Chapter 22

1 Ahab, seduced by false prophets, according to the word of Micaiah, is slain at Ramoth-gilead. 37 The dogs lick up his blood, and Ahaziah succeedeth him. 41 Jehoshaphat’s good reign. 45 His acts. 50 Jehoram succeedeth him. 51 Ahaziah’s evil reign.

1. Three years. This chapter picks up the thread of military narrative that is broken by ch. 21. These were eventful years in the history of Western Asia. Assyria was growing ever more powerful, and becoming a definite threat to the countries of Palestine and Syria. It is generally held that this was the time when, under the spur of the Assyrian threat, Israel and Syria temporarily composed their differences and joined together in a coalition against Assyria. It was probably this alliance that granted Israel and Syria a three-year period of peace. We know that Ahab and Benhadad were friends, at least for a time, because both fought together against Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar (see p. 59).

3. Ramoth in Gilead is our’s. Benhadad had evidently not returned to Ahab all the cities of Israel held by him, in accord with the promise that he had made (ch. 20:34), and Ahab realized that if they were to be restored to Israel, they must be secured by force.

4. I am as thou art. Jehoshaphat was already in alliance with Ahab, this alliance having been formed by the marriage of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah to Jehoshaphat’s son and heir, Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18, 27). Since Ahaziah, the son of this union, was 22 years old at the time of his accession (2 Kings 8:26), the alliance must have been in existence for some time. The fact that the kings succeeding Jehoshaphat in Judah are Jehoram and Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:16, 25), and that Ahab’s two sons who succeeded him on the throne were named Ahaziah and Joram (1 Kings 22:40; 2 Kings 1:17; 3:1), is a further indication of the friendship existing between the two royal houses at this time.

My horses. Judah as well as Israel seems to have had an army equipped with both cavalry and chariots. Jehoshaphat was a strong military leader, feared and respected by the nations about (2 Chron. 17:10–19).

5. Enquire. Jehoshaphat, with his characteristic piety (1 Kings 22:43; cf. 2 Chron. 17:3–9; 19:3–11; 20:5–32), suggested to Ahab that inquiry be made of the Lord before the expedition was undertaken, and that the inquiry be made that day.

6. The prophets. These were probably not prophets of Baal, inasmuch as it is not likely that Ahab would have insulted Jehoshaphat, who had distinctly asked for a prophet of the Lord (Yahweh), by summoning the avowed prophets of a heathen deity. They claimed to speak in the name of Jehovah, but they were false prophets.

The Lord shall deliver. The Hebrew word here used for “Lord” is Хadonai, not Yahweh, and may apply to any god who is regarded as Lord or master, as well as the one true Lord, Yahweh, that is, Jehovah. If these had been prophets of Baal, they might be expected to use the term “Baal” instead of “Lord.” Later, however, these same prophets do use the term Yahweh for their god, as may be seen in the English translation, “Lord” (vs. 11, 12), appearing in capitals (see Vol. I, p. 35).

7. Of the Lord. The term here used by Jehoshaphat is Yahweh. The king of Judah is distinctly dissatisfied with the prophets of Israel, thus indicating that they must be placed in an entirely different category from the prophets of the true God and the only real “Lord,” Jehovah. From here on, however, the word Yahweh is used by both the true prophet of Jehovah and the others for the God they worship, as “Lord” (vs. 8, 11, 12, 14–17, 19, 21, 24).

8. Micaiah. There was one man, according to Ahab, of whom it was possible to inquire of Yahweh, but Ahab did not like him. This man was a true prophet of Jehovah. Josephus asserts that it was Micaiah (Antiquities viii. 14. 5) who had prophesied evil of Ahab for the king’s unwise conduct toward Benhadad (ch. 20:35–43).

I hate him. Evil usually hates the good. Micaiah was hated by Ahab because his words were not in line with the desires of Israel’s wicked king, who wanted his own way, and wanted prophets who would prophesy accordingly.

10. Entrance of the gate. Following a state banquet at which Jehoshaphat and his entourage were royally entertained (2 Chron. 18:2), the two kings proceed to an open square at the city gate. The gate of a city was a place of great importance. Often kings sat there to administer justice (2 Sam. 15:2; 19:8; cf. Ruth 4:1; Ps. 127:5).

