1 Re 22:1-53
1 Passarono tre anni senza guerra tra la Siria e Israele.
2 Ma il terzo anno Giosafat, re di Giuda, scese a trovare il re d'Israele.
3 Or il re d'Israele avea detto ai suoi servi: "Non sapete voi che Ramoth di Galaad è nostra, e noi ce ne stiam lì tranquilli senza levarla di mano al re di Siria?"
4 E disse a Giosafat: "Vuoi venire con me alla guerra contro Ramoth di Galaad?" Giosafat rispose al re d'Israele: "Fa' conto di me come di te stesso, della mia gente come della tua, de' miei cavalli come dei uoi".
5 E Giosafat disse al re d'Israele: "Ti prego, consulta oggi la parola dell'Eterno".
6 Allora il re d'Israele radunò i profeti, in numero di circa quattrocento, e disse loro: "Debbo io andare a far guerra a Ramoth di Galaad, o no?" Quelli risposero: "Va', e il Signore la darà nelle mani del re".
7 Ma Giosafat disse: "Non v'ha egli qui alcun altro profeta dell'Eterno da poter consultare?"
8 Il re d'Israele rispose a Giosafat: "V'è ancora un uomo per mezzo del quale si potrebbe consultare l'Eterno; ma io l'odio perché non mi predice mai nulla di buono, ma soltanto del male: è Micaiah, figliuolo d'Imla". E Giosafat disse: "Non dica così il re!"
9 Allora il re d'Israele chiamò un eunuco, e gli disse: "Fa' venir presto Micaiah, figliuolo d'Imla".
10 Or il re d'Israele e Giosafat, re di Giuda, sedevano ciascuno sul suo trono, vestiti de' loro abiti reali, nell'aia ch'è all'ingresso della porta di Samaria; e tutti i profeti profetavano dinanzi ad essi.
11 Sedekia, figliuolo di Kenaana, s'era fatto delle corna di ferro, e disse: "Così dice l'Eterno: Con queste corna darai di cozzo nei Siri finché tu li abbia completamente distrutti".
12 E tutti i profeti profetavano nello stesso modo, dicendo: "Sali contro Ramoth di Galaad, e vincerai; 'Eterno la darà nelle mani del re".
13 Or il messo ch'era andato a chiamar Micaiah, gli parlò così: "Ecco, i profeti tutti, ad una voce, predicono del bene al re; ti prego, sia il tuo parlare come il parlare d'ognun d'essi, e predici del bene!"
14 Ma Micaiah rispose: "Com'è vero che l'Eterno vive, io dirò quel che l'Eterno mi dirà".
15 E, come fu giunto dinanzi al re, il re gli disse: "Micaiah, dobbiam noi andare a far guerra a Ramoth di alaad, o no?" Quegli rispose: "Va' pure, tu vincerai; l'Eterno la darà nelle mani del re".
16 E il re gli disse: "Quante volte dovrò io scongiurarti di non dirmi se non la verità nel nome dell'Eterno?"
17 Micaiah rispose: "Ho veduto tutto Israele disperso su per i monti, come pecore che non hanno pastore; l'Eterno ha detto: Questa gente non ha padrone; se ne torni ciascuno in pace a casa sua".
18 E il re d'Israele disse a Giosafat: "Non te l'ho io detto che costui non mi predirebbe nulla di buono, ma soltanto del male?"
19 E Micaiah replicò: "Perciò ascolta la parola dell'Eterno. Io ho veduto l'Eterno che sedeva sul suo trono, e tutto l'esercito del cielo che gli stava dappresso a destra e a sinistra.
20 E l'Eterno disse: Chi sedurrà Achab affinché salga a Ramoth di Galaad e vi perisca? E uno rispose in un modo e l'altro in un altro.
21 Allora si fece avanti uno spirito, il quale si presentò dinanzi all'Eterno, e disse: Lo sedurrò io.
22 L'Eterno gli disse: E come? Quegli rispose: Io uscirò, e sarò spirito di menzogna in bocca a tutti i suoi profeti. L'Eterno gli disse: Sì, riuscirai a sedurlo; esci, e fa' così.
23 Ed ora ecco che l'Eterno ha posto uno spirito di menzogna in bocca a tutti questi tuoi profeti; ma l'Eterno ha pronunziato del male contro di te".
24 Allora Sedekia, figliuolo di Kenaana, si accostò, diede uno schiaffo a Micaiah, e disse: "Per dove è passato lo spirito dell'Eterno quand'è uscito da me per parlare a te?"
25 Micaiah rispose: "Lo vedrai il giorno che andrai di camera in camera per nasconderti!"
26 E il re d'Israele disse a uno dei suoi servi: "Prendi Micaiah, menalo da Ammon, governatore della città, e da Joas, figliuolo del re, e di' loro:
27 Così dice il re: Mettete costui in prigione, nutritelo di pan d'afflizione e d'acqua d'afflizione, finch'io ritorni sano e salvo".
28 E Micaiah disse: "Se tu ritorni sano e salvo, non sarà l'Eterno quegli che avrà parlato per bocca mia". E aggiunse: "Udite questo, o voi, popoli tutti!"
29 Il re d'Israele e Giosafat, re di Giuda, saliron dunque contro Ramoth di Galaad.
30 E il re d'Israele disse a Giosafat: "Io mi travestirò per andare in battaglia; ma tu mettiti i tuoi abiti reali". E il re d'Israele si travestì, e andò in battaglia.
31 Or il re di Siria avea dato quest'ordine ai trentadue capitani dei suoi carri: "Non combattete contro veruno, o piccolo o grande, ma contro il solo re d'Israele".
32 E quando i capitani dei carri scorsero Giosafat dissero: "Certo, quello e il re d'Israele," e si volsero contro di lui per attaccarlo; ma Giosafat mandò un grido.
33 E allorché i capitani s'accorsero ch'egli non era il re d'Israele, cessarono di dargli addosso.
34 Or qualcuno scoccò a caso la freccia del suo arco, e ferì il re d'Israele tra la corazza e le falde; onde il re disse al suo cocchiere: "Vòlta, menami fuori del campo, perché son ferito".
35 Ma la battaglia fu così accanita quel giorno, che il re fu trattenuto sul suo carro in faccia ai Siri, e morì verso sera; il sangue della sua ferita era colato nel fondo del carro.
36 E come il sole tramontava, un grido corse per tutto il campo: "Ognuno alla sua città! Ognuno al suo paese!"
37 Così il re morì, fu portato a Samaria, e in Samaria fu sepolto.
38 E quando si lavò il carro presso allo stagno di Samaria in quell'acqua si lavavano le prostitute i cani leccarono il sangue di Achab, secondo la parola che l'Eterno avea pronunziata.
39 Or il resto delle azioni di Achab, tutto quello che fece, la casa d'avorio che costruì e tutte le città che edificò, tutto questo sta scritto nel libro delle Cronache dei re d'Israele.
40 Così Achab s'addormentò coi suoi padri, e Achazia suo figliuolo, regnò in luogo suo.
41 Giosafat, figliuolo di Asa, cominciò a regnare sopra Giuda l'anno quarto di Achab, re d'Israele.
42 Giosafat avea trentacinque anni quando cominciò a regnare, e regnò venticinque anni a Gerusalemme. Il nome di sua madre era Azuba, figliuola di Scilhi.
43 Egli camminò in tutto per le vie di Asa suo padre, e non se ne allontanò, facendo ciò ch'è giusto agli occhi dell'Eterno. (22:44) Nondimeno gli alti luoghi non scomparvero; il popolo offriva ancora sacrifizi e profumi sugli alti luoghi.
44 (22:45) E Giosafat visse in pace col re d'Israele.
45 (22:46) Or il resto delle azioni di Giosafat, le prodezze che fece e le sue guerre son cose scritte nel libro delle Cronache dei re di Giuda.
46 (22:47) Egli fece sparire dal paese gli avanzi degli uomini che si prostituivano, che v'eran rimasti dal tempo di Asa suo padre.
47 (22:48) Or a quel tempo non v'era re in Edom; un governatore fungeva da re.
48 (22:49) Giosafat costruì delle navi di Tarsis per andare a Ofir in cerca d'oro; ma poi non andò, perché le navi naufragarono a Etsion-Gheber.
49 (22:50) Allora Achazia, figliuolo d'Achab, disse a Giosafat: "Lascia che i miei servi vadano coi servi tuoi sulle navi!" Ma Giosafat non volle.
50 (22:51) E Giosafat si addormentò coi suoi padri, e con essi fu sepolto nella città di Davide, suo padre; Jehoram, suo figliuolo, regnò in luogo suo.
51 (22:52) Achazia, figliuolo di Achab, cominciò a regnare sopra Israele a Samaria l'anno diciassettesimo di Giosafat, re di Giuda, e regnò due anni sopra Israele.
52 (22:53) E fece ciò ch'è male agli occhi dell'Eterno, e camminò per la via di suo padre, per la via di sua madre, e per la via di Geroboamo, figliuolo di Nebat che avea fatto peccare Israele.
53 (22:54) E servì a Baal, si prostrò dinanzi a lui, e provocò a sdegno l'Eterno, l'Iddio d'Israele, esattamente come avea fatto suo padre.
EXPOSITION
THE EXPEDITION OF AHAB AND JEHOSHAPHAT AGAINST HRAMOTH-GILEAD. THE DEATH OF AHAB. THE REIGNS OF JEHOSHAPHAT AND AHAZIAH.
And they continued [rather, rested. Heb. sate, dwelt. Cf. Giudici 5:17. The LXX. has ἐκάθισε, sing.] three years without war [The Hebrew explains the "rested"—there was not war, etc. See Ewald, 286 g. The three years (not full years, as the next verse shows) are to be counted from the second defeat of Ben-hadad; the history, that is to say, is resumed from 1 Re 20:34-11. Rawlinson conjectures that it was during this period that the Assyrian invasion, under Shalmaneser II; took place. The Black Obelisk tells us that Ahab of Jezreel joined a league of kings, of whom Ben-hadad was one, against the Assyrians, furnishing a force of 10,000 footmen and 2000 chariots; see "Hist. Illust." pp. 113, 114. The common danger might well compel a cessation of hostilities] between Syria and Israel.
And it came to pass in the third year [Of the peace; not after the death of Naboth, as Stanley], that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down [The journey to Jerusalem being invariably described as a "going up," one from Jerusalem to the provinces would naturally be spoken of as a "going down"] to the king of Israel. [For aught that appears, this was the first time that the monarchs of the sister kingdoms had met, except in battle, since the disruption, though the marriage of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, had taken place some years before this date (2 Cronache 18:1, 2 Cronache 18:2). It is probable that it was the growing power of Syria had led to this affinity and alliance.]
And the king of Israel said unto his servants [During the visit. It seems likely that Jehoshaphat went down to Samaria by Ahab's invitation, and that the latter then had this campaign in view. The chronicler says that Ahab "incited," or "stirred him up" (same word as in 1 Re 21:25) to go with him to battle. Ahab was unable to contend single-handed, and without Divine assistance—which he could not now look for—against Syria; and saw no means of compelling the execution of the treaty which Ben-hadad had made with him (1 Re 20:34), and which he appears to have shamelessly broken, except by the help of Jehoshaphat, whose military organizetion at this time must have been great, and, indeed, complete (2 Cronache 17:10). It is in favour of this view that Ahab entertained him and his large retinue with such profuse hospitality. The chronicler, who dwells on the number of sheep and oxen slain for the feast, intimates that it was this generous reception "persuaded" Jehoshaphat to join in the war], Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead [Generally, as below (1 Re 22:4, 1 Re 22:6, etc.
), "Ramoth-Gilead," i.e; of Gilead. See note on 1 Re 4:13. This "great frontier fortress was, in the hands of Syria, even after many reverses, a constant menace against Israel" (Stanley)] is ours [i.e; it was one of the cities which Ben-hadad had promised to restore (1 Re 20:34). This shows that, as we might expect from a man of Ben-hadad's overbearing yet pusillanimous character, he had not kept good faith.
Sebbene fosse trascorso così tanto tempo, era ancora nelle sue mani], e noi stiamo fermi [חָשָׁה è onomatopeico, come il nostro "silenzio". marg. giustamente, zitto dal prenderlo . La parola esprime in modo molto espressivo che avevano avuto paura di fare qualsiasi movimento per affermare i loro diritti, per paura di attirare l'attenzione e la rabbia del loro vicino potente e infuriato], e non toglierlo dalla mano del re di Siria? [È improbabile che Acab abbia dimenticato l'avvertimento di 1 Re 20:42 . È probabile che il flagrante disprezzo di Ben-Adad per gli impegni del suo trattato lo abbia determinato a correre tutti i rischi, specialmente se avesse potuto assicurarsi l'aiuto dell'allora potente re di Giuda.]
Ed egli disse a Giosafat: Vuoi venire con me a combattere a Ramoth-Gilead? [È probabile che questa domanda sia stata posta con qualche perplessità. Un'alleanza del genere era del tutto nuova, e Acab poteva benissimo chiedersi come l'idea potesse colpire un principe pio come Giosafat. Che quest'ultimo avrebbe dovuto rifiutare il suo aiuto, lo sappiamo da 2 Cronache 19:2 .] E Giosafat disse al re d'Israele: Io sono come te [Ebr.
come io come te ] , il mio popolo come il tuo popolo, i miei cavalli come i tuoi cavalli. [Dal modo pronto e senza riserve con cui si impegna subito in questa guerra, possiamo concludere con sicurezza che anche lui aveva motivo di temere il potere della Siria. Probabilmente Ben-Adad, quando assediò Samaria ( 1 Re 20:1 ), si era fatto l'idea di sottomettere l'intera Palestina. 1 Re 20:1
E Giosafat si sarebbe ricordato che Ramot di Galaad, dove il re di Siria era ancora trincerato, era distante solo quaranta miglia da Gerusalemme. Bähr sostiene che i cavalli sono menzionati in modo speciale "perché costituivano una parte essenziale della potenza militare" ( Salmi 33:16 , Salmi 33:17 ; Proverbi 21:31 ).
È vero che in una campagna contro i Siri sarebbero particolarmente utili (cfr 1 Re 20:1 .); ma non ricevono menzione per mano del cronista, che legge invece di quest'ultima clausola: "E noi (o io) saremo con te in guerra".]
E Giosafat disse al re d'Israele: Informati, ti prego, a [Questa parola è ridondante] la parola del Signore oggi . [כַּיוֹם difficilmente trasmette che "chiede di chiamare subito i profeti", "per paura che Achab acconsenta a parole e rinvii l'inchiesta in atto" (Rawlinson); ma significa piuttosto "in questa crisi", "in queste circostanze.
"Questa richiesta concorda bene con quanto apprendiamo altrove circa la pietà di Giosafat ( 2 Cronache 17:4 ; 2 Cronache 19:5 , ecc.) E, ricordando come le ultime vittorie di Acab erano state predette da un profeta, ed erano state ottenute con l'aiuto di Geova, Giosafat potrebbe benissimo supporre che il suo nuovo alleato sarebbe ansioso di conoscere la parola del Signore.]
Allora il re d'Israele radunò i profeti [chiamati da Michea «suoi profeti» ( 1 Re 22:22 ), e «i tuoi profeti» ( 1 Re 22:23 )] , circa quattrocento uomini [Dal numero (cfr 1 Re 18:19 ) si è concluso che questi erano "i profeti dei boschi", i.
e; di Astarte, scampato al massacro dei profeti di Baal ( 1 Re 18:40 ). Altri hanno supposto che fossero profeti di Baal. Ma entrambe queste supposizioni sono negatived
(1) dal fatto che Giosafat chiede ad Acab di "interrogare la parola di Geova " , e
(2) che questi profeti professano di parlare nel nome e mediante lo Spirito di Geova ( 1 Re 22:11 , 1 Re 22:12 , 1 Re 22:24 ). Inoltre
(3) Acab difficilmente avrebbe insultato Giosafat portando davanti a lui i profeti di Baal o Astarte (Waterland in Wordsworth).
