquire concerning the Lord’s will (1Ki 22:5), though Ahab could not have cared less to do so. The 400 prophets Ahab assembled may have been apostate prophets of Yahweh since Baal prophets would probably have been unacceptable to Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:6; cf. 1Ki 22:11-12; 1Ki 22:24). We should therefore interpret Jehoshaphat’s request for a prophet of Yahweh (1Ki 22:7) as a request for a faithful prophet. Ahab hated Micaiah because he always told the king the truth. Ahab wanted to feel good more than he wanted to know the truth. This is another evidence of Ahab’s continuing antagonism toward Yahweh and His representatives (cf. 1Ki 21:20).

Like Elijah, Micaiah was willing to stand alone for God (1Ki 22:14; cf. 1Ki 18:22). Micaiah had stood before Ahab many times before (1Ki 22:8). This time he told the king what he wanted to hear sarcastically (1Ki 22:15). Ahab’s reply was also sarcastic (1Ki 22:16); He had never had to tell Micaiah to speak the truth in Yahweh’s name. Micaiah’s vision of Israel was of defenseless sheep without a human shepherd, namely, Ahab. They would come home after the battle peacefully (1Ki 22:17). The king responded to this prophecy of his death glibly (1Ki 22:18). He could not have believed the Lord’s word and gone into battle. Saul had done the same thing (1 Samuel 28; 1 Samuel 31). Micaiah proceeded to explain that Ahab was the target of God’s plan. He would lure him into battle. Still Ahab remained unbelieving. God was Ahab’s real enemy, not Aram. [Note: On Micaiah’s heavenly vision in 1Ki 22:19-22, see Allen McNicol, "The Heavenly Sanctuary in Judaism: A Model for Tracing the Origin of an Apocalypse," Journal of Religious Studies 13:2 (1987):69-71.]

"Foolishly, Ahab thought Elijah and Micaiah were his enemies when, quite the contrary, they were his only links to a future worth living. Today’s readers of Scripture have the same option that was offered Ahab: they may hear and repent, or they may sulk and resent the messenger." [Note: House, p. 249. ]

Similarly, Saul regarded David as his enemy. The identity of the spirit that stood before the Lord and offered to entice Ahab (1Ki 22:21, cf. 1Ki 22:6) is problematic. This "spirit" may be the personified spirit of prophecy, or it may have been a demon or Satan. Saul also saw a spirit shortly before he died (1 Samuel 28; 1 Samuel 31).

". . . God Himself instigated and authorized the deception of Ahab, as indicated by the Lord’s initial question to the assembly (1Ki 22:20), His commission to the spirit (1Ki 22:22), and Micaiah’s willingness to prophesy a lie after he had vowed to speak only the word of the Lord (1Ki 22:14-15). If the spirit of 1Ki 22:20-23 can be identified with the divine spirit that energizes prophecy (1Ki 22:24), this thesis is further corroborated. The introduction of the truth, rather than ameliorating the deception, shows how effective it was. Even when faced with the truth, Ahab insisted on charging into battle, for the lying spirit working through the prophetic majority had convinced him he would be victorious." [Note: Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Does God Deceive?" Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):16-17.]

". . . God is truthful in that He keeps His unconditional promises to His people and fulfills His sovereign decrees and oaths. God’s commitment to truthfulness, however, does not mean that He never uses deceit as a method of judgment on sinners. But He does so without compromising His truthful character and commitment to righteousness." [Note: Ibid., p. 12.]

Another view is that Satan initiated and superintended demonic activity, which God permitted (cf. 2Sa 24:1; 1Ch 21:1; Job 1:13-22; Job 2:7; Zec 3:1; Mat 12:24; Joh 8:44). [Note: See Richard L. Mayhue, "False Prophets and the Deceiving Spirit," Master’s Seminary Journal 4:2 (Fall 1993):135-63, who evaluated six possible identifications of this spirit. See also Howard, p. 196.]

Striking on the cheek (1Ki 22:24) was a much greater insult then than it is now. Zedekiah was bluffing to the very end. Ahab proved to be hard to the point of insensibility instead of repenting at this prophetic word of judgment, as he had previously done (1Ki 22:26-27; cf. 1Ki 21:27). Time would tell that Micaiah’s words were from the Lord (1Ki 22:28).

"The comment in 1Ki 22:25-26 [about Ahab’s wickedness] certainly makes Ahab to be the worst of all twenty kings of Israel." [Note: Wiseman, p. 184.]

