II Chronicles 18
This chapter, from its second verse, finds its parallel in 1 Kings 22:2-35.
It opens with dangerous symptoms, recording in one sentence the event
that was to bear ill fruit, if not till “years” afterward (v. 2), of
Jehoshaphat “joining affinity with Ahab.” His son Jehoram married
Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (ch. 21:6). The
further steps by which Jehoshaphat became entangled with Ahab are
graphically described. He forms an alliance with him in the war with
Ramoth-Gilead (vs. 1-3); he urges Ahab to consult “a prophet of the
Lord” (vs. 4-12). Ahab unwillingly consents, and receives Micaiah’s
answer (vs. 13-27); and finally the chapter tells us how Ahah went up to
battle, and in battle received his mortal wound (vs. 28-34).
1 “Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honor in abundance, and joined
affinity with Ahab.” The purport of the verse is to let us into the secret that
the riches and honor in abundance of Jehoshaphat were, in fact, the snare
by which he was led to entangle himself with one who, probably only on
that account, was willing to be entangled by affinity with him (ch. 21:6;
22:2-4; II Kings 8:25-29). It is not hard to see how they would both lead him,
if not always out of big and patronizing thoughts, to seek and also lay him
open to be sought. When this verse says Jehoshaphat joined affinity, etc.,
it means that he had done so, to wit, not fewer than nine years before, in
promoting or allowing, whichever it was, the marriage of his son Jehoram
with Ahab’s and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah. For the issue of this marriage,
Ahaziah, took the throne at the age of twenty-two years, thirteen years hence
from this seventeenth year of his grandfather Jehoshaphat’s reign, the year
of Ahab’s death. But as we are told that Ahaziah was the youngest son of
Jehoram and Athaliah (for explanation of which see ch. 21:17), the
“joining affinity” must have been something earlier than nine years, and
very probably came yet nearer the prosperity of the earlier years of
Jehoshaphat’s reign, with which would agree well the keynote touched again
significantly here from our ch. 17:5. Compare II Kings 8:17, 26; and here,
ch. 21:20; 22:2 (which needs the correction of twenty-two to forty-two).
Although it is certain that the act of Jehoshaphat was wrong in principle,
disastrous in practice (ch. 19:2-3), and threatened fatal consequences to
himself (here vs. 31-32), yet it is not impossible to suppose his motives
were for the most part good, and he may naturally have thought that the
sunshine of his own peace and abundance might be the set time to win influence
On the other hand, nothing could justify Jehoshaphat risking such intimacy
of relationship with such a family, heedless of consequences, looking towards
idolatry, which he should have known were overwhelmingly probable.
Temporal Advancement and Spiritual Decline (v. 1)
Writing the biography of Jehoshaphat from a purely religious standpoint,
another conjunction than the one used might well have been employed. It
might well be written, “Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honor in
abundance, but joined affinity with Ahab.” For the latter clause affirms that
on which we can by no means congratulate the king. Yet such is the
common course of things; such is the bent of the human mind and the way
that circumstances usually take, that the simple connective “and” is perhaps
the more natural of the two. This close association deliberately entered
upon between the servant of Jehovah and the devotee of Baal is human
enough. The man who has become strong, according to all earthly
measurements, seeks to become stronger still, not considering what care he
is taking or is neglecting of his deeper and his higher interests. We look at:
wants more;” that the bank account never seems full enough to the man who
is amassing wealth, nor the rank high enough to him who is pursuing
honor, nor the authority great enough to him who is striving after power]
Men eat of earthly food and are the hungrier for their feasting. They have
“abundance of riches and honor,” but they will not be satisfied without
that fascinating alliance; they must “join affinity with Ahab.” Let no man
imagine that when he has reached a certain height of worldly advancement
he will be satisfied and will crave nothing more. He will most certainly find
that, when he reaches that desired point, he will long to stand on the height
that will be still beyond him. And the evil of it is that this thirst for more
worldly good is something which so often displaces a nobler longing, a
craving for more of goodness and of fellowship with God. It even affects
and injures the spirit to such a degree that it positively LESSENS that better
longing, until IT IS REDUCED TO ALMOST NOTHING!
alliance with the house of Ahab? A measurable, momentary gratification.
What did he lose by it? An immeasurable, permanent good. The mistake he
then made was one the effects of which stretched far, very far forwards,
and affected for evil many hundreds of households beside his own (ch. 21:4).
What do we gain by adding something more to our material prosperity —
another thousand dollars to our fortune; another honor to our titles;
another position to our acquirement? Something truly, but something
the worth of which is quite measurable; possibly very small,
as an increase to our life-happiness. But if we are neglecting our higher
interests, if we are allowing those sacred obligations to be relaxed, if we
are departing from God, what do we LOSE? Who shall estimate the value of
the favor and friendship of Jesus Christ, of the integrity of our Christian
character, of the excellency and blessedness of holy usefulness, of that
brighter and broader sphere WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OURS, if we
had not let earthly and human interests WEIGH DOWN and PRESS OUT
the higher and the heavenly ones?
gifts may be, we ought to be thereby more closely attached to Him and to
be more heartily devoted to His service. When we permit increase of
substance or added honor to lead us AWAY FROM HIM we are as guilty as
we are unwise; our sin is as sad as our folly.
2 “And after certain years he went down to Ahab to
Ahab killed sheep and oxen for him in abundance, and for the
people that he had with him, and persuaded him to go up with him
to Ramothgilead.” After certain years he went down. In lieu of the italic type
“certain” here, the English idiom, “years after,” would aptly reproduce the
facts of the case. This journey to
seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign (I Kings 22:51; compare here ch. 20:35
and II Kings 3:1). What were the precise antecedent circumstances of this visit
of Jehoshaphat to Ahab it is interesting to surmise — whether it were the fruit
of an invitation direct from Ahab, who had his own designs, or whether it were
for diplomatic reasons, that worked in the mind of Jehoshaphat as well as of
Ahab, in view of
this conference of kings. Persuaded him; i.e. he took steps to induce him. This
is the uniform signification of the word here used in the eighteen times of its
occurrence, and mostly in doubtful, or worse than doubtful, matter. The form
is the hiphel of סוּת, in which conjugation only the verb occurs. The Revised
Version renders “moved.” The visiting and cooperating of Jehoshaphat and
Ahab made a novel departure in the history of the rended kingdoms of
important city of
comes into question as one not surrendered to the
good faith, according to the promise of Benhadad (I Kings 20:34;
compare 1, 4, 7, 11, 20, 30, 33), Benhadad’s father having taken it from
Omri, father of Ahab. For “all the might that he showed,” and presumably
in conflicts with
means “the heights of
3 “And Ahab king of
thou go with me to Ramothgilead? And he answered him, I am as thou
art, and my people as thy people; and we will be with thee in the war.”
I am as thou, etc. The same unqualified kind of language was
used By Jehoshaphat on another occasion (II Kings 3:7), two years
later, when Jehoram, son of the deceased Ahab, also asked his help against
Jehoshaphat thought he was serving common interests, and the cause of his
own kingdom, as well as of
seer” ignores the supposed justification (here, ch. 19:2).
The False Steps of a Good King (vs. 1-3)
Ahab (v. 1). This refers to the marriage of Jehoram his son with Athaliah,
Ahab’s daughter (ch. 21:6), eight or nine years before. The date may be
approximately determined thus. Athaliah’s son
ascended the throne of
at the age of twenty-two (II Kings 8:26), not forty-two (here, ch. 22:2). But
Jehoram his father reigned eight years (ch. 21:5; II Kings 8:17). Hence the
fourteen years leading back to Ahaziah’s birth must have been the last
fourteen of the reign of Jehoshaphat. Since, then, Jehoshaphat reigned
twenty-five years (I Kings 22:42), Ahaziah’s birth must have happened in the
eleventh year of Jehoshaphat’s and the fifteenth of Ahab’s reign (I Kings 22:41).
But Ahab reigned twenty-two years (II Kings 16:29). Hence the interval
between Ahaziah’s birth and Ahab’s death must have been at least seven
years. The wedding, therefore, of Jehoram and Athaliah may be set down
eight or nine years prior to Jehoshaphat’s
wedding represented was the first wrong step Jehoshaphat took. It was:
o Not required by the safety of the state. The army that, with no ally but
God (ch. 14:12), had defeated Zerah’s million of soldiers, could hardly
stand in need of succor from the son of Omri. In league with
Jehovah (ch. 17:3), Jehoshaphat should have reckoned
himself dispensed from the necessity of seeking other confederate
(Romans 8:31; I John 4:4).
o Not demanded by the glory of his crown. His diadem had descended
from David; Ahab’s was of recent date. Omri had been an upstart
(I Kings 16:16); David a prince legitimate, a sovereign created by special
act of Jehovah Himself. Then he (Jehoshaphat) had “riches and honor
in abundance,” second only to those of Solomon, both of which were
tokens of Divine approbation (Psalm 112:3). Besides, he possessed a
good name (ch. 17:3), which is better than great riches (Proverbs 22:1)
or precious ointment (Ecclesiastes 7:1).
o To his own religious character, which could not be improved thereby.