Eppure che non erano veri profeti del Signore, né dei "figli dei profeti", appare
(1) da 1 Re 22:7 , dove Giosafat chiede un "profeta del Signore"; e
(2) da 1 Re 22:20 ss; dove Michea li smentisce, e si trova in diretta opposizione a loro. L'unica conclusione a nostra disposizione, di conseguenza, e ora è generalmente adottata, è che fossero i sacerdoti degli alti luoghi di Betel e Dan, i successori di coloro che Geroboamo aveva introdotto nell'ufficio sacerdotale. Non deve sorprenderci trovare questi sacerdoti qui descritti come "profeti" (di.
Geremia 22:13 ; Ezechiele 13:1 ), e rivendicando doni profetici, poiché i sacerdoti di Baal portavano lo stesso nome (1Re 18:19, 1 Re 18:22 , ecc.), e apparentemente pretendevano di avere poteri simili. "Nessun popolo antico considerava un culto completo senza una classe di uomini attraverso i quali il dio potesse essere interrogato" (Bähr).
L'esistenza di un così grande numero di profeti dei vitelli prova che le incursioni dell'idolatria non avevano affatto distrutto il culto dei vitelli. Se i suoi sacerdoti fossero così tanti, i suoi adoratori non possono essere stati pochi], e disse loro: Devo andare in battaglia contro Ramoth-Gilead, o devo astenermi? E dissero: Sali; per il Signore [אֲדֹנָי È molto significativo che in un primo momento esitino a usare il nome ineffabile.
Fu probabilmente questa circostanza ad eccitare i sospetti di Giosafat. È stato detto che il motivo per cui era insoddisfatto di questa risposta è inspiegabile; ma quando ricordiamo quanto fosse attento il vero profeta a parlare nel nome di Geova ( 1 Re 14:7 ; 1 Re 17:1 , 1Re 17:14; 1 Re 20:13 , 1 Re 20:14 , 1 Re 20:28 ), noi non c'è dubbio che sia stata la loro menzione di "Adonai" a provocare i suoi dubbi.
Il cronista dà la parola come Elohim ] la consegnerà [ LXX . διδοὺς δώσει , lo darà sicuramente ] nelle mani del re.
E Giosafat disse: Non c'è qui un profeta del Signore [Ebr. Geova ] oltre a [ ie; oltre a questi profeti soi-disant . Difficilmente gli piace dire senza mezzi termini che non può considerarli ispirati, ma allo stesso tempo lascia intendere chiaramente che non può essere soddisfatto della loro missione e autorità], che potremmo interrogare su di lui?
E il re d'Israele disse a Giosafat: C'è ancora un uomo [cfr. 1 Re 18:22 ], Michea [Il nome (= Chi è come Geova?) è appropriato per l'uomo che lo portò come lo era per lui il nome di Elia ( 1 Re 17:1 ; cfr. 1 Re 18:39 ). Ma non è un nome raro nell'Antico Testamento: è portato da otto persone diverse.
Confronta Michele, "Chi è come Dio?"] il figlio di Imla [Il cronista scrive il nome Imla , יִמְלָא], dal quale possiamo interrogare il Signore [Achab evidentemente aveva voluto che Giosafat capisse che i profeti già consultati erano profeti di Geova, come senza dubbio affermavano di essere. Uno di loro portava un nome di cui faceva parte il sacro Jah ]: ma io odio [שְׂנֵאתִי (cfr.
ODI ), hanno imparato ad odiare ] lui [Acab aveva buone ragioni per non preoccuparsi di consultare un uomo che aveva messo in prigione (vedi 1 Re 18:26 , e confrontare Matteo 14:3 ), a causa delle sue rimproveri o previsioni indesiderati. Giuseppe Flavio, e gli scrittori ebrei in generale, identificano Michea con il profeta senza nome di 1Re 21:1-29:42]; poiché egli non profetizza il bene riguardo a me, ma il male l [Il cronista aggiunge כָל־יָמָיו; io. 1 Re 18:26, Matteo 14:3
e; insistentemente, per tutta la sua carriera. Achab insinua che Michea sia mosso da antipatia personale. I commentatori si riferiscono a Omero. io1. 4; 106-108.] E Giosafat disse: Non lo dica il re. [Non significa che il profeta non possa dire quello che vuole, ma suggerisce che Achab ha dei pregiudizi nei suoi confronti. Forse sospettava che potesse esserci una ragione molto diversa per le sinistre predizioni di Michea.]
Allora il re d'Israele bastò a un ufficiale [Ebr. un eunuco . Quindi la LXX ; οῦχον α. Così che i presentimenti di Samuele si sono realizzati Probabilmente, come Ebed Melech, l'Etiope ( Geremia 38:7 ), era straniero; forse un prigioniero di guerra (Erode 3:49; 6:32). Deuteronomio 23:1 suggerisce che anche un re come Acab difficilmente infliggerebbe questa umiliazione a un israelita.
Da 1 Cronache 28:1 , Ebrei, deduciamo che anche la corte di Davide aveva i suoi eunuchi, e possiamo essere sicuri che l'enorme harem di Salomone non poteva essere mantenuto senza di loro. Nei giorni successivi li troviamo di primo piano nella storia e occupano posizioni importanti sotto il re (2Re 8:6; 2 Re 9:32 ; 2 Re 23:11 ; 2 Re 25:19 ; Geremia 29:2 ; Geremia 34:19 ; Geremia 52:25 , ecc. Cfr. Genesi 37:36 )], e disse: Affrettati qui Michea figlio di.
E il re d'Israele e Giosafat re di Giuda sedettero ciascuno sul suo trono ["I re orientali avevano troni portatili, che portavano con sé durante i loro viaggi" Rawlinson], dopo aver indossato le loro vesti [Come doveva essere un consiglio di stato tenuto, i re indossano i loro paramenti ufficiali. בְּגָדִים significa semplicemente "rivestimenti", "vestiti", ma che lo speciale abito reale sia qui inteso è chiaro, come osserva Bähr, da Le 1 Re 21:10 .
Questo raduno di profeti e consiglieri sembra aver seguito il banchetto. Quando Giosafat espresse la sua disponibilità ad andare in guerra, sembra che Acab abbia immediatamente convocato questa assemblea, in modo che la cosa potesse essere messa in ordine immediatamente. Ewald dice che è stata progettata una revisione delle truppe, ma di questo il testo non sa nulla] in un luogo vuoto [Ebr. un aia .
Vedi nota su 1 Re 21:1 . Il "pavimento" implica non solo uno spazio vuoto, ma una posizione esaltata. Normalmente non sarebbe racchiuso entro le mura della città, né sembra che questo pavimento fosse] nell'ingresso [L'ebraico non ha preposizione; semplicemente פֶּתַח che sarebbe reso più correttamente "all'ingresso". La porta della città era il grande luogo d'incontro ( 2 Re 7:1 ).
Anche qui giustizia è stata dispensata. Vedi Rut 4:1 ; 2 Samuele 15:2 ; 2 Samuele 19:8 ; Salmi 69:12 ; Salmi 127:5 ; Deuteronomio 21:19 ; Genesi 19:1 ; Genesi 23:10 ; Amos 5:12 , Amos 5:15 , ecc.
] della porta di Samaria; e tutti i profeti profetizzarono davanti a loro. [Hanno continuato le loro profezie anche mentre Michea veniva convocato. Oppure il riferimento può essere alle profezie del versetto 6.
E Sedechia [Questo nome = "Giustizia di Geova" è una delle prove che questi non possono essere stati profeti di Baal, come suppongono Stanley e altri] il figlio di Chenaanah [= "Cananea". Ma da 1 Cronache 7:10 deduciamo che questo, come Selomit, era il nome di un uomo. Il Beniaminita ivi menzionato potrebbe essere identico al padre (o antenato) di Sedechia] lo fece [Rawlinson tradurrebbe, lo fece", dice che le corna devono "essere state fatte in precedenza, in attesa di qualche occasione come quella ora gli ha concesso.
"Ma è del tutto concepibile che durante le profezie, che durarono chiaramente un po' di tempo, l'idea venne a Sedechia, e non ci volle molto per metterla in atto] corna di ferro [Tenio capisce che si trattava di punte di ferro tenute sulla fronte Ma il riferimento è chiaramente alle corna di un giovenco, e l'adeguatezza dell'atto profetico si manifesta solo se ricordiamo che Efraim è paragonato a un giovenco ( Deuteronomio 33:17 ), e ancora, che Mosè parlò in anticipo della forza delle sue corna, e predisse che con esse avrebbe « sospinto il popolo fino ai confini della terra».
"Non solo, vale a dire, il corno era un familiare simbolo orientale di potenza (1Sa 2:1, 1 Samuele 2:10 ; 2 Samuele 22:3 ; Salmi 89:24 ; Salmi 92:10 ; Daniele 7:21 ; Daniele 8:8 , ecc.), ma si identificava in modo peculiare con la potente tribù di Efraim; in etere parole, con il regno di Israele Questo atto simbolico non era necessariamente un'imitazione dell'azione di Ahija ( 1 Re 11:30 ).
Tali parabole recitate non erano rare tra i profeti ( 2 Re 13:15 ; Isaia 20:2 ; Geremia 13:1 ; Geremia 19:10 ; Geremia 32:9 ss.; Ezechiele 4:5 .; Atti degli Apostoli 21:11 )]: e disse: Così parla il Signore [Ebr.
Geova . Ora usa il sacro nome; senza dubbio a causa della richiesta di Giosafat, versetto 7], Con questi spingerai [la parola di Deuteronomio 33:17 ] i Siri, finché non li avrai consumati.
E tutti i profeti profetizzarono [Ebr. profetizzavano ] così, dicendo: Sali a Ramoth-Gilead e prospera [un ebraismo per "prospererai". Gesenio, Gram. § 127. 2, cita paralleli in Genesi 42:18 ; Proverbi 20:13 ; Salmi 37:27 ; Giobbe 22:21 ; Isaia 8:9 ; Isaia 29:9 , e ci ricorda che in latino divide et impera abbiamo lo stesso idioma]: poiché il Signore alto parla in suo nome ora, sperando così di soddisfare il re di Giuda] lo consegnerà nelle mani del re. Genesi 42:18, Proverbi 20:13, Salmi 37:27, Giobbe 22:21, Isaia 8:9, Isaia 29:9
E il messaggero che era andato [o è andato ] a chiamare Micaiah, gli parlò, dicendo: Ecco ora, le parole dei profeti dichiarano il bene al re con una bocca sola [Ebr. una bocca buona al re . Il messaggero potrebbe aver ricevuto istruzioni per cercare di conciliare Michea. In ogni caso pensa bene di dirgli dell'unanimità dei profeti.
La sua testimonianza, suggerisce, sarà sicuramente d'accordo con la loro]: lascia che la tua parola, ti prego, sia come la parola di uno di loro, e dica ciò che è buono del [Ebr. parla bene .]
E Micaiah disse: Come il Signore vive, ciò che il Signore mi dice, lo dirò. [Ci viene in mente con forza la risposta di Balaam, Numeri 22:18 , Numeri 22:38 . E possiamo vedere non solo nel suggerimento di questo messaggero, ma anche nella credenza di Acab ( Numeri 22:8 ), che Michea potesse profetizzare a piacere, una sorprendente corrispondenza con le idee di Balak ( ib .
Numeri 5:6 , Numeri 5:17 ). Invece di considerare il profeta come semplicemente il portavoce della Divinità, si credeva che in quell'epoca avesse un'influenza soprannaturale su Dio e gli fossero affidati poteri magici per plasmare il futuro, oltre che per predirlo.]
Così venne dal re. E il re gli disse: Micaiah, andremo a combattere contro Ramoth-Gilead, o dobbiamo astenerci? [Stesse parole di 1 Re 22:6 . C'è un'apparente equità studiata in questa ripetizione. È come se Achab dicesse: "Nonostante i suoi pregiudizi contro di me, non cercherò di influenzare la sua mente. Mi occupo solo di lui come del resto.
"] E gli rispose: Va' e prospera, perché il Signore lo consegnerà nelle mani del re . [Come la domanda di Achab è l'eco della domanda di 1 Re 22:6 , così la risposta di Michea è identica alla risposta di i profeti. Fa semplicemente eco alle loro parole, di cui forse è stato informato dall'eunuco. C'era in questo una squisita proprietà.
La domanda non era sincera; la risposta fu ironica (cfr 1 Re 18:27 ). Acab riceve risposta "secondo la moltitudine dei suoi idoli" ( Ezechiele 14:4 ). Vuole essere ingannato, ed è ingannato. Senza dubbio il tono beffardo di Michea mostrava che le sue parole erano ironiche; ma il tono cupo di Acab aveva già dimostrato a Micaiah che era insincero; che non gli importava di conoscere la volontà del Signore, e voleva profeti che gli parlassero di lusinghe e profetizzassero inganni ( Isaia 30:10 ).]
E il re gli disse Quante volte ti scongiuro di non dirmi altro che quello che è vero nel nome del Signore? [Rawlinson conclude da queste parole che "questo modo beffardo era familiare a Michea, che lo aveva usato in alcuni precedenti rapporti con il monarca israelita". Ma dobbiamo ricordare che le parole di Acab erano in realtà rivolte a Giosafat. Sta recitando una parte in modo così evidente, che non dobbiamo presumere che sia strettamente veritiero. Il suo grande desiderio è evidentemente quello di screditare le previsioni di Michea, che chiaramente percepisce, dal tono amaro e ironico di quest'ultimo, gli saranno avverse.]
E disse [Possiamo immaginare quanto sia stato completo il cambio di tono. Ora parla con profonda serietà. Thenio vede nella particolarità e nell'originalità di questa visione una prova della verità storica di questa storia. "Sentiamo che ci stiamo gradualmente avvicinando ai tempi dei successivi profeti. È una visione che potrebbe essere tra quelle di Isaia o di Ezechiele" (Stanley)], vidi tutto Israele disperso sulle colline, come pecore che non hanno un pastore: e il Signore disse: Questi non hanno padrone: ritornino ciascuno in pace alla sua casa.
[Le ultime parole sono illustrate dal comando del versetto 31; confronta il versetto 36. Possiamo anche immaginare l'effetto che queste parole avrebbero sull'assemblea alla porta della città. Poiché, per quanto fossero inclini a screditare le parole di Michea, e per quanto lo spirito di guerra sconsiderato e irragionevole potesse possederle, non c'era nessuno che non capisse che questa visione preannunciava la dispersione dell'esercito israelita e la morte del suo capo.
Re e popolo erano stati costantemente rappresentati sotto la figura del pastore e delle pecore, e in particolare da Mosè stesso, che aveva usato queste stesse parole, "pecora senza pastore" ( Numeri 27:17 ; cfr Salmi 78:70 , Salmi 78:71 ; Isaia 44:28 ; Geremia 23:1 , Geremia 23:2 ; Ezechiele 34:1 , passim ). È osservabile che la visione di Michea, come la parabola di Sedechia, prende in prestito il linguaggio del Pentateuco. Le coincidenze di questo personaggio remoto sono le prove più potenti che il Pentateuco sia stato scritto allora.]
E il re d'Israele disse a Giosafat: Non t'ho forse detto che lo avrebbe fatto [Ebr. di' a te: Egli, ecc.] non profetizzerà alcun bene riguardo a me, ma il male? [È chiaro che Acab aveva compreso perfettamente il significato delle parole di Michea. Ora si appella a loro come prova della malizia di quest'ultimo.]
Ed egli disse: Ascolta [in 2 Cronache 18:18 , Ascolta ] dunque [The LXX . ha οὐχ οὕτως, donde sembrerebbe quasi che avessero davanti a sé il testo לא כֵן (Bähr). Ma è ogni modo da preferire. È enfatico per posizione, e il significato è: "Poiché avrai che le mie parole sono suggerite dalla malizia, ascolta il messaggio che ho per te", ecc.
] la parola del Signore. Ho visto il Signore [Non è implicito (Wordsworth) che avesse una visione diretta e obiettiva di Dio, come Mosè ( Esodo 34:5 ), Elia o Santo Stefano. Qui dichiara ciò che potrebbe aver visto in sogno o trance. (Cfr Apocalisse 1:10 ; Apocalisse 4:2, Isaia 6:1 ; Isaia 6:1, Ezechiele 1:1 ; Ezechiele 1:1 .