"The king’s function was to be immersed in the Law of the Lord and to lead his people in obedience to it (Deu 17:18-20), not to be leading them in Baal worship (1 Kings 18) or in listening to innumerable false prophets (chap. 22)." [Note: Howard, p. 195.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

ALONE AGAINST THE WORLD

1Ki 22:1-40

“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied I have heard what the prophets said, who prophesied lies in My name.”

– Jer 23:21-25

WE now come to the last scene of Ahabs troubled and eventful life. His two immense victories over the Syrians had secured for his harassed kingdom three years of peace, but at the end of that time he began to be convinced that the insecure conditions upon which he had weakly set Benhadad free would never be ratified. The town of Ramoth in Gilead, which was one of great importance as a frontier town of Israel, had, in express defiance of the covenant, been retained by the Syrians, who still refused to give it up. A favorable opportunity he thought, had now occurred to demand its cession.

This was the friendly visit of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah. It was the first time that a king of Judah had visited the capital of the kings who had revolted from the dynasty of David. It was the first acknowledged close of the old blood-feuds, and the beginning of a friendship and affinity which policy seemed to dictate. After all Ephraim and Judah were brothers, though Ephraim had vexed Judah, and Judah hated Ephraim. Jehoshaphat was rich, prosperous, successful in war. No king since Solomon had attained to anything like his greatness-the reward, it was believed, of his piety and faithfulness. Ahab, too, had proved himself a successful warrior, and the valor of Israels hosts had, with Jehovahs blessing, extricated their afflicted land from the terrible aggressions of Syria. But how could the little kingdom of Israel hope to hold out against Syria, and to keep Moab in subjection? How could the still smaller and weaker kingdom of Judah keep itself from vassalage to Egypt and from the encroachments of Philistines on the west and Moabites on the east? Could anything but ruin be imminent, if these two nations of Israel and Judah-one in land, one in blood, one in language, in tradition, and in interests-were perpetually to destroy each other with internecine strife? The kings determined to make a league with one another, and to bind it by mutual affinity. It was proposed that Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, should marry Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat.

The dates are uncertain, but it was probably in connection with the marriage contract that Jehoshaphat now paid a ceremonial visit to Ahab. The King of Israel received him with splendid entertainments to all the people. {2Ch 18:2} Ahab had already broached to his captains the subject of recovering Ramoth Gilead, and he now took occasion of the King of Judahs visit to invite his cooperation. What advantages and compensations he offered are not stated. It may have been enough to point out that, if Syria once succeeded in crushing Israel, the fate of Judah would not be long postponed. Jehoshaphat, who seems to have been too ready to yield to pressure, answered in a sort of set phrase: “I am as thou art; my people as thy people; my horses as thy horses.” {2Ki 3:7}

But it is probable that his heart misgave him. He was a truly pious king. He had swept the Asherahs out of Judah, and endeavored to train his people in the principles of righteousness and the worship of Jehovah. In joining Ahab there must have been in his conscience some unformulated murmur of the reproof which on his return to Jerusalem was addressed to him by Jehu, the son of Hanani, “Shouldst thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath upon thee from the Lord.” But at the beginning of a momentous undertaking he would not be likely to imitate the godless indifference which had led Ahab to take the most fatal steps without seeking the guidance of God. He therefore said to Ahab, “Inquire, I pray thee, of the word of the Lord today.”

Ahab could not refuse, and apparently the professional prophets of the schools had been pretty well cajoled or drilled into accordance with his wishes. A great and solemn assembly was summoned. The kings had clothed themselves in their royal robes striped with laticlaves of Tyrian purple and sat on thrones in an open space before the gate of Samaria. No less than four hundred prophets of Jehovah were summoned to prophesy before them. Ahab propounded for their decision the formal and important question, “Shall I go up to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?”

With one voice the prophets “philippised.” They answered the king according to his idols. Had the gold of Ahab or of Jezebel been at work among them? Had they been in kings houses, and succumbed to courtly influences? Or were they carried away by the interested enthusiasm of one or two of their leaders who saw their own account in the matter? Certain it is that on this occasion they became false prophets. They used their formula “Thus saith Jehovah” without authority and promised Jehovahs aid in vain. Conspicuous in his evil ardor was one of them named Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah. To illustrate and emphasize his jubilant prophecies he had made and affixed to his head a pair of iron horns; and as though to symbolize the bull of the House of Ephraim, he said to Ahab, “Thus saith Jehovah. With these shalt thou push the Assyrians until thou have consumed them.” And all the prophets prophesied so.

