Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Kings 22:1 - 22:53
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_22:1-40 (2Ch_18:1-34)
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 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. 7And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord [Jehovah] besides, 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, 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 deliver it into the king’s 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, 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 therefore the word of the Lord [Jehovah]: I saw the Lord [Jehovah] sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him 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 governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s 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. 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, and carry me out of the host; for I am wounded. 35And the battle increased that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot against the Syrians, and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot. 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 washed]; 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.
1Ki_22:4. And he said unto Jehoshaphat. Instead of åַéֹּàîֶø we find in Chronicles åַéñִéúֵäåּ , 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 Ahab’s 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 Jeroboam’s 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 ðְáִéàִéí , 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 forward—To 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.” Jehoshaphat’s answer: “Let not the king say so! refers to Ahab’s words: I hate him; I will not now listen to him. Jehoshaphat’s 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 îְìֻáָּùִׁéí áְּâָãִéí means “in their official (royal) robes” is clear from Lev_21:10, where it is said of the high-priest: ìáùׁ àúÎäáâãéí , i. e., “clad in the official (priestly) garments.” éåֹùְׁáִéí is repeated before áְּâֹøֶï in the parallel passage 2Ch_18:9. It can, therefore, only mean: in area âֹּøֶï 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 áְּøֻãִּéí for áְּâֹøֶï (since the word for threshing-floor makes no sense) and joins it with áâãéí , “particolored, that is, probably, vestes distinctœ, acu pictœ;” but this conjecture is as unnecessary as it is violent. Ewald also joins the word with áâãéí , 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 ἔíïðëïé of the Sept. is not a translation of áâøï but of the words discussed above îì×× áâ×× .
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 òֲìֶä åְäַöֵìַä , 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 prophet’s 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 king’s pleasure, nevertheless repeats almost exactly the words of the king’s 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 prophet’s mind, as Deu_33:17 was in the mind of Zedekiah in 1Ki_22:11. Luther erroneously took the words of Jehovah ìֹàÎàֲãֹðִéí ìָàֵìָּä 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. ìָëֵï 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., ïὐ÷ ïὕôùò , equivalent to ìֹà ëֵï : 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 ùִׁîְòåּ , ôְîַò , 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 hœc dicuntur ἁíèñùðïðáèῶò . 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 providentiœ 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.— äָøåּçַ , 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 ðָáִéà is the àִéù äָøåּçַ (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 ( àֲðִé 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 Ahab’s 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 Lord’s 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 øåּçַ ùֶׁ÷ֶø (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 äָøåּçַ (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 God’s will, a øåּçֹ äùׁ÷ø “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 God’s 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 Ahab’s favor, and how unesteemed Micaiah was. Chronicles supplies äַãֶּøֶêְ which is wanting with àֵéÎæֶä (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 çֶãֶø áְּçֶãֶø see notes on 1Ki_20:30. The story of Zedekiah’s 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 Zedekiah’s 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 Micaiah’s speech, but when he saw that Zedekiah’s hand did not wither as Jeroboam’s 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. Zedekiah’s 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 man’s 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 ùִׁîְòåּ òַîִּéí ëֻּìָí , 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 äִúְçַôֵּùׁ åָáֹà (disguise and come) as imperatives addressed to Jehoshaphat. åְàַúָּä , 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 Ahab’s 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-hadad’s command (1Ki_22:21), yet he desired to frustrate the prophet’s 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, Ahab’s 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 Jehoshaphat’s 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 Ahab’s 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. àַêְ 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 åַéָּñֻøåּ the chronicler has åַéָּñֹáּåּ , and the Sept. has, in both places. ἐêýêëùóáí . 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. ñåּø 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. ìְúֻîּåֹ 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 man’s 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 äַãְּáָ÷ִéí by joints or grooves, but what joints can be referred to? The stem ãָáַ÷ means only to hang on or depend from. ãֶáֶ÷ , 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 ãְáָ÷ִéí ). 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 äָçֳìֵéúִé means, in this connection, I am wounded (cf. 1Sa_31:3); Sept., ôåôñáõìÜôéóìáé ; 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.” Ewald’s assertion that he “had to be carried from the field,” contradicts the words of the text; also there is nothing in the text of Ewald’s 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, äָéָä îָòֳîָã : “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: “Ahab’s 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.” ðֹëַç àֲøָí 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 36–38. 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 åְäַåֹּðåֹú øָçָöåּ 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 æֹðåֹú 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 øָçָöåּ , the chariot, but then this clause would only repeat the previous one: “they washed the chariot.” Bunsen supplies arbitrarily: the corpse. øçõ 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, quœ 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 Ahab’s 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; Homer’s Odys. 4:72.
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 Jehoshaphat’s 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 Elijah’s 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 prophet’s 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” ( âְּáåּøָä ) is mentioned, but when Ahab’s 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 Elijah’s 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 Jeroboam’s 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 Jeroboam’s 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 Ahab’s army was considerably strengthened by the addition of Jehoshaphat’s, 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: ðñïóùðïðïéÀá ôéò , äéäÜóêïõäó ôὴí èåßáí óõã ÷þñçóéí . 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 God’s holiness, but rather is directly inconsistent with God’s holiness. Hence it has been abandoned in modern theology (cf. Rothe, Ethik, II. s. 204–210). It is also entirely foreign to Holy Scripture (cf. Hengstenberg, Beiträge, III. s. 462 sq.). The notion that God punishes evil by evil, which forms the basis of Micaiah’s 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 Ahab’s 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 d