) Era una visione reale ma interiore (Keil). Nella sua interpretazione è da tenere ben presente la cautela di Pietro Martire; Omnia haec dicuntur ἀνθρωποπαθῶς] seduto sul suo trono [Era naturale per alcuni commentatori vedere in queste parole un riferimento ai due re allora seduti nei loro abiti reali, ciascuno sul suo trono. Ma è molto dubbio che un tale pensiero fosse presente nella mente dell'oratore, che, implica si riferisce a una visione del passato], e tutto l'esercito del cielo [Le potenze celesti, cherubini, angeli, arcangeli, che circondano il Signore di gloria.
Che non ci possa essere alcun riferimento al sole, alla luna e alle stelle, nonostante questi siano chiamati "l'esercito del cielo" in Deuteronomio 4:19 , Deuteronomio 17:3 , è chiaro dalle parole successive. L'espressione deve essere spiegata da Genesi 32:1 , Genesi 32:2 ] che gli sta accanto [עָלָיו; per il significato, cfr Genesi 18:8 ] alla sua destra e alla sua sinistra. [La somiglianza di questa visione con quella di Isaia ( 1 Re 6:1 ) non deve essere trascurata.]
E il Signore disse: Chi persuaderà [stessa parola in Esodo 22:16 , Ebrei; Giudici 14:15 ; Giudici 16:5 ; Proverbi 1:10 , ecc.; in tutti i casi viene tradotto "invogliare". Confronta con questa domanda quella di Isaia 6:8 .
] Acab, per poter salire e sventagliare a Ramoth-Galead? [Il significato è che la morte di Acab in battaglia era stata decretata nei consigli di Dio, e che la Sapienza Divina aveva escogitato mezzi per realizzare il Suo scopo.] E uno disse in questo modo, e un altro disse [Ebr. dicendo ] in quel modo. [Bähr cita ancora Pietro Martire: " Innuit varias Providentiae Dei modos, quibus decreta sua ad exitum perducit " , e aggiunge che in questa visione "i processi interiori e spirituali sono considerati come fenomeni reali, anzi, anche come persone."]
E uscì uno spirito [Ebr. lo spirito . Da alcuni, specialmente dai primi commentatori, compresero lo spirito maligno. Ma la visione ora generalmente adottata (Thenius, Keil, Bähr) è che si intende "lo spirito di profezia", "il potere che, uscendo da Dio e prendendo possesso di un uomo, lo rende un profeta ( 1 Samuele 10:6 , 1Sa 10:10; 1 Samuele 19:20 , 1 Samuele 19:23 ).
La נָביא è la אִישׁ הָרוּחַ ( Osea 9:7 )" Bähr. Questo potere è qui personificato], e si presentò davanti al Signore, e disse: Io [enfatico in ebraico] lo persuaderò [o attirerò] lui.
E il Signore gli disse: Con che cosa? [Ebr. Da cosa? ] E disse: Io uscirò e sarò uno spirito di menzogna [Ebr. uno spirito di menzogna . cfr. Zaccaria 13:2 ; 1 Giovanni 4:6 ] sulla bocca di tutti i suoi profeti. [I suoi profeti, non quelli di Dio. cfr. 2 Re 3:13 .] Ed egli disse: Tu lo persuaderai. e prevale anche: vai avanti, e fallo.
Ora dunque, ecco, th e Signore ha messo uno spirito di menzogna in bocca a tutti questi tuoi [Cf. ὁ οἷκος ὑμῶν , Matteo 23:38 ] profeti [Questa affermazione, specialmente a coloro che hanno preso il racconto alla lettera, e che hanno visto nello "spirito" o uno degli angeli di Dio, o Satana stesso, ha presentato difficoltà quasi insuperabili .
La difficoltà principale sta nel fatto che l'Onnipotente e Tutto il Santo è qui fatto per dare la Sua approvazione all'inganno e alla menzogna, allo scopo di tentare la morte di Achab. Abbiamo però esattamente la stessa difficoltà, se possibile, espressa più direttamente in Ezechiele 14:9 : "Se il profeta è stato ingannato... Io, il Signore, ho ingannato quel profeta". cfr. Geremia 20:7 ; 1 Samuele 16:15 .
Ma questa difficoltà svanisce se ricordiamo che questo è un linguaggio eutopatico, e vuole semplicemente trasmettere che Dio aveva "preso la casa d'Israele nel loro proprio cuore", perché erano "straniati da Lui attraverso i loro idoli" ( Ezechiele 14:5 ). Acab voleva essere guidato da falsi profeti, e la giustizia di Dio ha decretato che fosse guidato da loro alla sua rovina.
Il peccato è punito dal peccato. "Dio prova la Sua santità soprattutto in questo, che punisce il male con il male e lo distrugge da solo" (Bähr). Achab aveva scelto la menzogna invece della verità: mentendo - secondo la lex talionis - doveva essere distrutto. La difficoltà, infatti, è quella del permesso del male nel mondo; dell'uso del male esistente da parte di Dio per realizzare i Suoi propositi di bene], e il Signore [non io solo, 1 Samuele 16:18 ] ha parlato [ cioè; decretato] male riguardo a te.
Ma Sedechia figlio di Chenaanah [Rawlinson sostiene che fosse una sorta di corifeo dei falsi profeti. È più probabile che, dopo essersi presentato in una precedente occasione ( 1 Re 22:11 ), ora si senta particolarmente addolorato per la schietta affermazione di Michea, che lui e gli altri sono stati posseduti da uno spirito di menzogna] si è avvicinato e ha colpito Micaiah [Un tocco assolutamente naturale.
Ma l'intera narrazione ha ogni segno di naturalezza e veridicità. È facile vedere come Sedechia si sarebbe infuriato per la leggera influenza sui suoi poteri profetici. Apparentemente questa grave indegnità non suscitò alcuna protesta o parola di dispiacere da nessuno dei re. Michea, come Elia, fu lasciato solo], sulla guancia [cfr. Giobbe 16:10 ; Lamentazioni 3:30 ; Luca 6:29 ; e soprattutto Matteo 26:67 ; Luca 22:64 ; Atti degli Apostoli 23:2 .
Qui Michea ebbe "la comunione delle sofferenze" ( Filippesi 3:10 ) con il nostro benedetto Signore. Rawlinson pensa che le sue mani sarebbero legate, ma questo è estremamente improbabile. In tal caso Acab difficilmente avrebbe potuto chiedergli di profetizzare ( Atti degli Apostoli 23:15 ), o se lo avesse fatto, Giosafat avrebbe saputo in anticipo cosa aspettarsi], e disse: In che modo [Ebr.
Cosa, o dove . Il cronista fornisce "via", portando così l'espressione all'unisono con 1 Re 13:12 ; 2 Re 3:8 ; Giobbe 38:24 ] andò [Ebr. passato, attraversato, עָבַר] lo Spirito del Signore [Queste parole sono importanti, poiché mostrano che l'oratore non aveva identificato "lo spirito" del versetto 21 con lo spirito maligno: Giobbe 1:6 ss.
] da me per parlarti? [È abbastanza chiaro da queste parole, in connessione con il versetto 23, che Sedechia era stato cosciente di un'ispirazione, di uno spirito non suo, che lo spingeva a parlare e ad agire come lui. Non dobbiamo attribuire troppa importanza a un discorso provocatorio e appassionato, ma il suo significato sembra essere: ho parlato nel nome e mediante lo spirito di Geova.
Tu affermi di aver fatto lo stesso. Com'è che lo Spirito di Dio dice una cosa per me, un'altra per te? Hai visto ( Giobbe 1:19 ) i segreti consigli del Cielo. Dicci, allora, in che modo, ecc.
E Micaiah disse: Ecco, tu vedrai [Keil capisce, "che lo Spirito del Signore si era allontanato da te". Ma il significato sembra piuttosto essere: "Vedrai chi fu un vero profeta". Egli non risponde alla domanda insolente, ma dice: "Tu cambierai la tua mente durante il giorno", ecc. Con questo possono essere paragonate le parole di nostro Signore, Matteo 26:64 .
Egli manifesta anche lo spirito di nostro Signore ( 1 Pietro 2:22 ss.) "come se il Grande Esempio fosse già apparso davanti a lui" (Bähr)] in quel giorno in cui entrerai in una camera interna [vedi nota su 1 Re 20:30 ] per nasconderti. [Quando si è avverata questa previsione? Probabilmente quando la notizia della sconfitta giunse a Samaria, o il giorno dopo la morte di Acab.
Izebel quasi certamente si sarebbe vendicata sommariamente sui falsi profeti responsabili della morte del marito e del rovescio dell'esercito. O se non l'avesse fatto, i profeti avevano buone ragioni per temere che lo facesse, e si sarebbero nascosti di conseguenza.
E il re d'Israele disse: Prendi [Sing. Prendi tu . Questo comando era probabilmente rivolto all'eunuco menzionato in 1 Re 22:9 ] Michea e riportalo indietro [Eb. farlo tornare . Questo mostra chiaramente che era venuto dalla prigione] ad Amon il governatore [שַׂר capo ; stessa parola in 1 Re 4:2 ; 1 Re 11:24 ; 1 Re 16:9 ; Genesi 37:36 ; Genesi 40:9 , Genesi 40:22 , ecc.
Viene anche menzionato il "capo della città" 2 Re 23:8 ; cfr. Nehemia 11:9 ] della città [che naturalmente avrebbe avuto cura della prigione della città. Probabilmente la prigione era in casa sua. cfr. Genesi 40:3 ; Geremia 37:20 ] e a Ioas figlio del re.
[Tenio suppone che questo principe fosse stato affidato ad Amon per la sua educazione militare, e fa riferimento a 2 Re 10:1 . Ma in quel caso difficilmente sarebbe stato menzionato come associato a lui nell'accusa di un prigioniero così importante. Chiunque fosse Ioas, era un uomo con autorità. È curioso che troviamo un altro profeta, Geremia, messo nella prigione di Malchia, figlio del re (A.
V. figlio di Hammelech ; stessa espressione di qui), Geremia 38:6 ; cfr. Geremia 36:26 . Alcuni hanno visto in questa designazione un nome d'ufficio, e Bähr pensa che "Ioas non era probabilmente un figlio di Acab, ma un principe del sangue". Ma quando ricordiamo quanti figli Achab ebbe ( 2 Re 10:1 ), non si può attribuire nessuna ragione valida per cui Ioas non avrebbe dovuto essere uno di loro. Potrebbe essere stato assegnato ad Amon, e tuttavia associato a lui nel governo della città.]
E dire [Ebr. tu dirai ] , Così dice il re: Metti quest'uomo in prigione [Ebr. casa del carcere . Bähr pensa che Micaiah fosse stato precedentemente in arresto sotto l'accusa di Amon, e ora doveva essere rinchiuso nella prigione vera e propria. Ma più probabilmente le parole significano "mettilo di nuovo in prigione". La sua punizione in più doveva essere sotto forma di dieta carceraria.
È probabile che fu grazie alla presenza di Giosafat che Micaia scampò senza condanna più severa], e lo nutrì con pane di afflizione [o oppressione, לָחַץ pressit ; cfr. Esodo 3:9 ; Numeri 22:25 ; 2 Re 6:32 ], e con acqua di afflizione [Giuseppe (Ant.
8.15. 4) riferisce che dopo la predizione di Michea il re era in grande ansia e timore, fino a quando Sedechia lo colpì deliberatamente, per dimostrare che non era in grado di vendicare un'offesa come fece l'uomo di Dio ( 1 Re 13:4 ), e quindi non vero profeta. Questa può essere una "tradizione rabbinica vuota" (Bähr), ma possiamo essere sicuri che Achab non ascoltò le parole di Michea impassibile.
Aveva avuto prove così convincenti della lungimiranza e dei poteri dei profeti del Signore che avrebbe potuto tremare, proprio mentre si mostrava audace e rimandava Michea alla prigione], finché non vengo in pace. [Questo sembra uno sforzo per incoraggiare se stesso e coloro che lo circondano. Ma quasi tradisce i suoi dubbi. Avrebbe fatto credere loro che non avesse paure.
E Micaiah disse: Se ritorni in pace, il Signore non ha parlato per me. E disse: Ascoltate, o popolo [piuttosto, o nazioni . Audite, populi crones, Vulgata. Si rivolge, per così dire, al mondo], ciascuno di voi. [È una circostanza curiosa che queste stesse parole si trovino all'inizio della profezia di Michea ( 1 Re 1:2 ).
La coincidenza può essere puramente accidentale, o le parole possono essere state prese in prestito dal profeta, non, infatti, dal nostro storico, ma da qualche documento, la cui sostanza è incarnata in questa storia. Michea visse circa un secolo e mezzo dopo Michea; circa un secolo prima che il Libro dei Re fosse dato al mondo.
Allora il re d'Israele e Giosapat re di Giuda salirono a Ramot di Galaad per combattere. ["Per la stessa rete di malvagi consigli che si è tessuta il re d'Israele è stato condotto alla sua rovina" (Stanley). Non possiamo dubitare che almeno Giosafat sarebbe stato ben contento di abbandonare la spedizione. Dopo la sollecitudine che aveva manifestato per la sanzione di uno dei profeti di Jahvè, e dopo che colui che era stato consultato aveva predetto la sconfitta dell'esercito, il re di Giuda deve aver avuto ripensamenti ai miei dubbi.
Ma non è difficile capire perché, nonostante i suoi timori, non si sia tirato indietro. Perché, in primo luogo, si era impegnato nella guerra con la promessa avventata e positiva di 1 Re 22:4 . In secondo luogo, era ospite di Achab, e da lui era stato sontuosamente intrattenuto, e quindi ci sarebbe voluto un po' di coraggio morale per districarsi dalle fatiche in cui era invischiato.
Inoltre si sarebbe sottoposto all'imputazione di vigliaccheria se avesse abbandonato il suo alleato a causa di una profezia che lo minacciava di morte. Le persone intorno a lui, di nuovo, incluso forse il suo seguito, erano possedute dallo spirito della battaglia e trattavano la profezia di Michea con disprezzo, e sarebbe stato difficile per lui nuotare da solo contro la corrente. È anche probabile che abbia scartato le portentose parole di Michea a causa della lunga.
permanente lite tra lui e Achab. E, infine, dobbiamo ricordare che i suoi interessi erano minacciati dalla Siria, e potrebbe aver temuto guai da quella parte nel caso in cui questa guerra fosse abbandonata. Rawlinson suggerisce che potrebbe aver concepito un affetto personale per Achab; ma 2 Cronache 19:2 offre solo un esiguo motivo per questa conclusione.]
E il re d'Israele disse a Gioafat [a Ramoth di Galaad, alla vigilia della battaglia]: Mi travestirò." [stessa parola 1 Re 20:38 ] ed 1 Re 20:38 [al margine", quando doveva travestirsi, " etc; è del tutto sbagliato. L'ebraico ha due infiniti; illuminato; travestirsi ed entrare; una costruzione che è frequentemente impiegata per indicare un comando assoluto.
Cf. Genesi 17:10; Esodo 20:8; Isaia 14:31; and see Ewald, 828 c. "The infinitive absolute is the plainest and simplest form of the voluntative for exclamations" (Bähr). It agrees well with the excitement under which Ahab was doubtless labouring] into the battle. [It is not necessary to suppose with Ewald, Rawlinson, el; that he had heard of Ben-hadad's command to his captain, (verse 81).
It is hardly likely that such intelligence could be brought by spies, and there would be no deserters from the Syrian army to that of the Jews. It is enough to remember that Micaiah's words, "these have no master," could not fail to awaken come alarm in his bosom, especially when connected with the prophecy of 1 Re 20:42. He will not betray his fear by keeping out of the fray—which, indeed, he could not do without abdicating one of the principal functions of the king (1 Samuele 8:20), and without exposing himself to the charge of cowardice; but under the circumstances he thinks it imprudent to take the lead of the army, as kings were wont to do (2 Samuele 1:10), in his royal robes.