11. Horns of iron. Probably one for Israel and another for Judah, to symbolize the powers by which Syria was to be smitten. Horns are frequently used in Scripture to represent victorious strength (Deut. 33:17; 1 Sam. 2:1) or nations or powers (Dan. 7:7, 8, 24; 8:2–10; Zech. 1:18, 19). Prophets often used symbolical acts as effective methods for illustrating their messages (Jer. 13:1–11; 19:1; 27:2; Eze. 4:1–4, 9, 12:3–7; 24:3–12, 15–24).

Thus saith the Lord. It is interesting to note that Zedekiah now presumed to speak in the name of Jehovah. This would not indicate that he was a true prophet of Jehovah, but he was probably simply dissimulating to comply with Jehoshaphat’s demand (v. 5).

12. All the prophets. The prophets of Israel were giving the message that the king of Israel wanted to hear. They knew it not, but such a course would mean his death. They were actually encouraging him to go on this foolish and disastrous mission.

The Lord. Heb. Yahweh. The prophets were now using the name of Jehovah, a title they at first had avoided (see on v. 6). They were false prophets, and they were not speaking for Jehovah, even though they now ventured to employ His name in their deceptive declarations.

13. Declare good. Prophets of God receive their messages from God, not from men. It is the Lord who directs them and tells them what to say, whether that be in accord with the voices of others or not. The messenger who was dispatched to fetch Micaiah had a low idea of prophets in general when he thought that by such counsel as he was offering he could influence the message delivered.

That which is good. The good is not always that which appears to be good, or that which men may desire to hear. To encourage Ahab to go on this disastrous mission that would bring death to the king was not good from Ahab’s own point of view. Far better is unpalatable truth than welcome untruth.

14. What the Lord saith. True prophets cannot be bribed or forced to prophesy smooth things. “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).

15. Go, and prosper. Micaiah appears, in dramatic irony, to take up and mock the utterance of the false prophets. “Yes, ‘go, and prosper’—that is what the prophets have been saying to you—and ‘the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.’ Just try it and see what will happen” One can hear the contempt and scorn in Micaiah’s voice as he gives again the message the king had heard from “all the prophets,” the one message that he wanted to hear.

16. That which is true. Ahab seems to have sensed at once that the prophet spoke in irony. Ahab was well enough acquainted with God, and with men who falsely claimed to speak in His name, to know that Micaiah did not intend his words to be taken as true.

17. Israel scattered. Micaiah now changes his tone and becomes profoundly serious. He delivers the message that was given him by God. Israel would be scattered upon the hills, and would return to their homes without their king.

18. Did I not tell thee? Yes, he had (v. 8          ), and now again Micaiah’s message was one of evil results to come to both king and people. When a course is evil, a true prophet can only describe it as evil. What was needed was not a change of message on the part of the prophet, but a change of course on the part of the king.

19. I saw the Lord. This was an amazing vision. The prophet was permitted to see the play and counterplay behind human affairs. It recalls the vivid picture in Job 1:6–12.

22. A lying spirit. In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not restrain. The whole picture is a parable. Ahab had chosen to be guided by false prophets, and God simply permitted him to be guided by these prophets to his ruin.

24. Smote Micaiah. The spirit of evil always reveals itself as evil. It is harsh, not kind; cruel, not merciful. God’s people are admonished, “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). A listing of the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit is found in Gal. 5:19–23, and by these the nature of the spirits may be tested. By smiting Micaiah on the cheek, Zedekiah gave proof that the spirit within him was evil.

25. Thou shalt see. Micaiah addresses himself not so much to the exact words of Zedekiah’s question as to the main point in dispute, that is, which of them was a true prophet. Zedekiah soon would see. In the reverses that would come from Ahab’s defeat, Zedekiah himself would suffer.

27. In the prison. Ahab by his act of violence toward Micaiah reveals the wicked man that he is. He places in prison the prophet whose counsel, if heeded, would have saved his life.