“Evil communications corrupt good manners” (I Corinthians 15:33).
Few can touch pitch and not be defiled. Considering Ahab’s infamous
character (I Kings 16:29-33), Jehoshaphat should have reasoned that
the wider they stood apart the better for him (Proverbs 13:20), and
should have remembered David’s prayer (Psalm 28:3), as well as
acted on David’s resolution (Psalm 101:4).
o To his son’s piety (if that son had any), which would not likely be
increased thereby. Nothing more ruinous to a young man for both time and
eternity than an irreligious wife (Proverbs 12:4); nothing more helpful
than a woman that fears the Lord (ibid. ch. 31:11-12). Whatever
Jehoram was in youth — and his upbringing may be assumed to have been
godly — when he reached the throne he was truculent and debased, a
murderer and an idolater, both of the worst type. This appalling
deterioration the writer of the Kings and the Chronicles ascribe to
Athaliah’s influence (ch. 21:6; II Kings 8:18).
o To the best interests of his kingdom, which were not likely to be
thereby. On the contrary, these were grievously hindered.
declined till, in respect of idolatry, she stood at a level almost as low as
the 2016 Presidential Election - CY - 2016)
Ø Sinful. A daughter from the house of Omri was no fitting mate for a son of
Jehoshaphat. The offspring of a Jezebel and an Ahab a good man should
not have taken to his bosom (II Corinthians 6:14-16).
The second wrong step of
Ø Not demanded by duty. Nothing in his relations to Ahab or in the
obligations resting upon him with reference to Ahab called for his journey
perilous for a good man.
Ø Not prompted by self-interest. Jehoshaphat’s true interest lay in keeping
as far apart as possible from the house of Omri (Proverbs 4:14). Had
Ahab been a pious sovereign, Jehoshaphat might have profited by his
society; being the opposite, Ahab could not advance Jehoshaphat’s religion
Ø Not required by courtesy. Had Jehoshaphat been invited to
might have found it difficult to decline without offending his royal brother.
But Jehoshaphat traveled northwards of his own motion. Considering who
Ahab was, it would have evidenced more prudence had Jehoshaphat stayed
at home. To say the least, it was hazardous to fraternize with such a son of
Belial as the King of
Ahab (v. 3).
Ø At what time? After enjoying Ahab’s hospitality, which was sumptuous.
The pleasures of the table have a tendency to lay one open to
temptation; indulged in to excess, they lead to other sins (II Timothy
3:4; I Peter 2:11). Gluttony and drunkenness go commonly together
(Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:21; Matthew 24:49); and all
experience shows that when wine is in wit is out. Besides, it requires
courage to accept a neighbor’s hospitality — to eat his dinner and drink
his wines-and deny his request. (N.B. — Beware of dining with those
whose characters cannot be trusted!)
2. On whose persuasion? Ahab’s. The King of Israel doubtless reasoned he
had a double claim on Jehoshaphat, to whose son he had given a wife, and
to whose self he had furnished a splendid entertainment. It is dangerous for
good men to accept favors at the hands of the wicked. Jehoshaphat
should have remembered David’s prayer (Psalm 141:4).
Ø For what object? To recover Ramoth-Gilead upon the northern frontier
Joshua 21:38), and had been captured by Benhadad’s father, not in the
war with Baasha (ch. 16:4; I Kings 15:20), who was not
Ahab’s father, but in a subsequent unrecorded struggle with Omri who
was. Benhadad had promised to restore it (I Kings 20:34), but had
neglected or refused to do so. Accordingly, Ahab may have argued that his
plea for the projected campaign was good, as the monuments appear to
show he had ground for thinking the time opportune, Shalmaneser II. of
king (Sayce, ‘Fresh Light,’ etc., p. 121) Still it was not clear that this
expedition, though justified by political and military considerations, was
approved by God, and Jehoshaphat would have been excused had he
viewed with suspicion any enterprise that had Ahab for its author.
Ø In what terms? “I am as thou art,” etc. (v. 3). The magniloquence of
this utterance was probably due to the time when and the place where it
was given forth. Had Jehoshaphat not been dining with Ahab, he would
most likely have consulted Jehovah before committing himself and his
battalions in so pompous and foolhardy a fashion. Yet it may have
proceeded from a constitutional pomposity of manner with which the
southern king was afflicted (compare II Kings 3:7), as were ancient
sovereigns generally; compare the treaty of the Grand Duke of Kheta with
Meriamen, the great ruler of
traveled far since the clays when kings could send their peoples to war
without asking their opinion, simply to gratify revenge or slake ambition.
Amount civilized nations subjects cannot now be plunged into hostilities
by their rulers without their own consent.
Ø The danger of mixed marriages.
Ø The perils of the table (Proverbs 23:2, 6, 20).
Ø The slipperiness of evil paths — one sin leads to another.
Ø The propriety of wisely selecting companions (Proverbs 28:7, 19).
Ø The folly of being confederate with wicked men.
Ø The wisdom of consulting God before engaging in a doubtful
Spiritual Unwariness (vs. 2-3)
When Jehoshaphat came into contact with Ahab, he encountered a man
who was more than his match in respect of policy. Indeed, he may be said
to have fallen readily into the trap which his neighbor laid for him. Ahab
received him as his guest with ostentatious hospitality; and when
Jehoshaphat was in a grateful and perhaps elated mood, he proposed a
combination in which they were to share the risks and losses, but not to
divide the gains. To this the King of Judah unwisely consented. The
“offensive alliance” was a mistake on his part. Simple straightforwardness
needs to be flanked with some wariness or natural sagacity, otherwise it
may lead us into compromising and even ruinous situations. In the conduct
of our life, it is of very great importance that we should not show
unwise thing in forming a friendship with Ahab; intimacy with such a man
could not possibly end in his own elevation. We should not “love them that
hate the Lord” (see homily on ch. 19:2). In nothing is it more
needful to show wariness and wisdom than in the choice of our friends; a
mistake here means:
Ø bitter disappointment,
Ø unimaginable misery, and, in all likelihood,
Ø spiritual deterioration if not
Ø positive ruin.
Be slow to bind this bond of friendship, which may, indeed, be a link to
every good thing that blesses us, but which may be a fetter that chains us
to every bad thing that curses and degrades us.
Jehoshaphat suffered from the blandishments and allurements of the court
where Jezebel was queen, we do not know. Certainly he ought to have
thought twice before he exposed himself and his attendants to that serious
peril. How much of social peril can we meet and master? That is a question
which every man must answer for himself. But it is clear that a very large
number of human souls have overestimated their capacity for resistance.
The degenerating influences of a society which is not Christian, but
worldly, or vicious, are a power which we must only encounter with the
utmost circumspection. We may take counsel here of Ahab himself
(I Kings 20:11). Men go airily and easily to the contest with those social
forces, and they come out of the conflict worsted and wounded, perhaps
even unto death. Be wary here, for you stand in a “slippery place.”
to all appearance, Jehoshaphat acceded to Ahab’s proposal (v. 2). But it
was one involving:
Ø his family,
Ø his princes, and
Ø his people in GREAT HAZARDS!
appeared on their behalf, they would most likely be defeated. And what
reason had Jehoshaphat to conclude that he would have the arm of Jehovah
on his side when he was going hand-in-hand with such a man as Ahab? It
was a very doubtful procedure; and the haste with which it was agreed.
upon showed no sagacity at all. Before we adopt our neighbor’s proposal
we should weigh well all its probable and, so far as we can tell, its possible
consequences; and not those which affect ourselves only, but those also
which affect our kindred and connections. We may go “with a light heart ‘
into an enterprise that means nothing less than disaster. Before undertaking
anything of importance, there should be;
Ø careful consideration, looking at the subject from all points of
Ø consultation with the wise and good;
Ø prayer for Divine guidance. (Not necessarily in that order! – CY –
the retention of their spiritual integrity almost wholly to their good
impulses. But this is a rash and perilous course. It is, indeed, the foolish
and often fatal absence of all method. He who has the wariness which is
wisdom, will adopt and maintain carefully regulated habits of devotion and
4 “And Jehoshaphat said unto the
at the word of the LORD today.” The wording of this verse is identical with
that of the parallel (I Kings 22:5). Jehoshaphat, if even not quite conscious of it,
is throwing some sop to his conscience in essaying to become, and posing as,
the godly counselor of “the ungodly” (ch. 19:2). At any rate,
his counsel is right, even to the point of urging today, and significantly
deprecating procrastination. It is not, however, so clear that he was, in the
first instance, as decided in respect of the necessity of inquiring the will of
the Lord at the mouth of a true prophet, in distinction from a prophet
Compare the following two verses, however, which show as though he was
holding himself quite prepared and on the lookout for the expected
occasion of having to rein Ahab up!
