1 kings 22 commentary

1 KI GS 22 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Micaiah Prophesies Against Ahab
1 For three years there was no war between Aram
and Israel.
BAR ES, "Three years - These must be counted from the close of the second
campaign of Ben-hadad 1Ki_20:34. They were not full years, as is evident from the next
verse. Probably the first year is that of Ben-hadad’s dismissal after his defeat; the second
is a year of actual peace; while the third is that in which Jehoshaphat paid his visit, and
the Ramoth-Gilead expedition took place. The pause, here noticed, in the war between
Israel and Syria was perhaps the result of a common danger. It was probably in the year
following Ben-hadad’s dismissal by Ahab, that the first great Assyrian expedition took
place into these parts. Shalmaneser II relates that on his first invasion of southern Syria,
he was met by the combined forces of Ben-hadad, Ahab, the king of Hamath, the kings of
the Hittites, and others, who gave him battle, but suffered a defeat.
CLARKE, "Three years without war - That is, from the time that Ahab made the
covenant with Ben-hadad, mentioned 1Ki_20:34. And probably in that treaty it was
stipulated that Ramoth-gilead should be restored to Israel; which not being done, Ahab
formed a confederacy with Judah, and determined to take it by force.
GILL, "And they continued three years without war between Syria and
Israel. From the time that Benhadad made a covenant with Ahab; not three full years,
but part of them: it was threatened by Elijah from the Lord, that Ahab's life should go for
Benhadad's, because he had let him, go, 1Ki_22:42, but because of his humiliation, as is
thought by Ben Gersom and others, it was respited for those three years; and now an
opportunity and occasion would be given for the fulfilment of what was threatened.
HE RY, "Though Ahab continued under guilt and wrath, and the dominion of the
lusts to which he had sold himself, yet, as a reward for his professions of repentance and
humiliation, though the time drew near when he should descend into battle and perish,
yet we have him blessed with a three years' peace (1Ki_22:1) and an honourable visit
made him by Jehoshaphat king of Judah, 1Ki_22:2. The Jews have a fabulous conceit,

that when Ahab humbled himself for his sin, and lay in sackcloth, he sent for
Jehoshaphat to come to him, to chastise him; and that he staid with him for some time,
and gave him so many stripes every day. This is a groundless tradition. He came now, it
is probable, to consult him about the affairs of their kingdoms. It is strange that so great
a man as Jehoshaphat would pay so much respect to a kingdom revolted from the house
of David, and that so good a man should show so much kindness to a king revolted from
the worship of God. But, though he was a godly man, his temper was too easy, which
betrayed him into snares and inconveniences. The Syrians durst not give Ahab any
disturbance. But,
JAMISO , "1Ki_22:1-36. Ahab slain at Ramoth-gilead.
continued three years without war between Syria and Israel — The
disastrous defeat of Ben-hadad had so destroyed his army and exhausted the resources
of his country, that, however eager, he was unable to recommence active hostilities
against Israel. But that his hereditary enmity remained unsubdued, was manifest by his
breach of faith concerning the treaty by which he had engaged to restore all the cities
which his father had seized (1Ki_20:34).
K&D, "Allied Campaign of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against the Syrians at Ramoth, and
Death of Ahab (compare 2 Chron 18:2-34). - 1Ki_22:1. “And they rested three years;
there was no war between Aram and Israel,” ‫ב‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫י‬ here is to keep quiet, to undertake
nothing, as in Jdg_5:17, etc. The subject to ‫בוּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ֵ ַ‫ו‬ is Aram and Israel mentioned in the
second clause. The length of time given here points back to the end of the war described
in 1 Kings 20.
BE SO , "1 Kings 22:1. They continued three years — That is, three years were
spent; without war between Syria and Israel — Computed from the last war and
league wherewith it was concluded. Both Ahab and Ben-hadad were so weakened
and broken by the late wars, that they needed and desired peace to recruit
themselves, and repair their former losses.
COFFMA , ""They continued three years without war between Syria and Israel"
(1 Kings 22:1). ot long after Benhadad's second defeat by Ahab, which ended in
that "covenant" between Ahab and Benhadad, Ahab fulfilled his part of the
"covenant" by providing 2,000 chariots and 10,000 infantry for an allied battle led
by Benhadad against the threatening army of Assyrians.[1] This encounter was
known as the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.). The "three years" mentioned here is a
reference to the three years following the "covenant." Benhadad, however, had not
lived up to his part of the "covenant," still retaining the cities he had promised to
restore to Israel.
"Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel" (1 Kings 22:2). It
was a grave mistake for Jehoshaphat to do this. "He disregarded the vast moral and
religious gulf separating the two kingdoms, and made an alliance with Ahab."[2]
"This was the first time that a king of Judah (of the house of David) had visited one