He hopes by his disguise to escape all clanger]: but put thou on thy robes [LXX. τὸν ἱματισμόν μου. "My robed" "We can neither imagine Ahab's asking nor Jehoshaphat's consenting to such a procedure. Jehoshaphat had his own royal robes with him, as appears from 1 Re 20:10" (Rawlinson). If this LXX.
interpretation could be maintained it would lend some colour to the supposition, otherwise destitute of basis, that Ahab by this arrangement was plotting the death of Jehoshaphat in order that he might incorporate Judah into his own kingdom. It is clear, however, that Ahab then had other work on his hands, and it is doubtful whether even he was capable of such a pitch of villainy. What he means is, either
(1) that the Syrians have a personal enmity against himself (verse 81), whereas they could have none against the king of Judah; or
(2) that Jehoshaphat's life had not been threatened as his own had. "These words וְאַתָּה לְּבשׁ are not to be taken as a command, but simply in this sense: Thou canst put on thy royal dress, since there is no necessity for thee to take any such precautions as I have to take" (Keil). Do they not rather mean that Jehoshaphat should be the recognized leader of the army in which Ahab would serve in a more private capacity?] And the king of Israel disguised himself and went into the battle.
But the king of Syria commanded [rather, had commanded. These words are of the nature of a parenthesis. "Now the king," etc. צִוָּה is so rendered in 2 Cronache 18:30] his thirty and two captains [mentioned in 1 Re 20:24. It does not follow, however (Wordsworth), that these very men had been spared by Ahab] that had rule over his chariots [Heb.
chariotry. Another indication that the chariots were regarded as the most important arm of the Syrian service], saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel. [This Orientalism, translated into Western ideas, means, "Direct your weapons against the king." What Ahab had done to provoke such resentment is not quite clear. Rawlinson supposes that Ben-hadad's "defeat and captivity were still rankling in his mind, and he wished to retaliate on Ahab the humiliation which he considered himself to have suffered.
" But it is impossible to see in Ahab's generous conduct towards him a sufficient reason for the fierce hatred which these words disclose. It is much more probable that some affront had subsequently been offered to the Syrian monarch, possibly in the shape of the reproaches which Ahab may have addressed to him on account of his retention of Ramoth-Gilead, and the gross violation of the treaty of 1 Re 20:34. It is also possible that he hoped that the death of Ahab would terminate the war (Bähr).]
And it came to pass when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely [אַךְ, not only (Bähr, Keil), but certainly; cf. Genesi 44:28; Giudici 3:24; 2 Re 24:3] it [Heb. he] is the king of Israel.
And they turned aside [Cf. 1 Re 20:39, same word. The Hebrew inserts עָלָיו. The chronicler reads יָסֹבוּ they surrounded him, instead of יָסֻרוּ; and the LXX. has ἐκύκλωσεν, in both places. But the Syrians can hardly have actually closed round the king, and the alteration might easily be made in the course of transcription] to fight against him [according to their instructions]: and Jehoshaphat cried out.
[This cry has been very variously interpreted. According to some, it was his own name that he ejaculated, which is possible, if the command of 1 Re 20:31 was known in the allied army. According to others, it was the battle cry of Judah, which, it is said, would be familiar to the Syrians, and which would rally his own soldiers round him. The Vulgate, no doubt influenced by the words of 2 Cronache 18:31, "And the Lord helped him, and God moved them to depart from him," interprets, clamavit ad Dominum.
That it was a cry for Divine help is the most probable, because it is almost an instinct, especially with a pious soul like Jehoshaphat, to cry to God in the moment of danger. That he had doubts as to whether the course he was pursuing was pleasing to God, would make him all the more ready to cry aloud for mercy the moment he found himself in peril. But it may have been merely a cry of terror. It must be carefully observed that the Scripture does not say that it was this cry led to his being recognized and spared.]
And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots perceived [in what way we are not told. But Ahab would be known to some of them, 1Ki 20:1-43 :81] that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him
And a certain man [Heb. a man. It was natural for some of the Rabbins to identify this archer with Naaman—the tradition is found in Josephus. But it is directly contrary to the spirit of the narrative to attempt to identify him. As it was a chance arrow, so it was by an unknown archer] drew a bow at a venture [Heb. in his simplicity, i.
e; with no intention of shooting Ahab: not knowing what he was doing. That this is the meaning is clear from the use of the words in 2 Samuele 15:11], and smote the king of Israel between the Joints of the harness [The marg; joints and the breastplate, comes nearer the Hebrew. But it is clear that the rendering joints, notwithstanding that it has the support of Gesenius and others, is a mistaken one.
"In the joints" we can understand, but "between the joints and the coat of mail," gives no sense. It is obvious that הַדְּבָקִים like הַשִּׁרְיָן following, must signify, some portion of the armour, and the meaning of the verb דָבַק, adhaesit, leads us to conclude that "the hanging skirt of parallel metal plates—hence the plural"—(Bähr) is intended. The coat of mail only covered the breast and ribs.
To this a fringe of movable plates of steel was attached or fastened, hence called דְבָקִים. So Luther, Zwischen den Panzer und Hengel. One is reminded here of the Parthian arrow which wrung from Julian the Apostate the dying confession, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean." Cf. Salmi 7:13, Salmi 7:14]: wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand [or, according to the Chethib, hands.
The charioteers of Palestine, like those of Egypt and Assyria, or those of modern Russia, held a rein in each hand. Same expression 2 Re 9:23. The meaning is "turn round"] and carry me Out of the host; for I am wounded, [Heb. made sick. The king probably felt his wound to be mortal, as a wound in such a part, the abdomen (cf.
2 Samuele 2:23; 2 Samuele 3:27; 2 Samuele 20:10), would be Vulgate, graviter vulneratus sum. How far an arrow in such a place could penetrate, we may gather from 2 Re 9:24; cf. Giobbe 16:13. And he was seemingly anxious that the army should not know it, lest would soon discover it if he remained with the host; he can fight no longer; his wound needs attention; hence this command. It is quite possible that the charioteer, in the din and confusion of battle, may not have observed that his master was wounded. The arrow had not struck any part of the armour.]
And the battle increased [Heb. went up. Marg. ascended. The tide of warfare rose higher and higher. Both Keil and Bähr think that the image is taken from a swelling river and cite Isaia 8:7. The object of this verse is to explain how it was that the king's request was not complied with] that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot [Heb.
made to stand. LXX. ἠν ἐστηκώς. He was supported in his chariot by some of his servants, and maintained in an erect posture. Chariots were destitute of seats. According to Thenius and Keil, he maintained himself erect, by his own strength. But the word is passive] against the Syrians [Heb. in the face of the Syrians.
נֹכַח, coram. His back was not turned to them, as he had desired. The idea that he was in any way fighting against the Syrians is altogether foreign to the text. It is at first sight somewhat difficult to reconcile this statement with the direction given to the charioteer in the preceding verse, and some have been led, though without sufficient warrant, to conclude that Ahab left the field, had he wound bound up, and then returned to take his part in the battle.
But the explanation is very simple. As the battle increased, it became impossible to comply with the king's desire. So thick was the fight that retreat was impossible. Hence the wounded king, who would otherwise have sunk down to the bottom of the chariot, had to be "stayed up in the presence of the Syrians." This circumstance may also account for the fact that he died at even. Had it been possible to remove him and staunch his wounds, he might have lingered for some time.
As it was, he bled to death. It is not clear, therefore, that "his death was kingly" (Kitto), or that we must concede to Ahab "the credit of right princely fortitude on this occasion" (Rawlinson). He would have left the host could he have done so. It was his set-rants propped up the dying man in his chariot, to encourage the army. What a picture for an artist—the king with the pallor of death spreading over his face, the anxious faces of the attendants, the pool of blood, the sun sinking to the horizon, etc.
], and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound [Heb. the blood of the wound poured] into the midst [Heb. bosom; LXX. κόλπον, the hollow part, or "well." The same word is used of the concave part of the altar] of the chariot.
And there went a proclamation throughout the host [Heb. And the shouting passed over in the camp. Gesenius will have it that רִנָּה must mean a "joyful cry," and would see the cause of joy in the cessation of hostilities and the permission to return home] about the going down of the sun [According to the chronicler (1 Re 18:34), it was at sunset that the king died.
It seems natural, therefore, to connect this shout with his death. But the approach of night would of itself put an end to the battle. It does not appear that Israel had been utterly defeated, or had suffered great loss. But "they had no master"], saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country [or land].
So the king died [The LXX. makes this to be a part of the proclamation ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν… γῆν ὅτι τέθνηκεν ὁ βασιλεύς, which involves a very slight change in the Hebrew text, כי מת המלךְ instead of וימת המלךְ and gives a better sense. It has already been stated that the king died. Such repetitions however are common in Hebrew, and this reading has almost the look of an emendation] and was brought [Heb.
came. The A.V. is against the grammar. As "came" would be a strange word to use of a dead man, it is highly probable that instead of ויבזא we should read ויבואו with the LXX. καὶ ἧλθον] to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria ["with his father," 1 Re 16:28].
And one washed the chariot in [or at; Heb. עַל] the pool of Samaria. [Nearly all Eastern cities had their tanks or pools, often outside the city gate. Jerusalem has several of these, and we read of one at Hebron (2 Samuele 14:12) and Gibeon (2 Samuele 2:13). Cf.
Cantico dei Cantici 7:4. The Hebrew word בְּרֵכָה is preserved in the modern Arabic Birkeh]; and the dogs [The LXX. has the swine and the dogs. The mention of swine is hardly likely to have been omitted, had it formed part of the original text] licked up his blood [cf. 1 Re 21:19, note.
According to Josephus, the chariot was washed "in the fountain of Jezreel." The alteration would appear to have been made to avoid the difficulty occasioned by the discrepancy between the statement of the text, and that of 1 Re 21:19], and they washed his armour [So the Chaldaic and the Syriac. But this translation is now abandoned,
(1) because it is contrary .to the usage of the language to make זנֹוֹת the object; and
(2) because that word occurs in the Old Testament only in the sense of harlots (Bähr). The true meaning is that given by the LXX; καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐλούσαντο. רָחַץdoes not require any object such as "chariot," or "corpse," for it is found in the sense of bathe (intrans.) in Esodo 2:5; Numeri 19:19; Rth 3:1-18 :21; 2 Re 5:10.
Bähr reminds us that harlots are elsewhere associated with dogs (Deuteronomio 23:19; Apocalisse 22:15). This fact is mentioned as a proof of the just judgment of God. Even if these harlots were not prostitutes devoted to the service of the Phoenician deities, whose cultus Ahab had sought to establish in Israel, still the result of his religious policy had been the spread of prostitution.
It is a fine example of the lex tolionis. "He which is filthy, let him be filthy still"]; according unto the word of the Lord which he spake [the reference is to 1 Re 21:19].
Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made [So called because it was adorned with ivory. See on 1 Re 11:1.; and cf. Amos 3:15; Salmi 45:8; Cantico dei Cantici 7:5. Rawlinson cites several passages from Greek and Latin authors to prove that ivory was anciently applied, not only to furniture, but to the doors and walls of houses], and an the cities that he built [Probably Jezreel was one, but we have no information concerning them.
The fact that he did build cities, however, is one proof of Ahab's enterprize. He was not weak in all particulars], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah ["Whom Jehovah upholds." The name suggests that, notwithstanding his idolatries, Ahab cannot have completely abandoned the worship of the Lord] his son reigned in his stead.
Reign of Jehoshaphat.
And Jehoahaphat ["Whom Jehovah judges"] the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel. [The historian now resumes for a moment the history of Judah, which has dropped out of notice since 1 Re 15:24, where the accession of Jehoshaphat was mentioned. His reign, which is here described in the briefest possible way, occupies four chapters (17-20.) of 2 Chronicles]
Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi.
And he walked in an the ways of Asa his father [Apart from his alliance with the house of Ahab, and the troubles in which it involved him, his reign was alike pious and prosperous. Like Asa's, it was distinguished by internal reforms, and By signal deliverances from foreign enemies]; he turned not aside from it [as Asa was tempted to do in his old age], doing [Heb.
to do] that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away [Heb. departed not, as in 1 Re 15:14; 2 Cronache 15:17; 2 Re 12:4, Hebrews; 14:4, Hebrews But see 2 Cronache 18:6. The discrepancy is the exact parallel of that between 1 Re 15:14 and 2 Cronache 14:3; or between this latter passage and 2 Cronache 15:17.
And the explanation is the same, viz; that an effort was made to remove the high places, which was partially, and only partially, successful]; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places [cf. 1 Re 3:2].
And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. [One great feature of his reign was this: that the hostility which had lasted, even if it sometimes slumbered, between the two kingdoms for seventy years, from the date of their separation to the time of Asa's death, gave way to peace and even alliance. Judah now recognized the division of the kingdom as an accomplished fact, and no longer treated Israel, even theoretically, as in rebellion.
It is probable that the marriage of Jehoram and Athaliah was at once the fruit of, and was intended to cement, this good understanding (2 Cronache 18:1). It is hardly likely (Bähr) that the peace was the result of the union of the two families. From the analogy of 2 Cronache 19:2; 2 Cronache 20:37; cf. 1 Re 16:31; 2 Re 3:14, we should conclude that the marriage at any rate was ill advised and displeasing to God.
Bähr sees in it a step on the part of Jehoshaphat towards realizing the union of the two kingdoms under the supremacy of Judah. He thinks that we cannot otherwise account for this complete change of front.]
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might [as in 1Ki 15:23, 1 Re 16:27, etc. It is noticeable that this word is not used of Ahab, notwithstanding his wars and victories] that he showed [see 2 Re 3:9 sqq.; 2 Cronache 17:12 sqq. His judicial reforms are hardly referred to here], and how he warred [2 Cronache 18:1; 2 Cronache 20:1.], are they not written in the book of he chronicles of the kings of Judah?
And the remnant of the Sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa [It appears hence that Asa's removal of the religious prostitutes (1 Re 15:12), like that of the high places, had been but partial], he took [Heb. exterminated] out of the land.
There was then no king in Edom: a deputy [נִצָב, same word as in 1 Re 4:7. It is implied that this officer was appointed by the king of Judah (Wordsworth)] was king. [This fact is mentioned to show how it was that Jehoshaphat was able to build a fleet at Ezion-Geber, in the territory of Edom (1 Re 9:26).
That country would seem to have regained its independence very soon after Solomon's death (1 Re 11:14), but would also appear from the text, and from 2 Re 8:20, 2 Re 8:22, to have been again made subject to Judah, probably by Jehoshaphat himself; see 2 Cronache 17:10, 2 Cronache 17:11.]
Jehoshaphat made [The Chethib has עשר ten, obviously a clerical error for עשה made] ships of Tharshish [see note on 1 Re 10:22] to go to Ophir [In 2 Cronache 20:36, Tharshish is read for Ophir. Wordsworth holds that two separate fleets are intended, but this is most improbable] for gold [Evidently the great prosperity of his reign had suggested to him the idea of emulating Solomon's naval exploits, and of reviving the commerce of his people with the East]: but they went not [Heb.
it went not]: for the ships were broken [Probably they were dashed by a storm against the rocks which "lie in jagged ranges on each side," Stanley] at Ezion-Geber.
Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants In the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not. [But we are told in 2 Cronache 20:37 that the ships were broken, according to a prophecy of Eliezer, the son of Dodavah, because Jehoshaphat had joined himself with Ahaziah. The explanation is that the fleet had been built by the two kings conjointly, and manned by the subjects of Jehoshaphat exclusively; and that, after the disaster, Ahaziah proposed either to repair the injured vessels, or to construct a second fleet, which should then be partly manned by sailors of the northern kingdom, "men probably accustomed to the sea, perhaps trained at Tyre" (Rawlinson).
This proposal was declined by the king of Judah, not so much on account of the "reflection on his subjects' skill contained in it," as because of the prophecy of Eliezer, and the evidently judicial disaster which had befallen the fleet already built.]
And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead [2 Cronache 21:1.]
Reign of Ahaziah.
Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel. [Parts of two years; 2 Re 3:1; and of. 2 Re 1:17 and 2 Re 8:16. It is suggested that Jehoram was associated with his father in the government of Judah from the date of the expedition against Ramoth-Gilead, and this is not improbable. But it has been already remarked that these chronological notices appear to have undergone a revision which has sometimes resulted in confusion.]
And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father [1 Re 16:30-11; cf. 2 Re 3:2] and in the way of his mother [The powerful influence of Jezebel, even after Ahab's death, is hinted at here. It was to her that idolatry owed its position in Israel], and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [the calf worship and idolatry existed side by side], who made Israel to sin.