Inquiring of the Lord (v. 4)
We are not at all surprised that Jehoshaphat did not wish to risk the chances
of a great battle without “inquiring at the word of the Lord,” For it
was with him as it should be with us:
the supreme advantage of His direction. Not, indeed, that he invariably
asked in this admirable spirit. If we may judge from the silence of
Scripture, he had hurried into this questionable partnership without any
such reverent solicitude (see preceding homily). Nevertheless, as a devout
servant of Jehovah, he was accustomed to consult the Divine will; and it
was, no doubt, a strong feeling that he must not depart from this good
habit on so great an occasion that prompted him to ask of Ahab what that
king would most willingly have dispensed with. It should be our constant
custom, our fixed habit of life, to inquire of God concerning everything we
propose to ourselves to do; and more particularly respecting the greater
events of life on which large issues hang. For who are we that we should
lean unto or upon “our own understanding”? (Proverbs 3:5) How few of
all possible considerations can we take into our mind! How impossible for
us to give the proper weight to those which are the more grave and serious.
How short a way can we look into the future, and how unable we are to
foretell what other factors, now out of sight, will come into play! How
continually our greatest sagacity must prove to be but childish simplicity
in the sight of Him who sees everything at a glance! How wise, therefore,
to form the habit of:
Ø continually inquiring of God,
Ø seeking Divine guidance at every stage and even at every step
of our human life!
wished to know, not only whether God was willing for him to go up to the
battle, but also that he would return victorious. He believed that he might
gain, not only the instruction, but the information he desired. Now, it is not
at all certain that God never gives His people intimation of coming events in
our own time; the evidence is rather the other way. But we may not look
for Divine predictions as the ordinary and regular thing. Certainty
concerning the event would probably have an unfavorable effect on the
duty and the struggle before the event. It is, on the whole, best for us not
to know what the issue will be; best for us to act as if the result were
hanging on our own fidelity. The “long result” we do know, and rejoice to
foresee: it nerves us for action; it sustains us in misfortune and temporary
defeat. But as to the immediate issue we are best left in uncertainty.
(I once saw on a marquee in
“Lord, we know the beginning and we know the end,
but it is this middle that we need your help!”
CY – 2016)
CHERISH. (Psalm 30:10; 121:1-8; Proverbs 3:6; Isaiah 58:11; Matthew 7:7-11;
Hebrews 13:6.) If we are walking in the fear of God, and are His children
reconciled to Him in Jesus Christ, then we may continually ask and
Ø His guidance at the outset, and
Ø His help all through the work we have undertaken, the duty we are
discharging, the burden we are bearing.
Reverently, intelligently, obediently, God “will be inquired of” by those
who love and serve Him.
5 “Therefore the king of
hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to
battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will
deliver it into the king’s hand.” These four hundred prophets, as Keil
justly notes, were not
prophets of Asherah, nor of Baal, but strictly of
i.e. of the images of the calf (I Kings 12:26-33). Their word speedily showed
itself not the word of the Lord, but the word that was made up to order of the
king, and to suit his known wish at any time. (Our conception of modern
yes-men! CY – 2016)
6 “But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD
besides, that we might enquire of Him? The Revised Version well arranges
the words of this verse, “Is there not here besides a prophet of the Lord?”
The conscience of Ahab successfully made a coward of him, that he took
so quietly this pronounced slight put on his kingdom s prophets
(prophetae vitulorum) by his brother-king Jehoshaphat!
7 “And the king of
by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never
prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son
of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. 8 And the king
the son of Imla.” The same is Micaiah. This true prophet of the Lord is
known only here in recorded history, but it is evident he was otherwise well
known to his generation and to Ahab. The outspokenness of Ahab and the
sustained courtesy of Jehoshaphat are alike agreeable to notice in this verse.
A Council of War: Jehoshaphat and Ahab among the Prophets (vs. 4-8)
Ø Good. Commanded by God (Proverbs 3:5-6), recommended by the
pious (Genesis 25:22; I Samuel 23:2, 4; I Chronicles 21:30),
approved by experience as indispensable for safety (Jeremiah 10:23),
and one that can seldom be neglected without loss (Zephaniah 1:6), and
even hurt (I Chronicles 10:14).
Ø New. At least in
Baal’ (Hall). As such, it probably appeared to Ahab unnecessary, as to
ungodly men generally religion and its forms mostly do; though to Ahab it
should likewise have served as a rebuke, reminding him of his apostasy
from Jehovah and inviting, him to return. “A word fitly spoken,” etc.
Ø Untimely. It should have been made not after but before the conclusion
of the treaty, and was now too late. It is not clear that God will direct
those whose minds are fixed before they consult him. (I remember
one time [circa. 1985] praying to God for guidance in something I had
already made up my mind to do. It turned out a disaster. I should have
asked God to bless my intended endeavor and not try to fake asking for
direction! Eventually, things turned out but, not before I had learned
a good lesson! CY – 1016)
Ø Insincere. Jehoshaphat’s suggestion not that of an honest man who
desired guidance from Heaven, but of one who half suspected he had
entered on a doubtful course, from which, however, he did not care to
withdraw, but for which he wished Divine permission, if not approbation.
Compare Balaam with the messengers of Balak (Numbers 22:7-8).
Ø The oracle inquired at.
o Seemingly safe. The advisers were “prophets,” whose calling was to
pronounce upon cases of conscience, and deliver authoritative utterances
concerning Heaven’s will (Exodus 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:22; Ezekiel 14:7).
The recognized media of communication between Jehovah the theocratic
King and His subjects; they were likewise four hundred in number, and
had not Solomon said, “In the multitude of counselors there is safety”?
(Proverbs 11:14; 15:22; 24:6).
o Really doubtful. “These four hundred privy councilors were prophets,
not of Jehovah, but of the calves introduced by Jeroboam, who gave
themselves out, indeed, as prophets of Jehovah worshipped under the
symbol of the calves,” but who “came forward of their own accord
WITHOUT A Divine call, and were, if not in the pay, at least in the
service of the idolatrous king” (Keil).
o Wholly misleading. Not being in the secret of Jehovah (Psalm 25:14),
Ahab’s prophets could not reveal Jehovah’s mind. Merely calling
their answer, or believing it to be, Jehovah’s would not make it so. Men
have been known to dignify as “revelations” and “visions” from God
what was purely the product of their own imaginations or the
whisperings of lying spirits.
o Perfectly useless. Since Ahab’s prophets could not tell the mind of
Jehovah, they were not the advisers Jehoshaphat wanted. Their answer
would shed no light upon the problem that perplexed him.
Ø The question proposed.
o Wrongly expressed. Instead of asking, “Shall we go to Ramoth-Gilead
to battle, or shall we forbear?” Ahab should have said, “Have we done
right in deciding to go to Ramoth-Gilead? or have we done wrong?” When
men consult God they should state the case submitted to His judgment with
accuracy. Perhaps, however, so far as Ahab was concerned, the statement
was correct enough, as it cannot be supposed the rightness or wrongness
of the contemplated expedition would much trouble him. That Jehoshaphat
did not check his royal brother looked suspicious.
o Insincerely moved. Ahab did not want to know the mind of Jehovah
upon the subject; Jehoshaphat secretly wished that mind to accord with
his own inclinations. With both the Ramoth campaign was a foregone
conclusion. Under such circumstances to have asked Jehovah at all was
hypocrisy and insult. (Such were my own actions in the situation I
mention in the first section above – CY – 2016) Compare the conduct
of the Jewish remnant who pretended to consult God through Jeremiah
Ø The answer returned.
o What the two kings wanted: “Go up to Ramoth-Gilead.” To
Jehoshaphat’s uneasy conscience this ought to have given relief,
though it did not.
o What Jehovah intended: that Ahab should at Ramoth receive his
o What the prophets invented: they derived it from their own deceived
Ø The reason given.
o A fiction, framed by the speakers to please their royal patron.
o A falsehood, since it was not the Divine purpose at this time to permit
the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead.
Ø Dictated by suspicion. The King of Judah was not satisfied with the
answer of the prophets; which was not wonderful, considering:
o Whose prophets they were — Ahab’s: “Like master like man.”
o What sort of prophets they were: “of the calves,” not “of Jehovah.”
Men usually become like the deities they worship; so do prophets.
o What inducements they had to return such an answer to Ahab’s
interrogation. Ahab being their master, by whose favor they lived,
their interest clearly was to please Ahab.
o What reason he had to suspect their deliverance — it was too like the
response he himself desired.
Ø Prompted by caution. Jehoshaphat would not act precipitately. If
possible, he would have Jehovah’s mind upon the matter. He would imitate
David, and urge Ahab to inquire at Jehovah again (I Samuel 23:4). Good
men should ponder the paths of their feet (Proverbs 4:26), remembering
that he who hasteth with his feet sinneth (Proverbs 19:2), and that the
prudent man looketh well to his going (Proverbs 14:15).