In peace. Ahab wants Israel to think he does not believe the prophet and that he is certain that he will safely return. But his subsequent conduct (v. 30) shows that he probably had serious misgivings as to the outcome of the engagement to which he was committing himself.

28. Hearken, O people. Micaiah accepts the king’s challenge, and he wants all the people to take notice. If Ahab returns in peace, then he will admit that the Lord has not spoken by him and that he is a false prophet. The opposite, of course, also holds true. If the king does not return in peace, then the whole nation may know that the 400 prophets who have spoken so loudly and boldly are nothing but deceivers and that the Lord is not with them. It is a fair test (Deut. 18:22).

29. Went up. It might have been expected that Jehoshaphat, who had asked for a prophet of the Lord (v. 5), would heed the prophet’s message and refuse to go upon the expedition Micaiah had foretold would end in disaster. He had, it is true, rashly committed himself, by a solemn promise (v. 4), to take part in the war, and he was evidently bound to Ahab by a military alliance, yet he could have made it clear to Ahab that he could not go contrary to the will of the Lord. Indeed, by so doing he might have dissuaded Ahab from undertaking the war. By his willingness to accompany Ahab, Jehoshaphat was encouraging Ahab to court disaster. As it was, Jehoshaphat received a severe rebuke from the Lord for having joined in this enterprise (2 Chron. 19:2).

30. Disguise myself. The precaution of Ahab is characteristic of his temper of half belief and half unbelief. In his heart of hearts he knew Micaiah to be a true prophet, and he had a fear that his prophecy would be fulfilled. But he would do everything he could to avert the fulfillment of the prediction.

31. Fight. This order came from the man whose life Ahab had spared, and for which action Ahab had received the prophetic rebuke (ch. 20:42).

32. Jehoshaphat cried out. In 2 Chron. 18:31 are the additional words: “And the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him.” It was probably a spontaneous cry to God for help, and to his own forces for immediate assistance. The cry was recognized by the Syrians as not coming from the king of Israel.

34. At a venture. Life’s greatest victories and its greatest defeats at times hang upon causes that seem small indeed. The Syrian bowman, drawing his bow at a venture, killed a king and won a battle. It is unlikely that the man who fired the arrow knew the result of his shot. Shots of venture are sometimes shots of destiny. But it is good to know that no arrow of fate can strike without the knowledge of Him who is overruling all.

Turn thine hand. The driver could turn the chariot, but he could not turn the hands on the clock of fate. Ahab’s last hour had come, and he knew that the prophecy of Micaiah was true.

35. Stayed up. Ahab made a brave attempt to carry on, allowing himself to be supported in his chariot till the very end.

36. Every man to his city. The death of the king at even was the death of Israel’s hopes for victory. Not only did Ahab by his stubbornness bring himself down to an inglorious grave; he brought tragedy and defeat to an entire nation.

37. In Samaria. From the time of Omri onward Samaria was the regular burial place for Israel’s kings (1 Kings 16:28; 2 Kings 10:35; 13:9; 14:16).

38. The pool of Samaria. Archeological excavations have unearthed what is believed to be this pool. It was in a court at the northern wing of Ahab’s palace, and measured 33.6 by 16 ft. (10.2 by 4.9 m.), with a depth of 16 ft. The pool was cut in the rock and cemented with a heavy coating of plaster.

Washed his armour. Literally, “the harlots washed.” The LXX adds “in the blood.” The meaning is obscure. Some practice, today unknown, may be referred to. Josephus’ paraphrase of the passage is, “the harlots continued afterwards to wash themselves in that fountain” (Antiquities viii. 15. 6). The translation of the KJV reflects the Syriac and the Vulgate.

39. The ivory house. Compare the “ivory palaces” of Ps. 45:8 and the “houses of ivory” of Amos 3:15. Ahab’s palace was so named because of its rich ornamentation with ivory. This description has been fully substantiated by archeological excavation of Ahab’s palace, where furnishings with ivory inlay were found. Many examples of ivory carving have been found in Palestine and Syria (see p. 81).

The cities. No further record has been found of these cities. During the reign of Ahab there was great prosperity.