For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger [or vexed] the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done. [The termination of this book at this point could hardly be more arbitrary if it had been made by accident. These verses are closely connected with 2 Kings 2 Re 1:1. The division here obscures the connexion between the sin of Ahaziah and the judgments which it provoked.]
HOMILETICS
The Death of Ahab and the Defeat of Israel.
This chapter is almost entirely occupied with an account of the death of Ahab, and of the circumstances which preceded and attended it. The earlier portion of the chapter, which contains the prophesyings of the false prophets and the vision of Micaiah, is only recorded because of its bearing on the death of the king, and the dispersion of his army.
And the prominence accorded to Ahab's end only corresponds with the space assigned to his reign. That reign was so full of evil for Israel that it occupies a fourth part of this entire book. It was meet, therefore, that the death which avenged it should be recorded with proportionate detail. For the battle of Ramoth-Gilead was the final payment—so far as this world is concerned—for the sins of two and twenty years.
But it is to be observed in the first place that Ahab's repentance (1 Re 21:29), as the penitence begotten of fear often is, was but shortlived. Had it lasted, we had not read of this tragical death. How soon the king shook off his impressions we know not, but we do know that—thanks to the natural weakness of his character, still further enfeebled by years of self indulgence and submission to a stronger will than his own; thanks to the evil genius (1 Re 21:25) ever at his side to stifle good resolves and to steel his heart against the true religion; thanks to the impious system to which he found himself committed, and the toils of which he found it impossible to break, this unhappy king steadily lapsed into his old sins. It "happened unto him according to the true proverb, "The dog is turned to his vomit again" (2 Pietro 2:22).
And it is also to be considered here that Israel had gone hand in hand with him in his downward course. Had the king's career been one of steadily increasing demoralization? so had that of the people. The death of Naboth affords sufficient proof of this. The ready compliance of the elders, the alacrity with which they perpetrated that judicial murder, shows to what a moral depth the example of the court and the idolatry around them had plunged the holy nation.
No; king and queen had not sinned alone, and justice required they should not suffer alone. Nations and their rulers, as we have already seen, receive a reckoning in this life; how much more the covenant people and the Lord's anointed? Placed as they were under a direct law of temporal punishments and rewards, it would have been strange, indeed, if such a reign as this had gone unrecompensed.
But so far from that, they have already received part reckoning for their sin. The three years drought, the famine, the terrible Syrian invasions, have avenged a part of their idolatries and immoralities; but there still remains a long score of guilt to be expiated in shame and suffering and blood.
And here it may be well to remind ourselves what were the sins which awaited a settlement under the walls of Ramoth-Gilead. They were five in number.
(1) The calf worship—the hereditary sin of the northern kingdom, the sin of Jeroboam;
(2) the worship of Baal with the prostitution which accompanied it—the sin primarily of Jezebel and her Phoenician following, but shared in by almost the entire nation;
(3) the determined persecution of the prophets and the virtual proscription of the ancient faith;
(4) the release of the Syrian king in disregard of God's will the sin of Ahab and his captains; and
(5) the murder of Naboth in defiance of all law—the sin of the rulers and elders. It may be thought that the two last were peculiarly Ahab's or Jezebel's sins, and that the people had no part in them; but this is a mistaken view. No doubt he and his infamous consort had by far the largest share in all the four, and therefore they received, as we shall see presently, by far the severer punishment.
But just as the people worshipped at the shrines which the king supported, just as they practised the abominations which he had introduced, so had they approved his policy towards Ben-hadad—see the words of 1Ki 19:1-21 :42, "thy people for his people"—and the guilt of innocent blood, as we know (Numeri 35:33; Deuteronomio 21:7; 2 Samuele 21:1.) rested on the community until it had been cleansed in blood. It is clear, then, that at the time when this chapter opens, king and people, though in very different degrees, were chargeable with the sins of schism, of idolatry, of unfaithfulness to God, of murder. It is now for us to observe how these things were expiated.
Now there are two principles which underlie all God's retributive dealings with his ancient people. First, that sin is left, or made to bring its own penalties. Per quod quis peccat per idem quoque plectitur idem. Secondly, that the penalty is ever correspondent with the sin. This latter is what we commonly call the lex talionis. We have had instances of the working of both of these laws, but especially of the latter, in the earlier portions of this history. We shall find the same laws in operation here.
For consider—
I. By what means Ahab was led to death and Israel to defeat.
II. By what instruments these punishments were inflicted.
III. In what way they were signalized as the chastisements of sin.
I. In considering the INFLUENCES which moved Ahab to war, and which led to his destruction, we must assign the first place to—
1. The perfidy of Ben-hadad. No doubt it rankled in Ahab's breast that, after he had dealt so magnanimously with a prostrate foe, after he had treated an insolent invader with unexampled generosity, and after a solemn covenant had been made betwixt them, it rankled in his soul that a Syrian garrison, in spits of all embassies and remonstrances, should hold the Jewish fortress of Ramoth-Gilead and thus offer a standing menace to Israel and Judah alike.
But did it never occur to him that the conduct of Ben-hadad was but the counterpart of his own? He too had forgotten his benefactor and deliverer, to whom he was bound by solemn covenant; he still maintained a garrison of idolatrous priests in the heart of Immanuel's land. Ben-hadad's breach of faith was no greater than his own. Probably, he never thought of this when he debated whether he should go up against Ramoth-Gilead.
He would remember, however, that he had only himself to blame for this act of perfidy, and he would devoutly wish he had dealt with the oppressor as he had deserved; he would perhaps think that it only served him right for his weakness and sin. We see, however, that he is paid back in his own coin, that the measure he has meted to God is measured to him again. The sin of three years before gave the first impulse to war and death.
2. The lies of the false prophets. It is hardly likely that Ahab would have engaged in this war but for the unanimous verdict of the four hundred prophets in its favour. We see in Micaiah's vision that a "lying spirit" was the principal means employed to procure his fall (verse 22). But what were these prophets, and how came they to prophesy thus? One thing is certain, that they were not prophets of Jehovah, and another thing is also clear, that whether they were prophets of Baal, or, as is most probable, prophets of the calves, the false system which Ahab had supported became through them a means of his destruction.
The schism or the idolatry, as the case may be, is bearing its bitter fruit. He has sown to lies, he reaps to delusions. It is a conspicuous instance of the just judgment of heaven that Ahab is lured to his death by the impostors he had cherished and patronized. "He that hates truth shall be the dupe of lies." The sin of the calves too brings its own retribution.
But how was it, it is worth asking, that these four hundred sycophants came to, counsel him thus? Was it not that they took their cue from him, and prophesied what they knew would please? They saw that the king had already made up his mind—for his resolution was taken before they were summoned (1 Re 19:4, 1 Re 19:5), and they thought it wisest to swim with the stream.
It may be they were guided by other and inscrutable impulses (verse 23), and were constrained, they knew not how, to prophesy as they did; it may be they honestly mistook the vox populi for the vox Dei, but probably the working of their minds was this: "The king wishes it. Jehoshaphat assents to it. The people are set upon it. We should be going against common sense and our own interests to resist it."
And so the king was a second time paid in his own coin. Those martial prophecies had been minted in his own brain. He wished for lies and he had them. His own passions and pride were reflected, were echoed, in the voices of his four hundred soothsayers. It is the case of which both sacred and profane history supply so many examples, Homo vult decipi et decipiatur. It is thus God deals with deceivers still.
He leaves them to be deceived, to be the prey of their own disordered fancies. It is notorious how men find in the Bible what they wish to find there; how all unsuspectingly they read their own meanings into the words of Scripture; how they interpret its injunctions by the rule of their own inclinations. "He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isaia 44:20). "Ephraim is joined unto idols: let him alone" (Osea 4:17).
3. The silence of the Lord's prophets. Why was it, we cannot help asking here, why was it that there were no true prophets present, at this crisis in the history of Israel, to step forth and warn the king against this undertaking? Why were the four hundred deceivers left to have their own way? We see here the fruit of persecution, the recompense of those fierce dragonnades which Jezebel had maintained against the prophetic order.
Of the men who might have interposed to prevent this disastrous expedition, some were dead, others were banished; king and queen had wickedly silenced them. They now reap the fruit of those repressive measures. Their curses come home to roost. Elijah might have saved king and country, but he is hiding from the wrath of Jezebel, or is withdrawn by God from the arena of history. Micaiah the son of Imlah foresaw the end, but Ahab had imprisoned him, and could not brook to take his advice, and had persuaded himself that his admonitions were the outcome of personal enmity.
It is true this prophet was not silent, but plainly foretold defeat and death; but Ahab was in a manner bound not to regard his warnings. He had told Jehoshaphat it would be so. It would look like cowardice to be influenced by his vaticinations. And so he is left to the prophets of his choice: no hand is raised to stop him: he goes straight into the jaws of death, the victim of his own folly and cruelty and sin.
II. The INSTRUMENTS of retribution were—
1. The king whom Ahab had wickedly spared. We have already seen in what the sin of sparing the tyrant Ben-hadad consisted. It is now for us to observe that this foolish and impious deed brought its own peculiar Nemesis. It was Ben-hadad himself who said, "Fight neither with small nor great, but with the king of Israel only." Ahab's ill-advised clemency procures his own destruction.
With base natures, it only needs that we should put them under obligations which they cannot possibly discharge, in order to provoke their bitter enmity. But it is much more material to observe here that in Ben-hadad's conduct we may see a parable of the cruel revenge which a cherished sin will often take on those who have once conquered and then trifled with it. The devil that was cast out returns bringing with him seven other devils more wicked than himself (Matteo 12:45).
We are constantly as tender to the sins which tyrannized over us as was Ahab to Ben-hadad. Instead of slaying them—hewing them in pieces before the Lord—we leave the roots of bitterness in the heart's soil, and they spring up and trouble us. It is like that peasant of whom we have all read, who found a viper in the field, benumbed with the winter's cold, and put the venomous beast into his bosom to warm it back into life. The first use it made of its restored power was to wound and destroy its benefactor. How dearly have we often paid for our pleasant vices!
2. The Syrians who were once subjects of Israel. It is well to remember here that these enemies who gave Ahab his death wound at Ramoth were once under the heel of Israel (2 Samuele 8:6). Now we see their relations reversed. Syria has now become the standing oppressor of the chosen people. We have already pointed out some of the steps which led to this result.
The sin of Solomon and the unfaithfulness of Asa alike were factors in the change. But the most influential reason was the godlessness of Ahab. But three years ago Syria lay at his mercy; its power was completely broken. But Ahab, so far from learning that the Lord was God (1 Re 20:13, 1 Re 20:28), had ignored the Lord, and acted as if his own might had gotten him the victory. How fitting that these same Syrians should be the instruments to scourge him.
3. An unknown, unconscious archer. The arrow that pierced Ahab's corselet was shot "in simplicity," without deliberate aim, with no thought of striking the king. It was an unseen Hand that guided that chance shaft to its destination. It was truly "the arrow of the Lord's vengeance." (Cf. 2 Re 12:17.) It would be deeply instructive could we know the thoughts of that unhappy king, as with the arrow in his side, and the blood draining from his wound, and forming a sickening pool in the well of the chariot, he was stayed up those wretched weary, hours until the sunset against the Syrians.
Surely he knew at last that "the Lord was God" (1Ki 18:39; 1 Re 20:13, 1 Re 20:28). His cry would now be, "Thou hast found me, O my enemy." He would think, it may be, of Elijah's and Micaiah's prophecies; he would think of Naboth's bleeding and mangled corpse; he would think, above all, that his sin had found him out, and that Jehovah had conquered.
He had fought all his life for Baal, but it was in vain; he had been kicking against the pricks; he had been wrestling not with flesh and blood, but with an Invisible, Irresistible, Omnipotent God, and now he is thrown, east down never to rise again.
III. It now only remains for us to consider the CIRCUMSTANCES of Ahab's death. These were of so portentous and exceptional a character as to mark it—
1. As a direct visitation of God. The army, that clay defeated, the contingent of Judah, the citizens of Samaria, the subjects of both kingdoms, could not think that a mere chance had happened to Ahab when they remembered
(1) That this death had been distinctly foretold. Not once or twice, but three times had a prophetic voice foreshadowed for him a sudden and shameful end (1 Re 20:42; 1Ki 21:19; 1 Re 22:17, 1 Re 22:28). Moreover Micaiah, the last of these monitors, had staked his reputation as God's prophet on the fulfilment of his prediction of disaster.
And his oracle had not been spoken in secret; he had appealed to the entire assembly gathered round the two kings—and the flower of Israel and Judah alike were there—and even to neighbouring nations (verse 28, Hebrews), to be witnesses of his words, and those words were fresh in their memories.
(2) How the king met his death. For it was of course known to the army that Ahab had disguised himself, whilst Jehoshaphat had put on his robes. After the sinister prophecy of Micaiah, we may be sure that the allied armies would watch, with the gravest anxiety, for the issue. They would perceive that the king himself was not without his fears; they would wonder whether his disguise would procure his escape.
And when at the end of the day they learnt that Jehoshaphat who had been arrayed like a king, and who on that account had been exposed to imminent peril, had escaped unhurt, whilst their king, who had never been recognized, had been pierced by a chance arrow between the joints of his harness and mortally wounded, was there one but would see the finger of God in this death? Surely if the Psalmist's words were then written, they would occur to their minds, "Whither shall I go from thy spirit, and whither shall I flee from thy presence?" etc.
(Salmi 139:9), or that other Psalm, "God shall shoot at them with a swift arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded" (Salmi 64:7), and the result would be that all men would fear and declare the work of God (ib. 1 Re 19:9), and confess that this was His doing. The fugitives who stole away in the dark and black night to their homes, like sheep without a shepherd, would have learnt one lesson at least that clay, viz; that there was a God that judgeth in the earth."
2. As God's appropriate recompense for the sins of that age. We have already seen how this history puts its stamp of reprobation on
(1) the calf worship, inasmuch as by the prophets of the calves the king was beguiled into this enterprize. But the sin of Jeroboam was not the special sin of Ahab's reign. On the contrary, the calf worship was rather overshadowed and eclipsed by the frightful idolatries, which had so much greater fascination for the evil heart of unbelief. It was the characteristic of that reign that the unclean rites of Baal and Astarte, the abominations of the Amorites, were re-established in the land. We see in Ahab's death
(2) the requital of his share in that sin (1 Re 16:31, 1 Re 16:32). The idolatry which had desolated the church was avenged by a horde of idolaters ravaging the land and slaying the arch-idolater in battle. There is a rough lex talionis here. (Cf. Geremia 5:19.) If they would have idolatry they should taste the tender mercies of idolaters.
On that field were the predictions of Moses (Deuteronomio 28:25), Samuel (1 Samuele 12:25), and Solomon (1 Re 8:33) fulfilled.
(3) But a recompense still more exact and conspicuous attended the impurities which Ahab had practised under the name of religion. He had filled the land with prostitutes. What a proof of the just judgment of God it was that these infamous persons added dishonour to his death! He had maintained them through life: he should be associated with them in his end. The harlots bathed in the pool that was reddened with his blood (verses 38, Hebrews)
(4) Nor was the connexion of Ahab's death with the sin of releasing Ben-hadad any less conspicuous. What meant that strange malignant command, "Fight… only with the king of Israel?" Was it not that the Syrian king, on whom Ahab would not execute vengeance, had become, in the counsels of God, an instrument of vengeance, a minister to execute wrath, against the anointed of the Lord? "Thy life shall go for his life"—it was thus that every religious mind would interpret so singular and, considering the circumstances (1 Re 20:1.), so otherwise inexplicable a word of command. It was as if Ben-hadad had proclaimed that his mission primarily was to settle the long arrearages of justice with that wicked Ahab.
(5) How the murder of Naboth was avenged that shameful day, it is hardly necessary to point out. There was a strict retaliation—wound for wound, stripe for stripe, blood for blood, dishonour for dishonour. There were many, besides Jehu and Bidkar, who would recall the fierce threatening of the Tishbite (1 Re 21:19); many, besides priests and prophets, would remember the axiom of their law, "blood defileth the land," etc.