Ø Promptly given. To Jehoshaphat’s inquiry, “Is there not here a prophet
of Jehovah besides?” etc. (v. 6), Ahab responded there was one. Ahab
probably at the moment did not know where Elijah was, or was afraid of
the Tishbite. Most likely he mentioned Micaiah because he expected either
that Jehoshaphat, hearing Micaiah was in jail, would never dream of
proposing he should be called, or that Micaiah, though summoned, would
not have courage to speak in presence of two kings and four hundred
prophets. In both expectations Ahab miscalculated and outwitted himself,
as wicked men usually do.
Ø Instantly qualified. The prophet’s name was Micaiah, the son of Imlah
— conjectured, without historical foundation, to have been the disguised
prophet who had announced to Ahab his doom for permitting Benhadad to
escape (I Kings 20:38), and by the rabbis to have been either he or the
unnamed prophet mentioned earlier (ibid. vs. 13, 22, 28). That Ahab
disliked him was a point in his favor, it being a dubious commendation to
be liked by a bad man. Moreover, the ground of Ahab’s displeasure was an
additional certificate to Micaiah, though a heavy condemnation of Ahab.
Unless Micaiah had been a true prophet he would not so invariably have
spoken evil of Ahab; that he did so was unmistakable evidence that Ahab
was a bad man (Isaiah 3:11; 48:22). Then Micaiah at the moment was
in prison, which Ahab probably imagined would end the matter. But it did
not, Jehoshaphat perhaps remembering that good men were often
imprisoned unjustly (Genesis 39:20), and that Micaiah’s incarceration,
like Hanani’s (ch.16:10), might be to his credit rather than the opposite.
Ø A great wrong to Micaiah. Ahab would have sinned in hating Micaiah
even had Micaiah been an offender (Leviticus 19:17 ); much more
when Micaiah was innocent and Ahab’s anger was without a cause
(Psalm 35:19; Matthew 5:22); most of all when Micaiah was a
prophet of Jehovah (Psalm 105:15), who had only spoken the words
Jehovah put into his mouth (Jeremiah 1:7; 7:27).
Ø A greater wrong to Jehovah. Just because Micaiah’s words were not his
own so much as Jehovah’s, a reflection on Micaiah was a virtual reflection
on Jehovah. When Ahab charged Micaiah with always speaking evil
concerning him, he practically charged Jehovah with being malignant
towards him. But if Micaiah prophesied calamity for Ahab that was
conditional on Ahab’s disobedience, and would have been averted by
repentance and reformation (Ezekiel 33:14-16); if Jehovah put threatening
language into his prophet’s mouth; — this was out of love to Ahab,
to turn him from his evil ways.
despatched to fetch Micaiah from his cell. The haste may have indicated:
Ø Ahab’s sense of the importance of the question under consideration;
and certainly nothing can be of greater moment for any than to
understand WHAT THE WILL OF THE LORD IS! Only this can
be ascertained by none but renewed hearts (Romans 12:2).
More likely, however, it marked:
Ø Ahab’s sense of his own importance, which could brook no delay in
the execution of his royal commands. An earthly king’s business, even
when insignificant, is commonly supposed to require haste (I Samuel 21:8);
how much more the business of the KING OF KINGS! (John 9:4;
Romans 12:11) The haste may even have been due to:
Ø Ahab’s inward irritation with Jehoshaphat, to whom he had submitted,
possibly not with the best grace. It requires a large amount of magnanimity
to enable even good men to accept the rebukes and yield to the persuasions
Ø The propriety and wisdom of consulting God in everything (Proverbs
3:6; Philippians 4:6; James 1:5).
Ø The unlikelihood of learning God’s mind from the world’s prophets or
teachers (John 3:31).
Ø The certainty that God’s faithful servants will not be liked by their
contemporaries, and that in exact proportion to their faithfulness
(John 7:7; 15:19).
Ø The danger of playing fast and loose with conscience.
9 “And the king of
them on his throne, clothed in their robes, and they sat in a void
place at the
entering in of the gate of
prophesied before them.” The contents of this and the following two verses
narrate either what had already taken place, or the continuation of the scene
that had not come to its end, but had been interrupted in order to carry out
fully the urgent exhortation of Jehoshaphat “today,” so that Ahab sent at once
there and then a messenger for Micaiah. Anyway, the unreal prophets have
their full opportunity and their say at least twice over, as also Micaiah
below (vs. 14, 16, 18-22, 27). A void place; i.e. a level floor; Revised
Version, an open place. The Hebrew word designates often just a
“threshing-floor,” גּרֶן; but quite possibly here, a recognized court at the
gate of the city, used for judgment, is intended.
10 “And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron,
and said, Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt
until they be consumed. 11 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying,
Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into
the hand of the king.” Zedekiah (named son of Chenaanah to distinguish him
from some now unknown contemporary, or, perhaps, because the father was in
some way distinguished) was one of those who knew the truth, nor feared
to put it on his lips at the very time that his life did not incorporate it
(Deuteronomy 33:17). For other particulars of him, borrowed from the
doubtfulness of Josephus, See Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 3:1836. Had
made him horns of iron. It would seem as though Zedekiah had made
these “horns of iron” at some previous time, or, perhaps, now simulated
some very rough presentation of horns of an impromptu kind. The horns
were the symbol of power, and the iron of a power invincible.
12 “And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to him, saying,
Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent;
let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their’s, and speak thou
good. 13 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith,
that will I speak.” This verse bespeaks very clearly the rotten condition of
Church and state, prophets and king and “officers” (v. 8).
14 “And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him,
Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?
And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered
into your hand. 15 And the king said to him, How many times shall
I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name
of the LORD?” This first reply of Micaiah, given in the latter half of the
verse, does not stand for untruth or deceit, but for very thinly veiled, very
thinly disguised, very keen taunt and reproof. It has been well described as
the ironical echo of the language of the unreal prophets. Micaiah begins by
answering a fool according to his folly, i.e. according to his own heart’s
desire. He had just come from some place of imprisonment or punishment
(v. 25). And he so spoke or so looked that the king should know he had
not spoken his last word in answer to the inquiry addressed to him.
16 “Then he said, I did see all
sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no
master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace.”
The brief parable smote the very heart of Ahab (Numbers 27:17); and
Ahab felt it, like “the sentence of death” in him; in a way all different,
indeed, from that in which an apostle of many a century afterward felt it.
(II Corinthians 1:9)
17 “And the king of
he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil? 18 Again he said, Therefore
hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon His throne, and
all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left.” Ahab’s
language in this verse shows that, though he had adjured Micaiah, he did not
wish to seem to believe that he could speak anything but his own temper.
19 “And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of
may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after
this manner, and another saying after that manner.
20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said,
I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all
his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou
shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.”
Who shall entice, etc.? Hebrew piel future פָתָח. This and the
following three verses must have told, manifestly did tell, with fearful force
of faithful preaching, upon the unreal prophets and the wicked king. How it
was that their contents did not avail with Jehoshaphat to throw full energy
again into his conscience, and to enable him to break at once with Ahab
and his expedition, is inexplicable (and the more as it was his own pressing
suggestion that the true prophet should be summoned), except as another
illustration of the fearful difficulty that lies so often to human weakness, in
the way of retracing a false step. Both these visions (vs. 16, 18-22) well
illustrate how God revealed His truth, will and specific messages to His true
prophets in vision. The vision of the throne, grand in all the majesty of its
simplicity, of the psalmists ( chapters 9, 11, 45, 103), of Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-5),
of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:26), of Daniel (Daniel 7:9), of Stephen (Acts 7:56),
of John (Revelation 4:2), is part of heaven’s own stamp of authentication of
22 “Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth
of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.”
The vision culminating as regards its practical object in this
verse is Micaiah’s bold explanation of how it comes to pass that he has to
bear the brunt of Ahab’s “hate,” on account of the uniformly unfavorable
character of his answers to him, instead of four hundred other men sharing
it with him. He declares, on the authority of his rapt vision, that it is
because they are possessed by a lying spirit (Romans 1:25, 28; II Thessalonians
2:11-12). And, like the true prophet of all time, he declares it at all hazards and
at all cost.
23 “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?” Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak
unto thee? This question of Zedekiah, and Micaiah’s answer to him in the
following verse, arc both obscure and of doubtful interpretation, but their
drift not at all so. Keil and Bertheau correctly say, — in that Zedekiah used
the force and the language that he did, it is not a bad sign that he was
under a spirit’s influence, but in that it was physical force which he used in
a moral subject, this was a conclusive sign of the character of the spirit
that he was amenable to. Among many possible suggestions as to the exact
meaning of the question, “Which way,” etc.? it is possible that a skeptical
taunt best explains Zedekiah’s words, and that he meant that he did not
believe the Spirit of the Lord went any way to Micaiah. He will not yield to
a doubt or to a suspicion thrown upon it that the Spirit had been with
himself, and he will fain throw great doubt, whether he had proceeded from
him to Micaiah!
24 “And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see on that day when thou
shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.” So also, probably, this
verse would purport to tell us beforehand distinctly what is not told after the
issue of the battle and Ahab’s death, that Zedekiah and his co-prophets did
what they could, however vainly, to hide and to elude the vengeance of Jezebel
(I Kings 20:30; 22:25; II Kings 9:2).