What could be more encouraging? Here was a patriot-king, the hero victor in great battles, bound by fresh ties of kinship and league with the pious descendant of David, meditating a just raid against a dangerous enemy to recover a frontier-fortress which was his by right; and here were four hundred prophets-not Asherah-prophets or Baal-prophets, but genuine prophets of Jehovah-unanimous, and even enthusiastic, in approving his design and promising him the victory! The Church and the world were-as they so often have been-delightfully at one.

“One with God” is the better majority. These loud-voiced majorities and unanimities are rarely to be trusted. Truth and righteousness are far more often to be found in the causes which they denounce and at which they sneer. They silence opposition, but they produce no conviction. They can torture, but they cannot refute. There is something unmistakable in the accent of sincerity, and it was lacking in the voice of these prophets on the popular side. If Ahab was deceived and even carried away by the unwonted approval of so many messengers of Jehovah, Jehoshaphat was not. These four hundred prophets who seemed superfluously sufficient to Ahab by no means satisfied the King of Judah.

“Is there not,” he asked with uneasy misgiving, “one prophet of the Lord besides, that we might inquire of him?”

One prophet of the Lord besides? Were not, then, four hundred prophets of the Lord enough? They must have felt themselves cruelly slighted when they heard the pious kings inquiry, and doubtless a murmur of disapproval arose amongst them.

And the King of Israel said, “There is yet one man.” Had Jehoshaphat been secretly thinking of Elijah? Where was Elijah? He was living, certainly, for he survived even into the reign (apparently) of Jehoram. But where was Elijah? If Jehoshaphat had thought of him, Ahab at any rate did not care to mention him. Perhaps he was inaccessible, in some lonely unknown retreat of Carmel or of Gilead. Since his fearful message to Ahab he had not been heard of; but why did he not appear at a national crisis so tremendous as this?

“There is yet one man,” said Ahab. “Micaiah, the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the Lord; but”-such was the kings most singular comment-“I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

It was a weak confession that he was aware of one man who was indisputably a true prophet of Jehovah, but whom he had purposely excluded from this gathering because he knew that his was an undaunted spirit which would not consent to shout with the many in favor of the king. Indeed, it seems probable that he was, at this moment, in prison. Jewish legend says that he had been put there because he was the prophet who had reproved Ahab for his folly in suffering Benhadad to escape with the mere breath of a general promise. Till then he had been unknown. He was not like Elijah, and might safely be suppressed. And Ahab, as was universally the case in ancient days, thought that the prophet could practically prophesy as he liked, and not merely prophesy, but bring about his own vaticinations. Hence, if a prophet said anything which he disliked, he regarded him as a personal enemy, and, if he dared, he punished him-just as Agamemnon punished Calchas.

Jehoshaphat, however, was still dissatisfied; he wanted further confirmation. “Let not the king say so,” he said. If he is a genuine prophet, the king should not hate him, or fancy that he prophesies evil out of malice prepense. Would it not be more satisfactory to hear what he might have to say?

However reluctantly, Ahab saw that he should have to send for Micaiah, and he dispatched a eunuch to hurry him to the scene with all speed.

The mention of a eunuch as the messenger is significant. Ahab had become the first polygamist among the kings of Israel, and a seraglio so large as could never be maintained without the presence of these degraded and odious officials who here first appear in the hardier annals of the Northern Kingdom.

This eunuch, however, seems to have had a kindly disposition. He was good-naturedly anxious that Micaiah should not get into trouble. He advised him, with prudential regard for his own interest, to swim with the stream. “See, now,” he said, “all the prophets with one mouth are prophesying good to the king. Pray agree with them. Do not spoil everything.”

How often has the same base advice been given! How often has it been followed! How certain is its rejection to lead to bitter animosity. One of the most difficult lessons of life is to learn to stand alone when all the prophets are prophesying falsely to please the rulers of the world. Micaiah rose superior to the eunuchs temptation. “By Jehovah,” he said, “I will speak only what He bids me speak.”

He stood before the kings, the eager multitude, the unanimous and passionate prophets; and there was deep silence when Ahab put to him the question to which the four hundred had already shouted an affirmative.