(Numeri 35:33), or would think on that day of the so-called "precept of Noah," "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesi 9:6). The elders of Jezreel, yes, and Jezebel herself, understood that Naboth's blood had cried from the ground, and that the cry had come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. It was His foot that was dipped in the blood of His enemies (Salmi 68:28).
And this ignominious death—in what sharp contrast it stands with the indolent, luxurious, sensual life! "The ivory house that he made," what an irony we may see in those words! "Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar ....
He shall be buried with the burial of an ass," etc. (Geremia 22:15, Geremia 22:19).
The cities he built, the victories he won, how poor and empty do these exploits seem as we stand by the pool of Samaria, and see the livid, blood-stained corpse dragged from the chariot! The Latin poet asks what all his pleasures, travels, knowledge, can avail a man who has to die after all; but the question presents itself with tenfold force when life's fitful fever is followed by such a sleep, by such a dream, as Ahab's. "It had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matteo 26:24).
And the death of Ahab was followed by the dispersion of his army. When the proclamation rang through the host, "Every man to his country," and when the sensed ranks precipitately broke up, and horseman and footman fled for his life, then the share of Israel in the sins of Ahab and Jezebel was in part expiated. There was not a man but knew why "the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies.
" "There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel." (Giosuè 7:12, Giosuè 7:13). Baal had troubled them, had made of the heights of Ramoth very valley of Achor.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Bad Company.
According to the order of the chapters in the LXX; which is probably the original or true order, 1 Re 20:1. should immediately precede this. Then, after the history of the war between Ahab and Ben-hadad, this chapter opens naturally: "And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel." In the third year of this peace Jehoshaphat visited Ahab; and from this visit arose serious events, which are admonitory to us that we should avoid the company of the wicked.
I. BAD COMPANY COMPROMISES CHARACTER.
1. It injures morals.
(1) The earlier career of Jehoshaphat was faultless. He is highly commended for his faithfulness to God and zeal against idolatry (2 Cronache 17:1).
(2) His first fault was sanctioning the marriage of his son Jehoram with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab (2 Re 8:18, 2 Re 8:26).
(3) This led the way to the further fault of that friendly visit to Ahab mentioned here, for which he was rebuked by "Jehu the son of Hanani the seer" (2 Cronache 19:2).
(4) Yet once again we find him falling into a similar snare. He agreed with Ahaziah the son of Ahab, a wicked scion of wicked house, jointly to equip a fleet at the port of Ezion-Geber, on the Bed Sea, to sail to Ophir for gold. In this also he incurred the anger of the Lord and suffered the loss of his fleet (verse 48; 2 Cronache 20:35-14). Note: A fault is like a seed, fruitful "after its kind." A fault once committed prepares the way for a repetition.
2. It damages reputation.
(1) Reputation is character as estimated by men. This estimate may or may not be just; for men may judge wrongly through ignorance of circumstances which would put a new complexion upon conduct. Therefore judgments should be charitable, and not too hastily formed.
(2) But it is a maxim among men, generally true, that "you may know a man by his friends." Friendships involve sympathies. It had been better for Jehoshaphat's reputation had he never made affinity with the wicked house of Ahab.
(3) This principle will apply to books. Hence the kindred maxim, "You may see a man in his library." It is bad enough when the newspaper shuts up the Bible; it is worse when the Bible is neglected through preference for sensational fictitious literature.
3. It impairs influence.
(1) This follows. Character is influence. Reputation is influence. Advice will be readily received from a genuine man, which coming from an artificial character would be spurned.
(2) What a power for good or evil is moral influence! See the evil exemplified in Israel under Ahab and Jezebel. See the good in Judah under Jehoshaphat. Lessons: Let your character be true. Jealously guard your reputation. Look to these for the sake of your influence.
II. BAD COMPANY COMPROMISES HAPPINESS. Because—
1. Happiness is involved in character.
(1) This truth is abundantly illustrated in sacred history. Examples are furnished in the text. Secular history teaches this truth. Everyday experience evinces it.
(2) Yet is it difficult so to convince individuals of this as to lead them to abandon sin and throw their energies wholly into the blessed service of God. Happiness is proportionate to the completeness of consecration. This consecration cannot be reconciled with the friendship of the world (Giacomo 4:4).
2. Goodness is grieved in it.
(1) Jehoshaphat was not long in the company of Ahab before his ear was offended by horrible words. "I hate him." Whom did Ahab hate? Micaiah, the faithful prophet of the Lord. Does not this look like a declaration of hatred against the Lord? (See Proverbi 14:31; Proverbi 17:5; Zaccaria 2:8.)
(2) Why does Ahab hate Micaiah? "For he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil." Because he does not falsify the truth of God to flatter me. Because he does not play the devil to please me, as these four hundred do! Note: Hatred to God means love to Satan.
(3) Such sentiments were distressing to the feelings of Jehoshaphat. To the revulsion of his righteous soul he gave expression (but too feeble) in the remonstrance, "Let not the king say so." The conversation of such as are in sympathy with evil will offend the good in proportion to their pureness.
3. It leads the most wary into trouble. For the persuasions of the wicked are subtle.
(1) In presence of Jehoshaphat "The king of Israel said unto his servants, Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria?" It was a considerable city in the tribe of Gad on the other side Jordan, and one of the cities of refuge. It was one of the cities which Ben-hadad, by the letter of his covenant, was bound to restore (see 1 Re 20:34). The cause of Israel was obviously just.
(2) Then turning to Jehoshaphat, Ahab said, "Wilt thou go with me to battle at Ramoth-Gilead?" To which, carried away with the obvious justice of the cause, Jehoshaphat responded, "I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses." This was too strong a compliment to Ahab and his people, and the response was too ready. We may not champion every just cause. It may be wrong to champion a good cause in wicked company.
(3) Bethinking himself, as a godly man should do, "Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord." A good man seeks to take God with him, and so long as he abides in this holy company he is safe. But let him beware that he be not persuaded by the wicked to forsake it.
(4) Ahab was equal to the occasion. He had four hundred prophets ready with one mouth to pronounce for the war, and that, too, in the name of the Lord. This hireling company, however, did not satisfy Jehoshaphat, yet he fell into their snare. He should have availed himself of the opportunity to withdraw given him in the prophecy of Micaiah; but, under the spell of Ahab's evil influence, he went to the battle and got into trouble. There is no safety in the company of the wicked.
4. It provokes judgments of God.
(1) The good partake in the plagues of their wicked associates. Jehoshaphat barely escaped, through the mercy of God, with his life; and he suffered the loss of many of his people (see Apocalisse 18:4). The fly that keeps aloof is not entangled in the spider's web.
(2) The good incur Divine judgments for their own sin. The sin of friendship with the enemies of God. The sin such friendship must infallibly occasion. Such was the experience of Jehoshaphat (see 2 Cronache 19:2). Such will be yours. Avoid it.—J.A.M.
The False and the True.
There would be no counterfeit coin if there were no sterling; so neither would there be false prophets if there were no true. Because there are both, their qualities have to be tested, that we may refuse the spurious and value the genuine (see Geremia 23:38). To this end let us consider—
I. TESTS WHICH MAY NOT BE TRUSTED.
1. The test of profession.
(1) Ahab's prophets "prophesied." That is to say
(a) They used modes usual with prophets to procure information from Heaven. These were sacrifice, prayer, music (see 1Sa 10:5, 1 Samuele 10:6; 2 Re 3:15), and, when time permitted, fasting.
(b) They used modes usual with prophets to communicate the information when received. "Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them" (cf. Geremia 27:2; Jer 28:1-17 :18). The "horn" was the symbol of a king (see Daniele 7:24; Apocalisse 17:12).
These were "two," to represent Ahab and Jehoshaphat, Israel and Judah. They were of "iron" to express strength (see Daniele 2:40). The prophecy was that, aided by Jehoshaphat, Ahab should push the Syrians to destruction.
(2) They prophesied "in the name of the Lord." Some think because their number corresponded to that of the prophets of Ashere (1 Re 18:19) these were the same, having escaped when the prophets of Baal were slain at the brook Kishon (1 Re 18:40). If so, then their profession on this occasion was designed to deceive Jehoshaphat (see Geremia 23:30).
(3) Anyhow there was profession enough, but it was hollow, and proved conclusively that profession must not be taken as a test of truth.
2. The test of numbers.
(1) Here were "four hundred" who prophesied professedly in the name of the Lord. Against this number Micaiah the son of Imlah stands alone; yet the truth of God is with him against the multitude. "Truth is not always to be determined by the poll. It is net numbers, but weight, that must carry it in the council of prophets" (Bishop Hall).
(2) This instance does not stand alone. The majority was in the wrong against Noah. Elijah was in the minority on Carmel, but he was right. Jesus had the whole Jewish Church against Him, though He was Truth itself.
3. The test of unanimity.
(1) The four hundred were united against Micaiah. Sometimes there is unanimity of this kind against a common object, where otherwise there is little agreement. Herod and Pilate made friends in opposition to Jesus.
(2) But these prophets were agreed among themselves. They all seem to have followed the leadership of Zedekiah. "And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king's hand."
4. How does this argument bear upon the authority of the Church?
(1) It is pleaded that the Church, which is practically understood to be the clergy in council, has authority to bind the conscience in matters of faith. The arguments relied upon to sustain this view are generally based upon claims of profession, numbers, and agreement.
(2) On the other hand, the. definition of the Church is questioned, and the claims are refused as insufficient for their purpose, since by them Ahab's prophets might prove themselves true!
II. TESTS WHICH MAY BE TRUSTED.
1. The witnesses should be honest.
(1) Ahab's prophets were interested in their testimony. They enjoyed the patronage of the king, and they said what they knew would gratify him. Their testimony, therefore, is open to suspicion.
(2) Micaiah, on the contrary, had nothing to gain, but everything to lose, in taking his course. He knew the temper of the king. He was importuned by the king's messenger to concur with the king's prophets. He had already suffered for his faithfulness, for he seems to have been brought from the custody of Amen, in whose prison he had probably lain for three years. By flattering Ahab he might now obtain release, but by taking an opposite course he could only expect to go back to jail.
Probabilities also were against him, for in the last two battles, Ahab, without the aid of Jehoshaphat, worsted the Syrians. Should the king of Israel now "return in peace" what may Micaiah expect?
(3) Nothing but the consciousness that he was uttering the truth of God could account for the son of Imlah deliberately encountering all this. And only upon this ground could he hope for any favour from God. Suspicion, therefore, as to the honesty of Micaiah is out of the question.
(4) But can it be pleaded that the honesty of the ecclesiastics who framed the decrees of councils is beyond suspicion? In decreeing the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, e.g; were they disinterested, when they knew how pleasing to him would be the reputation of such an attribute, and when they knew what patronage and power to injure were vested in his hands?
2. They should have miraculous athentication.
(1) It is easy to say, "Thus saith the Lord," but not so espy to evince it. The four hundred could say it, hut they could show no miracle to prove that they spoke from God.
(2) It was otherwise with Micaiah. For, with the Jews, we presume he was that prophet who "prophesied evil concerning Ahab," and authenticated his message by the sign of the lion destroying his fellow for disobedience (cf. 1 Re 22:8 with 1 Re 20:35-11).
(3) Clergy in council may claim Divine authority for their decrees, but unless they can verify their claim by adequate signs they presume when they impose.
3. Their testimony should be agreeable to the word of God.
(1) "Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak. The one question for us in these days is this: Is the testimony agreeable to the Bible? This we know by infallible proofs to be the word of God. "But," it is objected, "the Bible needs authoritative interpretation, and who is to interpret but the Church?" To which we may answer, And the Church still more needs authoritative interpretation, and who is to interpret bus the Bible? The authority of the Bible is admitted; that of the Church is in question.
(2) The right of private judgment must be maintained. For the exercise of this right we shall every one of us give account of himself unto God. That ill-defined thing, the Church, cannot release us from this obligation. We cannot put our judgment and conscience into commission.—J.A.M.
Micaiah's Prophecy.
It is evident from the text and from 1 Re 22:8 that this was not the first time Ahab and Micaiah had met. The Jews suppose, apparently with reason, that Micaiah was that prophet who, when Ahab sent Ben-hadad away with a covenant, said to the king of Israel, "Thus saith the Lord: Because thou hast let go out of thine hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people" (see 1 Re 20:35-11). In considering the prophecy of Micaiah now before us, we notice—
I. THAT IT IS PREFACED WITH A SALLY OF IRONY.
1. He answers the king in the words of his prophets.
(1) Cf. 1 Re 22:6, 1Ki 22:12, 1 Re 22:15.
(2) These words are equivocal. "The Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king." What king? "The king" may mean either Ahab or Ben-hadad. What? This is not clear; for the word "it" is supplied. Is it Ramoth-Gilead or something else that is to be delivered into the hand of the king (of Israel)? or is it the king of Israel or something else to be delivered into the hand of the king (of Syria)? What kind of prophecy is this?
(3) The utterance of these prophets resembles those of the heathen oracles, the following appropriate samples of which are given by A. Clarke: "The Delphic oracle spoke thus of Croesus, which he understood to his own destruction: 'Croesus, Halym penetrans, magnum subverter opum vim;' which is to say, ' If you march against Cyrus, he will overthrow you,' or 'you will overthrow him.
' He trusted in the latter, the former took place. He was deluded, yet the oracle maintained its credit. So in the following: 'Aio te, AEacida, Romanos vincere posse. Ibis redibis hnunquam in bello peribis.' Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, understood by this that he should conquer the Romans, against whom he was making war; but the oracle could be thus translated: 'The Romans shall overcome thee.
' He trusted in the former, made unsuccessful war, and was overcome; and yet the juggling priest saved his credit. The latter line is capable of two opposite meanings: 'Thou shalt go, thou shalt return, thou shalt never perish in war,' or, 'Thou shalt go, thou shalt never return, thou shalt perish in war.'"
2. But he repeats those words with significant expression.
(1) The bare repetition, with proper emphasis, of the equivocal words of the false prophets would be a fine stroke of irony. But when to emphasis were added tone, gesture, play of feature, the irony would become very keen.
(2) This sarcasm of Micaiah is worthy to compare with that of Elijah (see 1 Re 18:27). "Go and prosper." This assurance of thy prophets is vague enough to encourage the confidence of a simpleton!
3. God uses terrible rhetoric in His wrath.
(1) Irony and sarcasm are fitting weapons to be wielded against those who have neither conscience nor reason (see Proverbi 26:3). Ahab was a man of this class. Witness the logic of his hatred (verse 8). He felt the sting (verse 16).
(2) These weapons are formidable in the hands of the Almighty (see Salmi 2:4, Salmi 2:5; Salmi 37:13; Proverbi 1:24-20; Ecclesiaste 11:9; Malachia 2:17 and Malachia 3:1; Romani 2:1).
II. THAT IT COMPARES FAVOURABLY WITH THAT OF HIS COMPETITORS.
1. Its burden is the reverse of equivocal.
(1) There is in sacred prophecy a double sense, but the sound is certain. It is not a dubiousness but a manifoldness of meaning, a development, an evolution, such as we find in a seed that opens first into the blade, then into the ear, and eventually into the full corn in the ear.
(2) This prophecy of Micaiah gave a distinct answer to the question of Ahab (verse 13). The advice was to forbear. These "sheep." The sheep is not a creature fitted for battle. They have "no shepherd." Their king, deserted by the Spirit of God, has not the qualities of a shepherd. Therefore "Let them return every man to his house in peace."
(3) But the advice contains a prophecy. It is to this effect: their king who ought to be their shepherd, shall fall at Ramoth-Gilead, and his people shall be like sheep, "scattered upon the mountains" by the power of the enemy (compare Zaccaria 13:7).
2. The vision shows that all worlds are under Divine control.
(1) "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne." Here was a comparison with the scene before him, described verse 10. Ahab and Jehoshaphat are enthroned as kings on the earth; but there is a King in the heavens immeasurably above them.
(2) "And all the host of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the, left." The host of heaven stood while Jehovah sat. They awaited His commands. Those on His "right hand" probably to render services of benevolence; those on His "left," services of judgment.
(3) Then comes in another kind of agency (verses 20-23). This scene is analogous to that described in the Book of Job (see Giobbe 1:6; Giobbe 2:7). Things in heaven, things in earth, things under the earth, all serve the purposes of Divine Providence (see Giobbe 12:16; 2 Tessalonicesi 2:11,2 Tessalonicesi 2:12; Apocalisse 20:7, Apocalisse 20:8).