40. Ahaziah. It is true that Ahaziah reigned immediately after the death of Ahab, but the details of his reign do not appear till v. 51.

41. Jehoshaphat. After the comparatively lengthy account of Ahab’s reign (1 Kings 16:29 to 22:41), the record now returns to a king of Judah (see p. 145).

43. Ways of Asa. Few specific details concerning the reign of Jehoshaphat are given in Kings, the entire record covering only vs. 41 to 50. In Chronicles the record is much more complete (2 Chron. 17:1 to 21:1). The main item stressed is that he was a good king, walking in the ways of his father Asa. On the general piety of Asa, see 1 Kings 15:11–15; 2 Chron. 14:2–5; 15:8–18. But Jehoshaphat seems to have been a better king than his father, for there is no account of his falling away in his old age as did Asa (2 Chron. 16:2–12).

Not taken away. This agrees with 2 Chron. 20:33. But 2 Chron. 17:6 states that “he took away the high places and groves out of Judah.” The meaning probably is that Jehoshaphat removed the more vile places of worship such as contained “groves,” but allowed certain unauthorized sanctuaries to remain. Or he may have removed them, and some were later restored.

44. Made peace. According to 2 Chron. 18:1, Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab.” That is, he entered into a formal alliance with him. The alliance was sealed by the marriage of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, to Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18, 26; 2 Chron. 21:6). Ahaziah, the son of this union, was presumably named after Ahab’s son and heir, and Ahab’s next son seems to have been named after Ahab’s son-in-law, Jehoram, heir to the throne of Judah (see on v. 4). Under the alliance, which evidently was continued by the heirs of Jehoshaphat and Ahab, the members of the royal houses made visits to one another (1 Kings 22:2; 2 Kings 8:29; 2 Chron. 18:1, 2), made a common disposition of their forces in battle (1 Kings 22:4; 2 Chron. 18:3; 22:5, 6), and united in joint ventures for foreign trade (2 Chron. 20:35, 36).

45. How he warred. For the wars of Jehoshaphat see 2 Kings 3:9–27; 2 Chron. 20:1–27; and for his “might,” see 2 Chron. 17:12–19; 18:1; 20:29, 30.

Book of the chronicles. See 1 Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23; 2 Kings 8:23; etc. In addition Jehu, the son of Hanani, wrote a biography of Jehoshaphat’s life (2 Chron. 20:34).

46. Sodomites. See on chs. 14:24; 15:12.

47. No king in Edom. There has been no reference to the condition of Edom since the time of Solomon, when Hadad, having returned thither from Egypt was “an adversary unto Solomon” (ch. 11:14). It appears, however, that Edom had again been reduced to dependency, perhaps by Asa or Jehoshaphat, and was ruled by a deputy or viceroy, who, however, was allowed no royal title (see 2 Kings 3:9, 12, 26).

48. At Ezion-geber. Ezion-geber was Solomon’s seaport (1 Kings 9:26; 2 Chron. 8:17), in Edomite territory, now ruled by a subject king. A fuller account in 2 Chron. 20:35–37 makes it clear that Ahaziah of Israel was at first joined to Jehoshaphat in this enterprise, but that the alliance was denounced by the prophet Eliezer, with the result that the Lord wrecked the ships at Ezion-geber, where they were built.

49. Would not. After the divine judgment on his fleet Jehoshaphat refused to renew the earlier compact with Ahaziah.

50. Jehoram his son. Jehoram began to reign with his father as coregent before Jehoshaphat’s death, as is seen by comparing the two statements in 2 Kings 1:17 and 3:1.

51. Two years. Two years, inclusive reckoning, one actual year.

53. Served Baal. In this short reign the influence of Ahaziah’s mother, Jezebel, again manifests itself. Here ends the first book of Kings. The remaining items of Ahaziah’s reign are recorded in the first chapter of 2 Kings.

Ellen G. White comments

1–53PK 190–196, 207

8     PK 195

16, 17  PK 196

22   TM 409

29, 36  PK 196

43   PK 190

46   PK 191

50   PK 212

51–535T 191

52, 53  PK 207