25 “Then the king of
to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son;”
Carry him back. The last of these three words tells, of
course, its own tale, of what had already been the treatment accorded to
Micaiah. Amon the governor… Joash the king’s son. This latter person
is found only here and in the parallel, and the designation given him
probably does not intend a personal relationship to the king, but an official;
so see again ch. 28:7; and note the conjunction again of the
governor of the house, in the next clause. The Vulgate translates the
Hebrew for “the king’s,” as though it were a proper name, “Amelech.” See
also Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ under the name “Maaseiah” 17. Nor is
Amon the governor known elsewhere except in the parallel (I Kings
22:26), but these designations, as through some chinks, throw a little
scanty light into the subject of the internal administration at this time of
de-centralization seems to have been carried to a further point than in
its double place of worship and sacrifice, these largely idolatrous, and in all
this the undoubted degraded authority of its central government, this is
very explainable. It is true that in both kingdoms history speaks equally of
such offices and officers as were distinctly military or looked that way, but
it can scarcely be without a reason that for the numerous
(I Kings 16:8-10; 18:3; 20:7; 21:7-13; II Kings 1:8-17; 3:6; 10:5)
to councils of elders (well known before the disruption), and governors of
palaces, of cities, of houses, and of provinces, there is scarcely one in the
vigorous, more compact, and more direct and close in its action from
headquarters, while in both divisions of what should have been the one
kingdom, royalty was by profession constitutional, and in its devolution
26 “And 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 return in peace.”
Only the slightest differences are noticeable between this verse
and the parallel, this latter using the sign of the objective case (which in this
instance would probably lend some contemptuousness of expression), and
using the word “come” instead of return.
27 “And Micaiah said, If thou certainly return in peace, then hath not
the LORD spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, all ye people.”
The courage and fidelity of Micaiah, in not deserting either his
prophet-message or his prophet-Master, are admirable, and for his
determined appeal to all the people, which was made in the very face of
the king or kings, see again Micah 1:2.
28 “So the king of
Ramothgilead.” It must remain doubtful which of the kings carried with him
the uneasier heart. What Jehoshaphat might have gained in less element of
personal and physical fear, he by rights should have lost in sensitiveness of
29 “And the king of
myself, and I will go to the battle; but put thou on thy robes. So the
Ahab does not seem disposed to lose anything again for want
of asking, and even vouchsafing apparently (but it is exceedingly likely that
this arises from our failing to appreciate exactly the force of the Hebrew
forms in the text) to use the tone of directing, to his brother-king of the
better part and kingdom. It must be presumed that there was something to
relieve Ahab’s language of the barefaced disregard for the safety of
Jehoshaphat and regard for his own, which lie on the surface of the words
he uses. Quite possibly, for instance, both knew that Ahab was to be the
mark of the shooters. Also Ahab’s disguise may have meant a heavy price
to pay to his pride, while Jehoshaphat’s dignity was saved intact. So, too,
Ahab may have merely purported to say, “You can, without any special
risk, wear your royal apparel; but I,” etc.
Ø Artfully contrived. Apprehensive of the truth of Micaiah’s prediction,
Ahab agreed with Jehoshaphat to lay aside his royal robes and go into
battle in the garb of a common soldier, perhaps (though not so said)
concealing his well-known features behind a vizor, while he (Jehoshaphat),
who had no occasion to dread an evil issue from the campaign, should
array himself as usual in regal apparel — not in Ahab’s robes (Josephus),
but in his own. In this way Ahab may have reckoned on a double chance of
safety. On the one hand, his disguise would assist him to elude the notion
of the enemy; on the other hand, Jehoshaphat’s kingly clothing would
probably cause him to be mistaken for Ahab.
Ø Wickedly designed. In so far as Ahab’s contrivance was prompted by a
desire of self-preservation it was legitimate, though scarcely valorous, and
palpably selfish, considering that he did not suggest the like expedient to
Jehoshaphat, but rather recommended the contrary. The King of Israel’s
artifice, however, had not its origin in any praiseworthy motive. Whether
he hoped that Jehoshaphat might fall, while he escaped and seized upon the
southern kingdom (Schulz), cannot be known, and is probably “too low
and unworthy” a scheme “even for a character so bad as Ahab” (Keil); it is
certain he aimed at falsifying Micaiah’s prediction by evading his
threatened doom. This, indeed, he might have done by foregoing the
Ramoth campaign, to which he was not called by Jehovah; but to attempt
by such a flimsy or even any device to elude Divine vengeance while
defying the Divine will, was a fearful aggravation of his original offence.
Ø Completely ineffectual. “Ahab’s fate found him without his robes”
(Josephus), while Jehoshaphat, who seemed to be in the greater peril of the
two, escaped unhurt. So God commonly confounds the counsels of the
crafty, and defeats the designs of deceitful workers. (Job 5:13;
I Corinthians 3:19)
Ø The meaning of it. In commanding the captains of his chariots, thirty-two
in number (I Kings 22:31), to fight neither with small nor great,
but only with the King of Israel, the King of Syria meant that against Ahab
they should direct their principal and, as far as practicable, exclusive attack.
This they would be able to do, seeing that Ahab, according to custom,
would appear upon the field in his royal robes. That ancient monarchs
this practice appears from the monuments of
poem of Pentaur representing Ramses II. as fighting in person at the head
of his warriors and charioteers against the Khita and saying, “The diadem
of the royal snake adorned my head. It spat fire and glowing flame in the
my enemies” (Brugsch, ‘
Ø The motive of it.
o Perhaps clemency, as knowing that the shortest way to end the war
was to secure the capture or destruction of Ahab, armies commonly
being disheartened when they lose their leaders.
o More probably revenge, as never having been able to forget, and far
less forgive, the disgrace of his own capture by Ahab in a previous
campaign of his against Ahab. If it was so, it was a poor return for the
merciful consideration and mild treatment then shown to him by Ahab
(I Kings 20:30-34). But in ordinary life least kindness is often
received from those from whom one might expect the most.
Ø His imminent peril. Mistaking him for the King of Israel, the Syrian
charioteers surrounded him. This natural, and had Jehoshaphat been
smitten the blame would have been his own. He who runs into danger
unbidden need hardly expect to come out of it in safety. Moreover, just as
certainly as he who walketh with wise men shall be wise, the companion of
fools shall be destroyed (Proverbs 13:20); if he is not, the praise is due
not to himself but to God (Psalm 115:1).
Ø His sudden outcry. That this “cry” was a prayer, the Chronicler is
thought by some to indicate; this, however, is not absolutely certain. The
Chronicler says not Jehovah helped Jehoshaphat because (compare ch.19:3),
but only when he cried, and Jehovah might have helped him without being
appealed to by a formal supplication. Considering where Jehoshaphat was,
it is as likely as not that he did not address Jehovah in prayer; but
remembering who and what Jehoshaphat was, a descendant of David and a
follower of Jehovah, it is certain his “outcry” would sound in Jehovah’s
ears as an appeal for help.
Ø His mysterious rescue. Scarcely had he “cried” when the Syrian
charioteers turned aside and left him unmolested. If the “cry” was a
“prayer” Jehoshaphat must have looked upon his unexpected escape as an
answer to his supplication; if only a “shout” or signal of distress, he must
still have regarded the extraordinary behavior of the Syrians as little short
of a providential miracle — as a merciful interposition of Jehovah on his
behalf, as indeed it was. Jehovah helped Jehoshaphat; moved the
charioteers and, warriors to turn aside, not by any supernatural influence
upon them, but by so ordering the succession of events, that they
understood Jehoshaphat’s cry and recognized his features in time to let
them see he was not the object of their pursuit.
Ø Whence it flew. From the bow of an unknown warrior, most likely an
obscure common soldier, who shot either aimlessly into the ranks of the
Israelitish army, or with deliberate aim, but at no one he knew, at the first
man that came into his field of vision. Either explanation satisfies the
phraseology — “a certain man drew a bow at a venture.” That the man’s
name was Naaman (Josephus) is a groundless tradition.
Ø Whither it sped. To the person of Ahab. All events are under God’s
control. He directs the flights of arrows as of fowls, the careers of
javelins as the courses of stars, according to the counsel of His will.
Nothing happens by accident. In a world governed by infinite wisdom and
power chance is impossible. The Syrian archer drew his bow at a venture;
not so did Jehovah draw His. The Syrian sharpshooter knew not at whom
he aimed; Jehovah understood well who was his target. “Every bullet has
its billet,” not because the gunner but because God directs its path through
the air. Not a sparrow can fall to the ground without our heavenly
Father’s permission (Matthew 10:29), nor shaft can hit till He pleases.
Ø To what it led. To the death of Ahab. It smote him “between the joints
of the harness;” rather between the lower armor and the breastplate
(Revised Version), between the corselet and the tunic (Luther), between
the joints and the harness (Keil). It found the spot where the parts of
Ahab’s armor fitted least closely, and there it entered the lower region of
his body. Had it penetrated as far as did the arrow with which Jehu shot
Jehoram (II Kings 9:24), it must have proved instantaneously fatal. That
it did not seems a natural inference from the fact that he was able to
remain upon the field.
Ø The folly of attempting to outwit GOD!
Ø The certainty that no disguise can hide a wicked man from God.
Ø The impossibility of evading death when the appointed hour has
Ø The clemency of God to His erring people.
Ø The reality of God’s interference with the affairs of time.
30 “Now the king of
that were with him, saying, Fight ye not with small or great, save only with
the king of
so explicitly “commanded,” but in both cases the Hebrew text is the same
(צִוָּה). Therefore, if the place of vs. 29-30 were inverted, what reads like
the cool suggestion of Ahab in v. 29 would seem more tolerable. Meantime,
Benhadad’s command argues the intensity of his resentment towards
Ahab, and not less ungrateful forgetfulness for the ultimate consideration
that Ahab had allowed to him (I Kings 20:31-34).
31 “And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw
Jehoshaphat, that they said,
It is the king of
compassed about him to fight: but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the
LORD helped him; and God moved them to depart from him.
32 For it came to pass, that, when the captains of the chariots
perceived that it
was not the king of
from pursuing him.” Comparing this and following verse minutely with the
parallel (I Kings 22:32-33), the exact correspondence of the latter of each pair
of verses only the more clearly points the significance belonging to the two
clauses of foreign matter interposed so characteristically by the writer of
Chronicles for his own unvarying special objects, viz. the Lord helped
him; and God moved them. What the cry of Jehoshaphat was remains
uncertain; whether a cry to his own bodyguard and soldiers, or a cry to
those who were beginning “to compass him about as bees,” to let them
know at any rate that he was not the king they sought, or whether most
improbably, a cry to the Lord is meant. The cry fulfilled its purpose, and if
Jehoshaphat had a sneaking love for Ahab (see the significant “love them,”
etc., of Jehu in second verse of next chapter), he evidently had not any idea
of needlessly dying for him. The happy distinction of perceiving in next
verse, as compared with seeing in this verse, is not warranted by the
Hebrew text (in both cases כִּרְאות), though it is by the gist of the
connection and English idiom,
33 “And a certain man drew a bow at a venture, and smote the king of
chariot man, Turn thine hand, that thou mayest carry me out of the
host; for I am wounded. 34 “And the battle increased that day: howbeit
the king of
the even: and about the time of the sun going down he died.”
At a venture; Hebrew, לְתֻמּו; i.e. “in his innocence.” The
root is the familiar root expressive of uprightness, perfectness, simplicity,
and the meaning here is that the shooter was innocent of what a
distinguished deed he was doing, of the personality of the man at whom he
aimed (for it is not necessary to suppose his shot was quite at random), and
of the skill that gave the arrow to reach its ultimate destiny. Between the
joints of the harness; literally, between the joints and the harness, i.e. that
part called the breastplate. The arrow went through, or by the side of one
of the actual articulations of the armor-mail worn. Ahab’s direction to the
chariot-driver at the spur of the first wounded moment to turn and carry
him out of the host, was evidently qualified, when he found that the
wound was not immediately fatal. As the heat of the battle grew, and
victory did not at once turn one way or the other, he was the more anxious
to give the moral support of his presence to the last to his army, and,
unable to stand by himself, he was supported by his own orders (so our
rendering is not inconsistent with that in the parallel “was stayed” (I Kings
22:35) in the chariot till he died in the evening. Although the spirit of
Ahab, and his fidelity to his own army, kingdom, and self, cannot but
appear to advantage in these last incidents of his unworthy life, yet it is
probable that they find their record here for the sake of giving clear
statement to the fact, that in the chariot his life-blood collected according
to the saying of the parallel (v. 35 compared with v. 38). Note,
therefore, particularly the truncated history of the writer of Chronicles in
this instance. He, no doubt, consciously omitted, and with a purpose, his
own usual purpose; but light is lost, and the cross light tends rather to
misleading, except for that only correct user of Scripture, which teaches us
to compare one Scripture with another, and balance one part against
another — a thing easy to do in matters of fact, but too often forgotten in
the weightier matter of doctrine. Here our eighteenth chapter closes, less
the mention of the proclamation for the self-disbanding of Ahab’s army
(v. 36 of the parallel chapter) which should fulfill the prophecy of our v.16,
and less any mention of Ahab’s burial, of the washing of his chariot in
the pool of
ivory house, etc. (vs. 37-40 of the parallel chapter). All of which
omittings accord well with the one clear ecclesiastical and religious intent
of the Chronicles, in place of the pursuit of matters of general and merely
graphic historic interest, however charged with instruction they too might be.
The Second Chapter in Jehoshaphat’s Career (vs. 1-34)
This chapter opens with the statement of a fact that portends no good —
the “affinity’ which Jehoshaphat “joined with Ahab,” the King of Israel.
This came to pass in the incident of the marriage of Jehoram, son of
Jehoshaphat, with Athaliah, daughter of Ahab. Eight years, or a little more,
and it seems to bear no evil fruit; but, if so, it was only that it was taking its
time to form and ripen, and now too surely is found. Clusters of lessons in
this chapter gather round the names of:
false position in which he had involved himself and his family with Ahab
and his family.
Ø Jehoshaphat has become undoubtedly the leading man, and is
proportionately exposed to the dangers inherent in, inseparably inherent in,
being courted — courted by attentions, by flattery, by luxurious
entertainment, by being appealed to for his opinion on great questions, and
tacitly treated as arbiter in high questions of state.
Ø He must repay these, if possible, in somewhat similar coin, and must use
large language, speak after the manner of an entangling generosity (v. 3),
and, before he knows what he means, commit himself to something
dangerously near a promise.
Ø After this promise, instead of before it, he admonishes the man who is in
tact a rival king to inquire “the word of the Lord,” and has to wince under
the notorious humiliation of listening to the report of four hundred men,
well known for false prophets!
Ø He has to save, if not his credit, the bare necessities of the truth, by
asking for a true prophet, “a prophet of the Lord,” without, as it would
appear, one word of blank and flat denunciation of Ahab’s troop of
prophets, and with only the mildest deprecation (v. 7) of Ahab’s
unqualified assertion that he “hates” the true man, and with utter ignoring
and neglect of the favorable opportunity of asking how it may be
supposed to have come to pass that the true man “never has prophesied
good, but always evil unto” Ahab. Yes, but the inconvenience was that he
was a guest in his house, and a guest sumptuously entertained and most
Ø He has a long sitting’s humiliation, when, clothed in his royal robes, he
sat, throne by throne, with Ahab, to see “the prophet of the Lord,”
Micaiah; to hear his parables, every word of which he knew to be truth; to
witness the horror of that true prophet being “smitten on the cheek” of the
false, and the royal honor of the Lord God proportionately disparaged; to
observe the meek forbearance of Micaiah in his reply; and, to crown all, his
sentence and relegation to a bread-and-water imprisonment by Ahab. It
ought to have been a long day of torture for the king of the true line of
Ø Lastly, though it is impossible to doubt that he was in possession of the
true state of the whole case, Jehoshaphat has to go on to the end. He does
the thing that is wrong (ch. 19:2); he seems, at last, to be obeying Ahab
rather than to lead him-going into battle and, at his suggestion, clothed for
a target for the archers — till the undignified cry to be spared is wrung
from his lips, because he would have it known he is Jehoshaphat, and not
Ahab! All this was dangerously close steering for the conscience; it brought
upon him the distinct reproof and very forcibly expressed condemnation of
the seer Hanani, so soon as ever he reached
occasioned by his being dragged on, step by step, in a wrong course from
the position, originally a false one, in which he had placed himself.
man using up to the best advantage the last of his wits, which he had of
long time trusted to his disadvantage, which long time had led him wrong,
and were now rapidly going to lead him to the fatal end. We notice:
Ø How he prepared the way by lavish entertainment of the King of Judah
and his retinue, in order to utilize the opportunity to persuade him,
apparently, to pass his word “to go up to Ramoth-Gilead,” but certainly to
pass an opinion favorable to doing so.
Ø How immediately he acceded to the proposal of Jehoshaphat that the
Lord should be inquired of, but as immediately repaired to and summoned
“his” own “prophets” (v. 21).
Ø How the force of circumstances extracted from him a faithful statement
of the true state of his feelings towards the true prophet (v. 7).
Ø How the “officer,” or “messenger,” sent to bring Micaiah quickly, did
his endeavor, no doubt at the instigation of Ahab, to pervert (vs. 12-13)
the testimony which Micaiah should give, but vainly.
Ø How certainly he detected the consequent sarcasm, the veiled
compliance of Micaiah (vs. 14-15), and the rather drew out more fully all
the thing as it was from Micaiah, but as he did not want to have it, or to
have it uttered!
Ø How the wicked action of one of his false prophets suited him exactly
(vs. 23-25), and bridged the way both to satisfy his own resentment and
to put a fair face on the position in the presence of Jehoshaphat. He was,
perhaps, trembling all the while lest Jehoshaphat, hearing and seeing all,
should have summoned up the moral courage to have done just the thing
which he ought to have done, and withdrawn altogether from the
enterprise, or from all association with Ahab in it!
Ø Lastly, how Ahab entered the battlefield, ill at ease, dishonoring
himself by disguising himself, and with too sure a presage of what was in
store for him; and the prophecy of Elijah found its fulfillment (I Kings
who seek to please man; who would divine, a task only too easy, what man
wishes them to say. In this case they are emphatically called, on the highest
authority (vs. 21-22), Ahab’s prophets, not those of the Lord.
Unfaithfulness in the professed teaching of religion never does anything
better than lets through those who accept it. The anger and
intemperateness of that one of the false prophets who had been most
demonstrative, most dramatic (vs. 10, 23), are much to be noticed —
noticed as marking, as measuring the personal feeling and, in a word, the
very temper which should be most utterly absent from the true messenger
of God, of His truth, and His will.
FIGURE OF THE TRUE PROPHET. He was already, it appears, a
marked man, and, had it been possible, marked down by King Ahab. We
Ø When all pressure was put on him, and he knew very well what it meant,
that he asserted the inviolability of his duty — absolute fidelity to his
Ø We must notice the deep knowledge imparted to him of human nature;
how to touch it at its root; how to gain effectively its ear under the most
favorable circumstances; how, in the presence of such, even to enlarge its
own opportunity for exposition of the truth (vs. 14. 22). The parable, as
we may call it, of the sheep on the mountains without a shepherd, and the
vision of the council of heaven, or in heaven, which had been vouchsafed
to Micaiah, — what tales they tell to all those who now are listening to
him! One against not fewer than four hundred and two! The plainness, the
point, the forcibleness, and the fearlessness of his utterance are all the
perfection of the true prophet. For us, too, this passage most instructively
illustrates the method, or one of the methods, by which prophet and seer of
old saw and then announced the real revelations of heaven to earth.
Ø But the perfection of the true prophet is yet more intrinsically present in
the forbearing, the patient suffering, the not returning railing for
railing, “the fellowship of sufferings” with the One Prophet; as Micaiah was
“smitten on the cheek,” as he was “thrust into prison,” as he was “fed with
the bread and water of affliction,” as he uttered no provoking word nor
murmured, because of the consequences to himself, of his faithful ministry.
The day that was fateful and fatal to the wicked king Ahab, who now filled
up the measure of his iniquity; that was dismay, confusion, exposure, to
four hundred false prophets; that, alas! tarnished even the history and
character of Jehoshaphat — was the day in which the blameless Micaiah
“shone forth as the sun in the firmament of heaven.” (Daniel 12:3;
Speaking for God (vs. 6-27)
We may take Micaiah as the type of the true prophet, i.e. of the man who
speaks for God; he is not merely the man who has a vision of the future —
that is the smaller part of his function; he is the one who is charged with a
Divine message, and who faithfully delivers it, however it may be received.
Thus regarding him, we learn that the spokesman for God must be:
men” on one side (v. 5), and only one on the other; or see I Kings 18:19.
The prophet of the Lord may be in a most honorable but most
decisive minority, but he must not consider that. “Truth cannot be put to
the vote” and carried by a majority. Many a time it has been
overwhelmingly outnumbered, and yet ULTIMATELY TRIUMPHANT!
We must not count heads when we undertake to speak for THE ETERNAL!
“A man with truth on his side can never be in a smaller minority than
Almighty God and himself.”
that summoned Micaiah and attended him to the king seems to have
employed his opportunity in trying to persuade the prophet to give a
pleasant and courtly answer (v. 12). He did not succeed. Many times
have men sought to tamper with the ministers of the truth; sometimes they
have succeeded. But when they have done so, there has been a lamentable
failure. “We seek not yours, but you” (II Corinthians 12:14), “If I pleased
men I should not be the servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). These are the
sentiments and this is the spirit of the true prophet. No human whisper in the
ear as he goes before his audience will make him change one word or tone
in the message he delivers FROM HIS MASTER!
Ahab to “hate” him (v. 7); and once again he drew upon him the
king’s resentment. There were two kings now present, arrayed in royal
apparel and seated on thrones (v. 9); there was much in the position to
constrain a deliverance that would answer to their known wishes; but
Micaiah was unmoved by fear. He acted as honorably and as heroically as
if he had witnessed the example and heard the exhortation of the Lord
himself (Luke 12:4-5 – Have you ever considered Him who has the
“power to cast into hell?” - CY - 2016). To be condemned of man is a
small thing when we are commended and honored of God. We can afford
to incur the hatred even of kings when we rest in the loving favor of our
in a spirit that showed no shade of submission or withdrawal (v. 23); and
when the vexed and passionate king ordered him to be imprisoned and fed
with the bread and water of affliction, he still manifested a fearless spirit,
totally unmoved by the ill usage he was receiving (v. 27). The minister of
Christ, who is (or should be) the successor of the Hebrew prophet, will not
use the language or cherish the spirit of retaliation, but he will be utterly
undisturbed in his aim and in his purpose by any unjust or unkind treatment
he may receive. Nothing of this kind will move him from his resolve, will
turn him from his high and noble task. Acting under the inspiration of God,
and conscious that he is “partaking of the afflictions of Christ” (I Peter 4:13),
the “bread and water of affliction” will be sweet to his taste. In that day he
will“rejoice and be exceeding glad” (Matthew 5:10-12).
God saith, that will I speak” (v. 13). So spoke the faithful witness. One
greater far than he described Himself as “a Man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God” (John 8:40). What has God said to us that
we can tell our brethren? What do we learn of Christ and in His service?
What do we read in HIS WORD by a careful, reverent, and intelligent study
of it? What sacred lessons have we gleaned, as His holy providence has led
and His Divine discipline has taught and trained us? This, nothing else and
nothing less, will we carry to the minds of men:
Ø to redeem them from sin,
Ø to succor them in sorrow,
Ø to prepare them for the burden and battle of life,
Ø to make them ready for the time of judgment and
Ø the long day of ETERNITY.
Micaiah, the Son of Imla — an Old Testament Hero (vs. 9-27)
Jehovah’s message under circumstances that might and probably would
have intimidated him had he not been a hero.
Ø Before two kings to whom that message was unacceptable. The scene
was calculated to steal away Micaiah’s fortitude, could anything have done
so. In an open space or threshing-floor, at the entering in of the gate of
throne. Immediately encircling them were the four hundred prophets; while
each, king was attended by his army (Josephus ‘Ant’ 8:15. 3.) Ordinarily,
“there is such a divinty doth hedge a king,” that Micaiah might have been
excused had he trembled when ushered into the presence of two such royal
personages, decked out with the trappings of lofty station, waited on by
bowing courtiers, and escorted by battalions of warriors; much more when
one of them was Ahab, whose displeaure he had already felt, and the might
of whose arm he had lately experienced; most of all when he knew or
suspected that his words could not be acceptable to the kingly auditors on
whose ears they were about to fall. Yet Micaiah flinched not. Composed as
if he stood before peasants, he told out the message Jehovah put into his
lips. Compare the attitudes of:
o Hanani before Asa (ch. 16:7),
o Elijah before Ahab (I Kings 18:18; 21:20),
o Daniel before Belshazzar (Daniel 5:13),
o John the Baptist before Herod (Matthew 14:4),
o Paul before Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24:25; 26:28),
o Polycarp before Antoninus,
before the Diet of
o John Knox before the court of Mary.
Ø In the presence of four hundred false prophets whom that message
opposed. Had numbers been a test of truth, then was Micaiah wrong, since
he stood alone against the united body of the Israelitish prophets. Their
answer to Ahab’s question was unanimous. Without one dissenting voice
they had assured him Jehovah would reward his efforts with victory.
would be delivered into his hand, and the power of
crushed. Zedekiah, one of these prophets, playing the clown on the
occasion, putting iron horns on his head and butting like an ox, added,
saith the Lord, With these
horns thou shalt push
consumed;” while all his brother-prophets, applauding his performance,
urged the king to “go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper.” Micaiah,
however, knew that all that was false, and in spite of appearing singular,
non-complaisant, obstinate, perverse, would not cry, “Amen!” would not
shape his words either to please the king or accord with the fashion of the
hour. It mattered nothing to Micaiah that he stood alone — his feet were
planted on the rock of truth; or that men might regard him as “odd,”
“punctilious,” “over-scrupulous,” provided he was right. Compare Elijah
the four hundred prophets of the grove (I Kings 18:19).
Ø Though he knew that message would not improve his own prospects. On
the way from prison to the king’s presence he had obtained a hint from his
conductor what kind of “oracle” would best suit — would most gratify the
king and recompense himself. All the state-prophets had observed in what
quarter the wind blew, and had prophesied accordingly. They discerned what
their royal master wanted, and why should they who ate his bread decline
to gratify his whims? With one consent had they declared “good” to Ahab.