(4) The waywardness of Ahab showed how fully he was under the control of the spirit of falsehood. This is seen in his senseless resentment against Micaiah. Turning to Jehoshaphat, he said, "Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?" as if Micaiah's own utterances could control the providence of God. Then turning to his officers he had Micaiah marched back to the prison where Ahab knew he could find him (cf. verse 8 with verses 26, 27). Let us give due heed to the more sure word of prophecy.—J.A.M.
The Argument of Wickedness.
The Bible is a book of texts because it is a book of types. It does not profess to give full histories, but refers to public records for these (see Jos 10:13; 2 Samuele 1:18; 1 Re 11:41; 1 Cronache 9:1). Inspiration selects from histories typical or representative incidents to bring out the principles of the grace and truth of God.
In the scene before us we have types of wickedness in Zedekiah and Ahab, the one ecclesiastical, the other civil, which may be profitably studied in the arguments they use contending with Micaiah, the representative of the truth of God. These arguments are—
I. RAGE AGAINST THE TRUTH. The reason is obvious, viz; because the truth is the worst that can be said of the wicked.
1. It is the worst that can be said of their character.
(1) It shows up their selfishness. The one object of Ahab was that "good" might be prophesied for him. To gain this he sold himself to his four hundred liars. These liars, to gain the patronage of Ahab, sold their consciences. Because Ahab could not gain flattery from Micaiah, he hated him.
(2) It shows up their folly. For what was the selfishness of Ahab but self-deception? The patronage of liars could not convert falsehood into truth, neither could the persecution of a true man convert truth into falsehood. Zedekiah, in deceiving Ahab, deceived his own soul. All sin is folly.
(3) It evinces their degradation, for it proves them to be the dupes and serfs of infernal spirits. Can degradation go lower?
2. It is the worst that can be said of their doom.
(1) The wicked are to be destroyed in time. Ahab in particular was to fall at Ramoth-Gilead. From that battle he was "not to return in peace." Zedekiah was to "go into an inner chamber to hide himself," as Ben-hadad had done (1 Re 20:30), and there to meet his fate. While to the righteous death is an entrance to glory, it is the "king of terrors" to the wicked (see 1 Corinzi 15:55-46). The sting is here:
(2) The wicked are to be destroyed in eternity. The alarm with which the ancients received predictions of maltreatment to their corpses arose from their apprehension that it presaged a posthumous retribution upon the soul. The dogs licking the blood of Ahab would suggest that devils would not only be the instigators but also the instruments of his ruin.
(3) Who can estimate the horrors of damnation? The truth will prove to be the worst that can be said of the lost. Is it wonderful, then, that the wicked should abhor the truth?
3. They are therefore constrained to hypocrisy.
(1) For their own sakes they have to play the hypocrite. They conceal their selfishness and affect generosity, conscious that were their base soul hunger to come honestly to the day, they would become odious. They hide their folly and affect wisdom lest they should suffer contempt.
(2) For the sake of society wicked men are hypocrites. Were they to be honestly known to each other, respect and confidence would be at an end; in fact, society would be impossible. There are no friendships in hell.
II. THE RESENTMENT OF VIOLENCE.
1. The logic of the wicked is weak.
(1) Zedekiah's speech was pertinacious: "Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?" He assumed what Micaiah had not conceded, that he ever had the Spirit of the Lord. Micaiah had declared him, on the contrary, to have been influenced by a "spirit" of a very different description. Zedekiah also denied what he should have disproved, viz; that Micaiah had the Spirit of the Lord.
(2) Ahab wanted a prophet of the God of truth to tell lies to please him. He found four hundred to tell him lies, professedly in the name of the Lord. But the one honest man who told him the truth he imprisoned, because the truth did not please him. Yet the truth was what he adjured him to tell. What reason is there in all this?
(3) What sinner is there in our day who can clear himself of folly? (See Pro 13:19; 1 Corinzi 3:19.)
2. The strength of the wicked is tyranny.
(1) The reason of Zedekiah was in his fist (1 Re 22:24). "Which way?" From the fist to the cheek? The coward us d this argument with a council of four hundred ecclesiastics about him, and the civil power in reserve. So was Jesus insulted (see Matteo 26:57-40). So were the Protestant confessors. False prophets have ever been the worst enemies of the true. Micaiah did not return the blow, but referred the decision to God. True prophets wield other than carnal weapons.
(2) The reason of Ahab was in his bribes and prisons. Micaiah could not be cajoled as the four hundred were, therefore "the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, carry him back unto Amen the governor of the city, and to Joash the king's son, and say, Thus saith the king, put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction, and with water of affliction, until I come in peace."
(3) But truth is not vanquished thus. How confident was Ahab that he should "come in peace"! And this is that Ahab who three or four years before so sagaciously said to Ben-hadad, "Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." Persistency in sin does not sharpen men's wits. Time vindicates truth. To this vindicator Micaiah called the attention of the people (1 Re 22:29).
(4) But where was Jehoshaphat? He was silent when he should have spoken for the prophet of God. See the influence of bad company. "So the king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-Gilead." Alas, Jehoshaphat!—J.A.M.
Lessons of the Battle.
After disposing of Micaiah by sending him to prison with hard fare as the reward of his faithfulness, Ahab and Jehoshaphat gathered their forces and set out together to fight for the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead. The events of the day show—
I. THAT PROPHECY MAY TEND TO ITS OWN FULFILMENT.
1. Micaiah's words influenced Ahab's conduct.
(1) Though Ahab had imprisoned the prophet he could not shake off the influence of his prophecy. So with a view to obviating its effect he proposed to disguise himself. He speaks of himself in the third person (1 Re 22:30), thus (אדנים), "He will [strip] disguise himself'—a form of speech, perhaps, considered suitable to an action in which he was to appear as a third person. To complete the deception, if we follow the LXX; he induced Jehoshaphat to put on his (Ahab's) robes.
(a) Note the subtlety of the wicked. Ahab's proposal to Jehoshaphat was ostensibly to give him the post of honour in commanding the army. This, too, may have suggested the use of the third person in speaking of himself. Ahab's real purpose was to divert from himself the fury of the battle; and probably he hoped Jehoshaphat might be slain. In that case his son-in-law would succeed to the throne of Judah, and he might be able so to manage him as to serve his own purposes.
(b) In all this we see the danger of bad company. We see it likewise in the sad fact that Jehoshaphat should become a party to a contrivance to falsify the word of God!
(2) But how useless are disguises when the providence of Omniscience is concerned! Ahab might hide himself from the Syrians, but he could not hide himself from God. Neither could he hide himself from angels and devils, who are instruments of Divine Providence, ever influencing men, and even natural laws, or forces of nature. Note: No disguise will avail to evade the scrutiny and retributions of the judgment day.
(3) Yet by his disguise Ahab, unwittingly, helped the prophecy. "The king of Syria commanded his thirty and two captains that had rule over his chariots, saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel." Suppose Ahab had been in Jehoshaphat's place, and had fallen into the hands of the captains, what would have become of the words of Elijah? (See 1 Re 21:19.) But as things worked out these words became literally true.
2. They also influenced the conduct of the Syrians.
(1) The Syrians would be aware of the prophecy of Micaiah dooming Ahab to fall at Ramoth-Gilead. For in a country about the size of North Wales, Samaria being distant from Ramoth-Gilead only thirty miles, the news of this public meeting of kings and contest of prophets could not be a secret. Ahab would facilitate the publication of the encouragement he had from the four hundred, to strike terror into the Syrians; but where the news of his encouragement went the words of Micaiah also would travel.
(2) Probably this intelligence determined the Syrians to "fight only against the king of Israel," in which they would have the God of Israel with them, the formidableness of whose hostility they had experienced in the last two battles (compare 2 Cronache 35:21, 2 Cronache 35:22). To this Jehoshaphat probably was indebted for the sparing of his life, for "God moved the Syrians to depart from him" (see 2 Cronache 18:31).
And probably they were influenced by it to agree to the proclamation to disband, when the death of Ahab became known (cf. 1 Re 22:17, 1 Re 22:36).
3. Note a remarkable illustration of this principle in the zeal of Jehu in exterminating the house of Ahab (see 2 Re 9:25, 2 Re 9:26; 2Ki 10:10, 2 Re 10:11, 2 Re 10:16, 2 Re 10:17). Those who are "looking for," are thereby "hastening the coming of the day of God" (see 2 Pietro 3:12).
II. THAT NEVERTHELESS THE HAND OF GOD IS IN IT.
1. This was evident in the case of Ahab. The purpose of Ben-hadad, should Ahab have fallen into his hands, is not recorded. Would he return Ahab's compliment of releasing him with a covenant? Would he show Ahab how he ought to have treated him?
(2) But God had other means than the captains of Ben-hadad to accomplish His purpose. A man drew a bow at a venture (marg. "in his simplicity") and smote the king of Israel between the joints and harness." A simpleton brings clown a king! (See Proverbi 1:32.) God guided the arrow to the opening in the joints of the armour, as He guided the pebble from the sling of David into the frontals of Goliath. No armour is proof against the shafts of Divine vengeance.
(3) The hand of God also was seen in the sequel. The prophecies of Elijah and Micaiah seem to be in conflict. The one speaks of the dogs licking the blood of Ahab at" Samaria;" the other of Ahab falling at "Ramoth-Gilead." Who but God could so order events that there should be no conflict here? "The blood ran out of the wound into the midst (Heb. bosom) of the chariot;" perhaps more correctly, "into the bosom of the charioteer," on which the king leaned.
"And one washed the chariot;" or rather, "And the driver washed himself in the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked his blood" i.e; the blood of Ahab which fell from the bosom of the driver. "And the things they washed." For זנות denotes the several kinds of things, being derived from זן, a kind or species. Before the person and things defiled with blood were permitted to enter the city, they were to be washed; and the dogs licked up the blood that fell from the driver's bosom, and off the things, as they lay to be washed (see Salmi 68:28).
(4) But were not the words of Elijah "In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth" (viz; Jezreel) "shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine '? But in the context there, the vineyard of Naboth is said to be in Samaria (see 1 Re 21:18, 1 Re 21:19), because Jezreel, like Bethel, was one of the "cities of Samaria" (see 1 Re 13:32).
In the very vineyard of Naboth did the blood of Ahab flow from the veins of his son (see 2 Re 9:25, 2 Re 9:26). The providence that accomplished is no less admirable than the omniscience that predicted.
2. This was also evident in the case of Jehoshaphat.
(1) Micaiah did not say that the king of Judah should fall at Ramoth-Gilead; but his prophecy did intimate that he would be of little use to the army. The word (אדנים) in 1 Re 22:17 rendered "master" is plural, and evidently associates Jehoshaphat with Ahab. When Ahab was wounded to death and Jehoshaphat had fled for his life, the people had "no masters," so the proclamation soon followed which determined "every man to his house in peace."
(2) Jehoshaphat's danger lay in his being assimilated to Ahab. He should never have said, "I am as thou art" (1 Re 22:4), then would he not have been persuaded to don Ahab's robes. By the influence of his company Jehoshaphat was becoming morally like him, and therefore was in danger of sharing his miserable fate (see Proverbi 13:20).
(3) To avoid this danger he had to become himself again. "He cried out" [to Jehovah] (see 2Ch 18:1-34 :81); and thus was discovered to the captains, who would expect to hear Ahab cry rather to Baal. The hand of God was evident in his deliverance; and this he might read as a parable assuring him that his future safety must lie in his renouncing evil companions and returning to the piety of his earlier years.—J.A.M.
1 Re 22:39, 1 Re 22:40, 1 Re 22:51-11
Survival.
After the account of Ahab's death and burial, and of the manner in which the dogs of Samaria fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah, the earlier verses of our text follow. In the first of these the reader is referred to the archives of the nation for an account of the "rest of the Ac" and works of this monarch, viz; those to which inspiration was not here specially directed. In the second, the succession of Ahaziah is mentioned. With these verses, because of the unity of the subject, we associate the three verses referring to the reign of Ahaziah, with which the chapter closes. Taking the latter first in order, we see—
I. THAT AHAB SURVIVED IN AHAZIAH.
1. This was legally true.
(1) "So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead." In law, a man is said to "live in his heirs." He is never legally dead while he has an heir. There is a good reason for this. Ahaziah would never have mounted the throne of Israel unless his father had been there before him. He reigned in the posthumous influence of Ahab. His representative.
(2) When a man is what is called "the architect of his own fortune," he is said to have had "no father." But in this language the fact is ignored that, under Providence, this "architect" is indebted to his ancestry for his existence, for his faculties, and for the circumstances which he may have seized and moulded into this "fortune."
2. It was also morally true.
(1) In Ahaziah the vices of Ahab were reproduced. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father." The bad example of his father wrought its influence into his character, and thus Ahab survived in Ahaziah.
(2) The record descends to particulars. "He walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother." Here not only is Jezebel reproduced in Ahaziah, but Ahab's sin in marrying Jezebel also survives. "And in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." Here is not only the posthumous influence of Jeroboam, but also of the sin of Ahab in perpetuating it. "For he served Baal, and worshipped him." The establishment of this Canaanitish abomination was due to Ahab and Jezebel, and they infamously survive in its perpetuation.
(3) Note
(a) A Church is not the more true for being established. Here were two State Churches which were, in the Biblical sense, atheistic.
(b) For concurrent endowment, whatever may be said for its expediency, there can be no moral defence.
3. But there was no necessity for this.
(1) Legal representation is an accident over which we have no control. It is a notable truth that men have influences in spite of themselves, and that these also are posthumous.
(2) But moral representation is in a different category. Ahaziah might have reigned in Ahab's stead without imitating his vices. "Jehoram the son of Ahab," e.g; "wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother; for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made" (2 Re 3:2).
(3) Ahaziah should have been admonished by the history of the judgments of God upon the house of Jeroboam. He should have taken the warning given in the judgments of God on the sins of his father. His guilt, therefore, was upon his own head, and he suffered accordingly. He reigned two years. God makes short work with some sinners. His death was provoked by his perversity (see 2 Re 1:3, 2 Re 1:4). We see further—
II. THAT AHAB SURVIVES IN HISTORY.
1. He survived in secular history. His acts and works were written in the chronicles of his nation.
(1) Amongst these were mentioned "all the cities that he built." Perhaps this building of cities simply meant the construction of fortifications for their defence. Whether they reflected credit or discredit upon his memory we cannot pronounce. A man may do a great deal of work to very little profit.
(2) The chronicles mentioned "the ivory house which he made." This palace had its description probably from the quantity of that valuable substance used in its ornamentation. But this does not seem to have been to his honour. A kingdom impoverished through famines, wars, and idolatries was in no position to bear the cost of such a piece of luxurious and selfish vanity. Amos accordingly denounces this work of pride (Amos 3:15).
(3) The survival of Ahab in secular history was a consequence of his social position. The masons and carpenters, whose skill brought the works of Ahab to perfection, had no mention there. Social status is a talent from God, for the right use of which men are accountable.
2. He survives in sacred history.
(1) The sacred history consists of selections from the secular under the guiding influence of Divine inspiration, with a view to illustrating the principles of the providence, truth, and grace of God. To illustrate such principles is the noblest end of writing. So of reading. What quantities of trash, in which the claims of God are ignored, is both written and read!
(2) In these selections the notices of the wicked are generally brief. Perhaps no wicked man has a larger share of the sacred writings occupied with his acts than Ahab. Such acts are not agreeable to the Spirit of God. But in the hands of inspiration they are made an influence for good. They are recorded, apparently, because of their relation to the actions of prophets and good men.
They are made to serve as a dark background to show up to admiration virtuous qualities, and to be made themselves odious in the contrast. The principles of the wicked should only be studied to be shunned. So God brings good out of evil.
(3) The sacred records have survived the secular. "The book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel" has long since perished. The sacred records have come down to our times. In these, after a lapse of nearly thirty centuries, Ahab survives. But for these his name would not be known. Note
(a) the Providence which has preserved the Scriptures evinces their Divine authenticity.
(b) Things are permanent as they stand related to the everlasting God.
(c) The posthumous influence points to the immortality of man.—J.A.M.
Jehoshaphat.