His answer was precisely the same as theirs: “Go up to Ramoth Gilead and prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king!”

Every one must have been astonished. But Ahab detected the tone of scorn which rang through the assenting words, and angrily adjured Micaiah to give a true answer in Jehovahs name. “How many times,” he cried, “shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in Jehovahs name.” The “how many times” shows how faithfully Micaiah must have fulfilled his duty of speaking messages of God to his erring king.

So adjured, Micaiah could not be silent, however much the answer might cost him, or however useless it might be.

“I saw all Israel,” he said, “scattered on the mountain like sheep without a shepherd. And Jehovah said, These have no master, let every man return to his house in peace.”

The vision seemed to hint at the death of the king, and Ahab turned triumphantly to his ally, “Did I not tell you that he would prophesy evil?”

Micaiah justified himself by a daringly anthropomorphic apologue which startles us, but would not at all have startled those who regarded everything as coming from the immediate action of God, and who could ask, “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” The prophets were self-deceived, but this would be expressed by saying that Jehovah deceived them. Pharaoh hardens his heart, and God is said to have done it.

He had seen Jehovah on His throne, he said, surrounded by the host of heaven, and asking who would entice Ahab to his fall at Ramoth Gilead. After various answers the spirit said, “I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets, and will entice him.” Then Jehovah sent him, so that they all spoke good to the king though Jehovah had spoken evil. God had sent to them all-king, people, prophets-strong delusion that they should believe a lie.

This stern reproof to all the prophets was more than their coryphaeus Zedekiah could endure. Having recourse to “the syllogism of violence” he strode up to Micaiah and smote the defenseless, isolated, hated man on the cheek, with the contemptuous question, “Which way went the spirit of the Lord from me, to speak unto thee?”

“Behold thou shalt know,” was the answer, “on the day when thou shalt flee from chamber to chamber to hide thyself.” If the hands of the prophet were bound as he came from the prison, there would have been an infinite dignity in that calm rebuke.

But as though the case was self-evident, and Micaiahs opposition to the four hundred prophets proved his guilt, Ahab sent him back to prison. “Issue orders,” he said, “to Amon, governor of the city, and Joash, the kings son, to feed him scantily on bread and water till the kings return in peace.”

“If thou return at all in peace,” said Micaiah, “Jehovah hath not spoken by me.”

It is a sign of the extreme fragmentariness of the narrative that of Micaiah and Zedekiah we hear nothing further, though the sequel respecting them must have been told in the original record. But the prophecy of Micaiah came true, and the unanimous four hundred had prophesied lies. There are times when “the Catholic Church” dwindles down to the one man and the small handful of those who speak the truth. The expedition was altogether disastrous. Ahab, perhaps knowing by spies, how bitterly the Syrians were incensed against him, told Jehoshaphat that he would disguise himself and go into the battle, but begged his ally to wear his robes as was usual with kings. Benhadad, with the implacable hatred of one who had received a benefit, was so eager to be avenged on Ahab that he had told his thirty-two captains to make his capture their special aim. Seeing a king in his robes they made a fierce onset on Jehoshaphat and surrounded his chariot. His cries for rescue showed them that he was not Ahab, and they turned away. But Ahabs disguise did not save him. A Syrian-the Jews say that it was Naaman-drew a bow with no particular aim, and the arrow smote Ahab in the place between the upper and lower armor. Feeling that the wound was deadly he ordered his charioteer to turn his hands and drive him out of the increasing roar of the melee. But he would not wholly leave the fight, and with heroic fortitude remained standing in his chariot in spite of agony. All day the blood kept flowing down into the hollow of the chariot. At evening the Syrians had to retire in defeat, but Ahab died. The news of the kings death was proclaimed at sunset by the herald, and the cry was raised which bade the host disband and return home.

They carried the kings body back to Samaria, and they buried it. They washed the bloodstained chariot in the pool outside the city, and there the dogs licked the kings blood, and the harlot-votaries of Asherah bathed in the blood-dyed waters, as Elijah had prophesied.

So ended the reign of a king who built cities and ivory palaces, and fought like a hero against the foes of his country, but who had never known how to rule his own house. He had winked at the atrocities committed in his name by his Tyrian queen, had connived at her idolatrous innovations, and put no obstacle in the way of her persecutions. The people who might have forgotten or condoned all else never forgot the stoning and spoliation of Naboth and his sons, and his death was regarded as a retribution on this crime.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary