There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the Lord: but I hate him.
Micaiah the son of Imla
Jehoshaphat’s is the wise and reverent question to ask, amid the illusions of every fashionable opinion, amid all smooth and flattering promises. It marks the devout habit of looking behind the outward show and of searching every matter to its depths in the fear of God. Let us notice the frame of mind revealed in Ahab’s reply.
I. Note the significance of that one obdurate voice, rising clearly above the four hundred unanimous in their approval.
1. That is a voice which we hear again and again in our life; we hear it most loudly at special crises of our career.
2. When one solitary voice flatly contradicts the voice of a multitude, and contradicts it on matters of serious moment--which voice are we to believe? Sometimes the question is practically decided, as in Ahab’s case, by the mood with which we come to think of the unsilenced prophet. “I hate him.”
(1) That tribute of hatred sprang from Ahab’s conscience. It is the precise method by which weak and cruel men are wont to confess that not the man, but the message has found them out.
(2) Notice also Ahab’s device for suppressing an unwelcome truth.
II. This narrative symbolises man’s frequent attitude towards the truth. It is a test case.
1. Young men and women starting in life with abundant promise, amid the acclamation of hosts of friends, you may be irritated by perhaps one grim, dissenting voice, critical, dissatisfied, implacable, which sadly challenges the place in this universe to which general opinion reads your title clear. Be very careful how you treat that voice! It may be the voice of an ignorant, envious, churlish man, but, on the other hand, it may be the voice of one whohas pierced to the secret of your inner life, and who, if you would only listen, might spare you an idle journey, might rescue you from misery and shame.
2. Again, there are books or teachers whom we have to deal with, and who sadly irritate us, and we say, like Marguerite to Faust, but often, alas, without her simplicity: “Thou art not a Christian.” Let us patiently ask: are we really angry in the name of the Lord of hosts? or, are we angry because these books or voices spoil our own theories, wound our prejudices, smile at our favourite catch-words, wither our ideas of success, and are, in the name of the Truth of God, relentless amid our flatterers? Do they simply offend our self-love, and rebuke our calculated prudence? Let us be careful. These books and voices may be wrong; if so, their’s the loss and the penalty. But, very often, conscience would tell us there is a possibility that they are right.
3. There is one solemn application of this incident which has, no doubt, occurred to us already. In every human heart disobedient to Christ, impenitent and unreconciled, there is a voice as of Micaiah the son of Imla; but it is really the voice of the Lord Himself, speaking to that heart, amid all its distractions and its earthly pleasures, the message of evil and not of good. And men may come to chafe so angrily under that patient, ever-haunting warning, and appeal, that finally they may cry: “I hate it, I hate it!” If that be so, remember Ahab’s doom. (T. Rhys Evans.)
Virtues necessary far religious warkers
Close sympathy with his kind, personal lowliness, self-suppression pushed even to pathetic extremes, unshakable loyalty to the teaching of the Spirit of God, and calm indifference to fashionable moods of flattery or disapproval--these are virtues necessary to every religious worker. If he deferentially consults the noble of this world what message he may utter; if he asks the man of affairs, whose difficult lifo reminds him always, not only of Jacob’s wrestling, but also of Jacob’s subtlety, and who is fiercely tempted to give his vote for a gospel of compromise; if he asks the poor and becomes spokesman, not of their wrongs, but of a maddened despair which does not represent their truer self, he passes from the side of Micaiah to that of the four hundred. (T. Rhys Evans)
The faithful prophet
I.The estimation in which he was held. “I hate him.” Hatred, inveterate and strong, often the reward of fidelity. Am I then become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
II. The stand which he takes (2Ch_18:13).
1. Dependence upon God.
2. Expectation of God’s help (Mat_10:18-19).
3. Determination to utter God’s Word.
III. The pleas urged to move from this stand.
1. The opinion of the majority.
2. The difficulty of judging who is right. “Which way went the Spirit of the
Lord from me to thee?”
3. The employment of physical force. (J. Wolfendale.)
Hated for the truth’s sake
I.What an appalling illustration is this of the fact that men love to be flattered and encouraged even at the expense of everything holy and true. “A wonderful and horrible thing is come to pass in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and My people love to have it so.”
II. What a vivid illustration is this of the sublime function of an incorruptible truth-teller! This is not Micaiah’s first appearance before the king. He had established his reputation as a God-fearing and truth-speaking man, and Ahab’s denunciation was in reality Micaiah’s highest praise.
1. No wicked man should be quite easy in the sanctuary.
2. Do you suppose that it is pleasant for a minister to be always opposing any man?
3. A man is not your enemy because he tells you the truth. Opposition will come. (J. Parker, D.D.)
Truth awakens enmity
As the Turk taunted some Christians at Constantinople, who said that they came thither to suffer for the truth, telling them that they needed not to have come so far for that; for had they but told the truth at home, they could not have missed suffering for it. Telling truth needs not travel far for enmity; enmity will encounter it at home, wheresoever it be. Hence is that definition that Luther made of preaching, “Proedicare nihil eat quam derivare in se furorem,” etc.--that to preach, and preach home, as he did, was nothing else but to stir up the furies of hell about their ears. (J. Spencer.)
Ministers not to accommodate their message to the likings of men
Suppose a number of persons were to call on a minister on the Sabbath-day morning, and being admitted into his study, one of them should say to him, “Ihope, sir, you do not mean to-day to be severe against avarice, for I love money, and my heart goes after my covetousness.” Suppose another should say, “I trust you will not be severe against backbiting, for my tongue walketh with slanderers, and I consider scandal to be the seasoning of all conversation.” Suppose another should say, “Do not represent implacability as being inconsistent,, with Divine goodness, for I never did” forgive such an one, and I never will. And so of the rest. What would this minister say to these men? Why, if he were in a proper state of mind he would say, “Oh, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (W. Jay.)