If he, Micaiah, consulted for “good” to himself he would act upon that
hint; taking his cue from the “prophets,” he would let his word be as theirs.
But Micaiah was too honest to play the knave. Micaiah understood not the
art of studying self. Micaiah knew his duty was to speak the word given
him by God, without regarding consequences to any, least of all to himself.
And he did it!
Ø A seeming permission. Micaiah answered Ahab in the words of the false
prophets (v. 14), in, irony (Keil, Bertheau), or in reproof of Ahab’s
hypocrisy (Bahr). Either Micaiah meant the opposite of what he said —
that the advice Ahab had received was worthless; or he intended to be
understood as declining to give other oracle than that already spoken by
the prophets, which was the one Ahab wanted. But in any case Ahab
suspected Micaiah’s sincerity.
Ø Symbolic warning. Adjured to speak the truth, he related to the king a
had seen — “all
without a shepherd;” and a voice he had heard — “These have no master;
let them return every man to his house in peace.” Whether the words of
Moses (Numbers 27:17) were in Micaiah’s mind when he described his
vision or not, the import of the vision and the voice was as patent to Ahab
as to him:
o Ahab was to fall at Ramoth-Gilead;
o the campaign to end in failure and shame.
Ø A serious explanation. Accused by Ahab of speaking from a spirit of
malignant hatred towards him, Micaiah depicted another vision, which let
the king see the real deceivers were his own prophets, not he, Micaiah. The
vision, most likely received some time before and not then only for the first
time, consisted of a dramatic representation of the Divine government, in
which were set forth the following truths:
o That God can work by means of secondary agents. The prophet saw
Jehovah, as Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1) afterwards beheld Him, seated upon His
throne, with all the host of heaven, standing on His right hand and on
His left. The host of heaven was the innumerable company of angels
of which David sang (Psalm 68:17), two battalions of which met Jacob
at Mahanaim (Genesis 32:2), and many regiments of which protected
and his servant at
“host” indicated their number and order; their position, “on His right
hand and on His left,” marked their submission and readiness to
execute Jehovah’s will (Psalm 103:20-21).
o That agencies of evil are equally with those of good are under the
Divine control. Though God is not and cannot be the author of sin,
He may yet, through the wicked actions of His creatures, accomplish
His designs. His purpose was that Ahab should fall at Ramoth-Gilead;
he effected that purpose by suffering Ahab to be misled by his false
prophets, and these to be deceived by a lying spirit. Neither could the
prophets have spoken to Ahab, nor the lying spirit whispered to the
prophets, without the Divine permission. This truth Micaiah
dramatically portrayed by representing Jehovah as taking counsel
angels, and asking, “Who shall entice Ahab King of
that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?”
o That God does not always hinder from being deceived those who wish
to be deceived. Ahab and his prophets desired to believe Jehovah in
favor of the campaign, and Jehovah allowed them to be persuaded by
the lying spirit that he was. Having willfully turned their backs upon
Jehovah and become worshippers of idols, Jehovah now left them to
reap the fruit of their folly — gave them up to strong delusion to
believe a lie (Isaiah 66:4; II Thessalonians 2:11). “Not by any
sudden stroke of vengeance, but by the very network of evil counsel
which he has woven for himself, is the King of
ruin” (Stanley, ‘Jewish Church,’ p. 316).
o That God, in permitting the wicked to be the victims of their own evil
machinations, only exercises upon them righteous retribution. “It is
just that one sin should be punished by another” (Bishop Hall). This
principle is universally operative in
Ø A solemn denunciation. Without further parley, or veiling of his
thoughts in metaphorical speech, he declares that the king had been
imposed upon by his prophets, and that Jehovah had spoken evil against
him. There are times when God’s messengers must deliver God’s messages
to their hearers with utmost plainness and directness of speech.
Ø Insult from the prophets, through their leader Zedekiah, the son of
o What it was. A blow from the fist, and a stroke from the tongue — the
first hard to bear, the second harder; the first a common resort of
cowards, the second of persons overcome in argument. For Zedekiah to
smite Micaiah on the cheek, as afterwards the soldiers smote Jesus in
Pilate’s praetorium (Matthew 27:27), and later the bystanders Paul in
the council chamber at Ananias’s command (Acts 23:2), was
“intolerably insolent — much more to do so in the presence of two
kings.” “The act was unbecoming the person, more the presence;
prophets may reprove, they may not smite” (Hall). It was, besides,
painfully like a confession that Zedekiah was conscious of having
been found out.
o Why it was. To gratify his thirst for revenge. It was easier to do so in
this way than by attempting to disprove the truth of Micaiah’s oracle.
Any fool can exercise his fist; it takes a wise man to use his tongue
with effect. Zedekiah probably imagined he did so when he
mockingly inquired, “Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from
me to speak unto thee?” That in so saying he claimed to be as
much under the Spirit of Jehovah as Micaiah, may be true; that
Micaiah understood him to be talking lightly seems apparent from
the reply returned him: “Thou shalt see on that day when thou
shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.” The event would
decide which of the two predictions was correct. When the people
rose up against the prophets who had misled their king, Zedekiah,
as he fled for safety to some inner chamber, or from chamber to
chamber, would understand how to answer his own jest.
(I recommend Proverbs ch14 v14 – Spurgeon Sermon – How a
Man’s Conduct Comes Home to Him – # 1246 - this website –
CY – 2016)
Ø Punishment from the king. Micaiah was remanded back to his
confinement in the city jail. Amen the governor of the city, and Joash the
king’s son — not necessarily a son of Ahab, but a prince of the blood — as
commandants of the prison, were instructed to thrust him back into his old
cell, and “feed him with bread of affliction and water of affliction;” in
modern phrase, to subject him to imprisonment with hard labor, until
Ahab should return in peace (v. 26). It was severe upon Micaiah, yet he
retracted not. Without a murmur at his hard fate, he cheerfully returned to
his cell, only calling the people to observe that if Ahab returned home
from the war in peace, he was not a true prophet (v. 27).
Ø The nobility of true courage.
Ø The certainty that good men will suffer for their goodness.
The reality of an
Ø The infallibility of God’s Word.
The True Lesson of Human Ignorance (vs. 28-34)
What are the true lessons that we gather from this interesting episode?
There may be suggested:
men would probably infer from similar facts happening in the range of their
Ø That the issue of events is in the hands of an irreversible fate. Ahab (they
would argue) was bound to fall that day; do what he might, disguise
himself as he pleased, take whatever precaution he could, his death was
decreed and was simply unavoidable. But this is not the wise, nor is it the
right, way of regarding it. Had he been as brave as Jehoshaphat (see v.29),
he certainly would not have fallen in the way he did; had he been as
true to Jehovah as the King of Judah was, and as he might and should have
been, he would not have “gone up to Ramoth-Gilead” at all, for he would
have been dissuaded by the prophet of the Lord, and he would not have
fallen at all. His death that day, as well as that way, was due to his own
course and to his own choice. Our destiny is not in the hands of some
inexorable necessity; it resides in our own character; it is the work of our
Ø That many things, if not most things, are decided not by choice, but by
chance. The death of Ahab (they would say) was the result of “a bow
drawn at a venture.” And it is this chance-work that has a very large share
in the determination of our whole earthly history. But chance, in the sense
of positive lawlessness, does not exist. Everything happened here
according to law. The soldier drew his bow according to his instruction,
aiming at the enemy, though not at any one whom he recognized in
particular; the arrow went on its career according to the laws of motion,
and did its work on Ahab’s person in accordance with all the laws of
physics. There was no violation of law in the smallest degree, though
something happened which no man could have calculated and predicted. If
we succeed, it will be by using the laws of health, of prosperity, etc.; if we
fail, it will be in consequence of our disregarding these laws, which are
LAWS OF GOD! Chance will neither make nor mar us.
Ø That we do not know what harm we do by our most casual strokes. We
“draw a bow at a venture,” we “send an arrow through the air;” it is only a
sentence, it is a very simple deed, we think; but it hits and wounds a
sensitive human heart; it may even slay a Soul. It may cause such grief as
we would on no account have inflicted if we could have foreseen it; it may
lead to the first declension of a valuable human life, and may end in such
SPIRITUAL DISASTER as it would grieve us indeed to originate.
Ø That we cannot tell what good we do by our simplest efforts. Little did
the Syrian soldier suppose that by that shot of his arrow he was to serve his
royal master as he did. It is a most cheering and inspiring thought that we
cannot tell what kind or measure of good we are effecting by our everyday
service of our Lord. A kindly smile, a gracious recognition, an encouraging
word, a neighborly kindness, a warning utterance, the taking of “a class,”
the giving of “an address,” the conduct of “a service,” perhaps under the
humblest roof, or to the most unpromising audience, may prove to be a
most valuable contribution to the cause of Jesus Christ, to the service of
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by permission."
This material can be found at:
If this exposition is helpful, please share with others.