These words give a summary of the life of this king of Judah, and faithfully record, as the Scriptures do to admiration, the good and the bad, as these will be considered in the judgment of the great day. Consider—
I. THE PRAISE OF JEHOSHAPHAT.
1. He came of a good stock.
(1) He was "of the house and lineage of David." The traditions of that house were in many respects a glorious inheritance. David was a "man after God's own heart." In no instance was he found inclining to idolatry.
(2) He was the son of Asa. Of his mother we have this significant mention: "And his mother's name was Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in the ways of Asa his father, and departed not from it, doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord." This suggests the healthiness of his mothers moral influence. The reference here to Asa, too, is highly honourable.
(3) The blessing of pious parents is inestimable. It works beneficially in example, in precept, in solicitude. This last is most effectual in prayer to God. Those who are favoured with godly parents should praise God evermore. Wicked children of pious parents are doubly culpable.
2. He improved his advantages.
(1) He "walked in the ways of Asa his father." These were ways of righteousness. Let the children of godly parents now ask themselves whether they walk in the good ways of their ancestors.
(2) He "turned not aside from it. He showed no favour to idolatry. The note which follows is no impeachment of the truth of this statement: "Nevertheless the high places were not taken away; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places." The high places that Jehoshaphat spared were those in which the true God was worshipped in accordance with the usage of patriarchal times (see 2 Cronache 33:17).
(3) He went farther than Asa in the work of reformation:—"The remnant of the Sodomites which remained in the days of Asa his father he took out of the land." The parallel place to this in the Chronicles is: "And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord: moreover he took away the high places and the groves (אשרים) out of Judah" (2 Cronache 17:6; 2 Cronache 19:8). By removing the Sodomites we understand that he demolished their shrines, their Asherim, their instruments of pollution. When the nests are destroyed the rooks fly.
3. This was to his praise.
(1) Others, similarly placed, failed to make this good use of their advantages. Jehoram, his own son, may be mentioned in sad contrast to him. Several of his ancestors had scandalously departed from the godly ways of their father David. Men will be justified or condemned in the light of such comparisons in the last great day (see Luca 11:31, Luca 11:32).
(2) God rewarded him with prosperity (2 Cronache 17:4, 2 Cronache 17:5). He had an army—probably an enrolled militia—of 1,100,000 men. The Philistines, Arabians, and Edomites were subject to him. The note here, that "there was then no king in Edom: a deputy was king," which prefaces the account of his fleet at Ezion-Geber, was designed to explain how Jehoshaphat was able to have a fleet at a port which belonged to Edom (see 1 Re 9:26), viz; because he appointed the viceroy in Edom which was tributary to him (see Genesi 27:29, Genesi 27:37; 2 Samuele 8:14).
II. THE BLAME OF JEHOSHAPHAT. This seems all to have been connected with the "peace" which he made "with the king of Israel." It appears to have commenced with—
1. The marriage of his son.
(1) Jehoram, the eldest son of Jehoshaphat, and with his consent, took Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, to be his wife. Jehoshaphat's heart was lifted up with the abundance of his "riches and honour," and "joined affinity with Ahab" (see 2 Cronache 18:1). tie became too great to be content with an humble match for his son, and sacrificed godliness to grandeur. He has many imitators in this.
(2) Unequal yoking has ever been prolific in mischief. Athaliah inherited the evil spirit of both her parents, and she led away the heart of Jehoram from God to his ruin. The object of this marriage was to build up the house of Jehoshaphat, but it well-nigh proved its ruin (see 2 Cronache 22:10, 2 Cronache 22:11). God is the builder of families (see 2 Samuele 7:11, 2Sa 7:27; 1 Re 2:24; 1 Re 11:38; Salmi 127:1).
2. His friendship with Ahab.
(1) This evil grew out of the marriage. The peace between Israel and Judah, which in the abstract was a benefit, was probably a condition of the marriage. But the friendship between Jehoshaphat and Ahab which followed, was too intimate for the good of the king of Judah's soul
(2) Evils beget evils. This friendship led to Jehosha. plat helping Ahab in his war against Syria, and had nearly cost Jehoshaphat his life. It also sullied his reputation, for he was persuaded into it by Ahab against the voice of Micaiah. This friendship exposed Jehoshaphat to the reproof of the prophet Jehu (2 Cronache 19:2).
3. His friendship with Ahaziah.
(1) This son of Ahab was no more a companion fit for Jehoshaphat than Ahab. For Ahaziah "walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin: for he served Baal and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done."
(2) Yet Jehoshaphat formed a trade alliance with Ahaziah. They jointly fitted out a fleet at the port of Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, to sail to Ophir for gold. But for this God rebuked him, and "the ships were broken" in the port (see 2 Cronache 20:35-14). Let no money consideration, no gold of Ophir, induce godly young men to enter into trade partnerships with the ungodly.
(3) This judgment of God had a salutary effect upon Jehoshaphat. For when Ahaziah would renew the attempt at Ezion-Geber, Jehoshaphat declined (1 Re 22:49). Let us be careful never to repeat a blunder.—J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Crime brings its own punishment.
I. THE WICKED RUSH UPON DESTRUCTION.
1. Ahab provokes the war in which he himself will perish. The peace which had lasted so long might have continued. Every day it was prolonged was a day placed between him and death; and yet with his own hand he brings to an end the period of grace. How often are the calamities of the wicked invoked by themselves, and are the fruit of their own rashness!
2. It came as the prompting of the deepest wisdom. Jehoshaphat's presence afforded the opportunity of forming a league to which success seemed certain. The selfish cunning of the sinful becomes a snare to them.
3. He closes his ear against God's deterring counsel.
(1) When asked to inquire of God, he brings those only who will speak the things that accord with his own determination. The false prophets are called, but not the true.
(2) When compelled to bring Micaiah from the prison (see 1 Re 22:26, "carry him back unto Amon," etc.), he endeavours to prevent Jehoshaphat being moved by his words. Micaiah is his enemy, therefore a prophecy of good is not to be expected from him.
(3) When warned he will not be hindered, but defies God, who would save him, by insulting and persecuting His servant (1 Re 22:27).
II. THE FALSE PROPHETS.
1. They bind the cords which are leading a sinful soul to death. The word which they profess to speak for God is a word which it pleases the king to hear. It is the echo of his own desires (1 Re 22:6). There are those who by voice and pen proclaim a new gospel It is no longer sought to lead up the world to God and thus reconcile it to Him.
It is boldly declared that the reconciliation is already effected. God has come down to it. There is no anger and no threatening and no terrible shadow of judgment. There is nothing but goodness and love. They are the false prophets of today, and these do for the men of their generation what those did for Ahab.
2. Their blasphemy. When a prophet of Jehovah was asked for (1 Re 22:7), they who have hitherto spoken only of Adonai do not scruple to take the name of the Highest into their lips (1 Re 22:11, 1 Re 22:12). We do not escape the false prophets when we appeal from their speech concerning the God of nature to His revealed will, the word of the Lord.
They meet us there. It is in vain we seek to rest upon the plainest words; they are explained away. Hell is a superstitious dream, and the cross of the disciples of Christ a mere figure of speech, with no hard, stern reality behind it.
3. They are possessed by a spirit of falsehood (1 Re 22:21-11). Their position is more a punishment of past sin than conscious transgression. They speak with honesty of a sort, but it is out of their heart's darkness. They were willing to be deceived, and they have been deceived. They did not wish to know God as He is, and they have been left with the god of their own imagination. In which school are we, that of the false prophets, or of the true?
4. They smite the true servants of God. Zedekiah's blow preceded the king's judgment. It proved nothing but his own soul's distance from God. It was the act of a man provoked by zeal for his own honour. He who had been moved by zeal for God's honour would have stood in silent awe of that terrible but certain judgment which the man was braving.
III. THE TRUE SERVANT OF GOD.
1. In a corrupt court his is no welcome presence (1 Re 22:8). The distance between Ahab and God was reflected in that which separated him from the speaker of God's word. Continued faithfulness, if it may not win, must be repelled and hated. "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you; for so," etc.
2. The necessity laid on him to declare the whole counsel of God (1 Re 22:14). He cannot turn to the right hand or the left; the world's wealth cannot bribe him, its power and cruelty cannot terrify him. What king or people desire to hear, or courtly prophets or current creeds have said, weighs nothing with him. He cannot speak in God's name aught save what God has said.
3. His message. He speaks first in easily discerned irony (1 Re 22:15, 1 Re 22:16). It was an intimation to the king that he desired to hear no prophecy that would run counter to his inclinations. Then, when he is solemnly appealed to, a picture is presented (1 Re 22:17) of the smitten, shepherdless people, which might well have touched even Ahab's heart.
Next king and people are led up to the throne of God. The servant and his words are forgotten in the revelation of his Master. Even the false prophet's utterances are turned to account; they and the reliance which the king is placing on them are part fulfilment of the Divine vengeance. There was deeper tenderness and truer love for Ahab in that one breast than in all the four hundred.
4. The greatness of all true service for God. There is a glory about that despised, persecuted man before which that of both kings pales. It is a glory which nothing can tear from the loyal heart, and which shines the brighter amid the world's darkening hate. It is a glory which may be our own.—U.
The Certainty of God's Threatenings.
I. AHAB'S ATTEMPT TO ELUDE THE DIVINE VENGEANCE.
1. His apprehension of coming evil. If Micaiah's words were not the words of God, why should he take precautions? His heart gives the lie to his own unbelief; the words cling to him. The bold refusal to listen to God's word is no assurance that the soul will not afterwards be shaken by a fearful looking for of judgment.
2. His ungenerousness (1 Re 22:30). "I will disguise myself; but put thou on thy robes." The effect of the counsel was necessarily to concentrate the enemy's attention upon Jehoshaphat. Sin not only makes a man a coward, it robs him of nobleness.
3. The immediate effect of Ahab's stratagem. Ben-hadad's arrangements for the capture or slaughter of Ahab were rendered of no avail. The captains could not find the man they sought. A momentary success often attends the plans of those who endeavour to flee from God.
4. The chance shot. The success of Ahab's device only served to make the blow come more plainly from the hand of God. Ben-hadad's purpose could be baffled, but not His. There is no escape from God.
II. THE FULFILMENT OF GOD'S WORD.
1. He fell at Ramoth Gilead (1 Re 22:20).
2. "Israel was scattered upon the hills," and the command was given to return (1 Re 22:17, 1 Re 22:36).
3. The dogs licked Ahab's blood (1 Re 21:19), not in Jezreel, indeed, because the judgment then pronounced was that of the overthrow of the dynasty. This was delayed on account of Ahab's repentance, and happened, as predicted, "is his son's days" (1 Re 21:29). But the personal part of the prediction, "The dogs shall lick thy blood, even thine," was not revoked. There are prophecies both of evil and of good, within the range of which we set ourselves. God's words are touching us, and will likewise be literally fulfilled.—U.
Two Life Stories.
I. JEHOSHAPHAT'S.
1. He prolonged the good influence of his father's reign. Judah's thought was still kept under the light of truth, and its life more fully led into the ways of God: he completed his father's reforms (1 Re 22:46). The continuance of God s work anywhere is as important as the origination of it.
2. He was consistent. "He turned not aside from it." He did not merely begin well; over his whole reign there rested the Divine approval; he did "that which was right in the eyes of the Lord." The life which is ever sinning, repenting, forgetting, achieves nothing. It is like a plant uprooted and planted again, to be again uprooted, etc; and which, even should its life be preserved, will never bear fruit. It is like "a backsliding heifer," and with such a life the great Husbandman's work cannot be carried on.
3. There was failure as well as success in his career. "Nevertheless the high places were not taken away." tie had endeavoured to remove them (2 Cronache 17:6). But "the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places." The mightiest efforts in the great warfare with darkness leave something for other hands to do, and must till He come who alone can perfect all things.
4. He sought to be at peace with his brethren (1 Re 22:44). He went further in this, indeed, than he ought to have done (2 Cronache 19:2), but the desire for peace was laudable.
5. He humbled himself under God's rebuke (compare 1 Re 22:48, 1 Re 22:49 with 2 Cronache 20:35-14). At first he had been beguiled into.fellowship with the idolatrous king of Israel without reflecting upon the danger which lay in it for himself and his people. But when God had manifested His displeasure, nothing could make him renew the confederacy. The judgment might mistake, but the heart was loyal to God.
II. AHAZIAH'S.
1. A sinful life. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord." With such a life there was no possibility of blessing for his people. The roots of his usefulness were destroyed. To do, we must first of all become. Our work cannot rise above the level of our life.
2. A disastrous policy (1 Re 22:52, 1 Re 22:53). He continued the work of Israel's destruction. The departure made by Jeroboam and perfected by Ahab and Jezebel, he accepted in its full rejection of Jehovah. He did not go beyond them, he simply did "according to all that his father had done," but in doing this his sin was of the deepest dye.
His father had been judged, but God was still braved, and Israel was led still nearer to destruction. We may only continue what others have begun; but if we pay no heed to the proofs of God's anger, and take no thought of the inevitable results of the policy we pursue, our persistence may be one of the deepest crimes against God and man.—U.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
The Pierced Armour.
This occurred during the third campaign of Ben-hadad against Israel. Micaiah had forewarned Ahab against the danger he incurred, and was cast into prison for his pains. The warning was, however, taken sufficiently to heart to induce the king to disguise himself. Describe the expedient adopted, and its remarkable failure. Ahab was in many respects a typical sinner. He was an idolater, a persecutor, impenitent, though sometimes touched; and in the plenitude of power he fell. We see here—
I. A MAN ARMED AGAINST GOD. True he was fighting against the Syrians, but as he girded on his armour he remembered and defied the words of the prophet. His ominous prophecy should not be fulfilled, he would yet come back safe and victorious to put Macaiah to death, and with this determination he put Jehoshaphat in command, and clad himself with proof armour.
In spirit, therefore, he was fighting not only against the hosts of Syria, but against the word of God. Hence let us depict one who is armed against God. Reverse the description St. Paul gives (Efesini 6:1.) of one armed by God. The impenitent sinner represented by Ahab defends himself.
1. By false hopes (Deuteronomio 29:19, Deuteronomio 29:20). These constitute his "helmet," which wards off true thoughts of self and sin. He blindly trusts in Divine mercy, while sin is unrepented, forgetting that "a God all mercy is a God unjust" (Young). "There is none other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved," etc. "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?"
2. By a hardened heart. This is his "breastplate." A man impenitent is a man lost. Some are;' past feeling," their consciences are "seared as with a hot iron," and God gives them over to their "hardness of heart," and to an "impenitent mind." "Who has hardened himself against God, and prospered?" We may become "hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."
3. By defiant words. There is a tongue which is set on fire of hell Adduce examples. Ahab defied Micaiah.
4. By an unbelieving mind. The king questioned the truth of the prophet's message. He had more confidence in his own past success and in his military skill than in the declaration of a man who knew something of God but nothing of war. Unbelief ever prevents the inflowing of Divine goodness. Jesus "could do no mighty works because of their unbelief."
5. By a dumb spirit. No asking for pardon, no cry for mercy rose from Ahab's heart, or it would not have proved too late; for the Lord is "not willing that any should perish."
II. A MAN STRICKEN BY GOD. The chance arrow of the Syrian archer fulfilled the Divine purpose.
1. By the arrow of conviction. God's word is sharp and powerful, and pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(1) It may be shot unwittingly, as the archer drew at a venture not knowing what he might hit. Let our words for God be pointed, and be winged by faith, and He will see that they hit the mark.
(2) It may touch the one vulnerable spot. That arrow pierced "between the joints of armour" otherwise proof. So David's stone would have fallen powerless on the greaves or the breastplate of the giant of Garb. God, who knows our hearts, tries every avenue. Through our reason, through our affections, through our conscience, His word seeks to find its way.
2. By the arrow of judgment.
(1) It was foretold (1 Re 22:28). Ahab ran the risk. So do they who continue in sin after hearing of" a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devout-the adversaries."
(2) It was inevitable. All disguise and precaution were unavailing. The justice of God sooner or later reaches the right man.
(3) It was terrible. The weak, sensuous man, whose promise had sometimes been so fair, fell in a moment from kingship, from life, and from hope. "lie that being reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without often remedy."—A.R.