of the kings who had revolted from that dynasty."[3] " either the alliance formed
here nor the matrimonial alliance that further cemented the two royal families met
with the Lord's approval (2 Chronicles 19:2)."[4]
"Know ye not that Ramoth-gilead is ours, etc.?" (1 Kings 22:2). Yes, this was one of
those cities Benhadad had falsely promised to restore. It was a walled city east of the
Jordan, one of the cities of refuge, and had served as one of Solomon's provincial
capitals.[5]
"I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses" (1 Kings 22:4).
As for the reason why Jehoshaphat agreed to such a sinful and dangerous alliance,
Hammond believed that was prompted, in part, by the fact that, "The Syrian army
was entrenched at Ramoth-gilead, only forty miles from Jerusalem."[6] Of course,
the marriage of Athaliah, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and Jehoram the son of
Jehoshaphat, thus sentimentally uniting the two families, might also have been a
factor entering into Jehoshaphat's ready acceptance with Ahab's invitation.
Whatever the reasons, the alliance was a mistake. Too intimate a relationship with
evil people, "Has brought many good people into a dangerous fellowship with the
unfruitful works of darkness."[7]
ELLICOTT, "1 Kings 22 is the continuation of 1 Kings 20 (which in the LXX.
immediately precedes it) in record of the Syrian war, but in tone far grander and
spiritually instructive, a fit catastrophe of the tragedy of Ahab’s reign. In it, for the
first time since 1 Kings 15:24, the history of Judah is touched upon; and there is an
almost verbal coincidence with 2 Chronicles 18.
Verse 1
(1) Three years without war.—The period is clearly reckoned from the rash peace
made by Ahab with Ben-hadad in 1 Kings 20:34. Evidently the king of Syria has
recovered his independence, if not superiority; he has not restored Ramoth-gilead
according to his promise; and his revived power is sufficient to cope with the united
forces of Israel and Judah. The sagacity of the prophetic rebuke of 1 Kings 20:42
has been amply justified.
EBC, "ALO E AGAI ST THE WORLD
1 Kings 22:1-40
"I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they
prophesied I have heard what the prophets said, who prophesied lies in My name."
- Jeremiah 23:21-25
WE now come to the last scene of Ahab’s troubled and eventful life. His two
immense victories over the Syrians had secured for his harassed kingdom three

years of peace, but at the end of that time he began to be convinced that the insecure
conditions upon which he had weakly set Benhadad free would never be ratified.
The town of Ramoth in Gilead, which was one of great importance as a frontier
town of Israel, had, in express defiance of the covenant, been retained by the
Syrians, who still refused to give it up. A favorable opportunity he thought, had now
occurred to demand its cession.
This was the friendly visit of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah. It was the first time that a
king of Judah had visited the capital of the kings who had revolted from the dynasty
of David. It was the first acknowledged close of the old blood-feuds, and the
beginning of a friendship and affinity which policy seemed to dictate. After all
Ephraim and Judah were brothers, though Ephraim had vexed Judah, and Judah
hated Ephraim. Jehoshaphat was rich, prosperous, successful in war. o king since
Solomon had attained to anything like his greatness-the reward, it was believed, of
his piety and faithfulness. Ahab, too, had proved himself a successful warrior, and
the valor of Israel’s hosts had, with Jehovah’s blessing, extricated their afflicted
land from the terrible aggressions of Syria. But how could the little kingdom of
Israel hope to hold out against Syria, and to keep Moab in subjection? How could
the still smaller and weaker kingdom of Judah keep itself from vassalage to Egypt
and from the encroachments of Philistines on the west and Moabites on the east?
Could anything but ruin be imminent, if these two nations of Israel and Judah-one
in land, one in blood, one in language, in tradition, and in interests-were perpetually
to destroy each other with internecine strife? The kings determined to make a
league with one another, and to bind it by mutual affinity. It was proposed that
Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, should marry Jehoram, the son of
Jehoshaphat.
The dates are uncertain, but it was probably in connection with the marriage
contract that Jehoshaphat now paid a ceremonial visit to Ahab. The King of Israel
received him with splendid entertainments to all the people. {2 Chronicles 18:2}
Ahab had already broached to his captains the subject of recovering Ramoth
Gilead, and he now took occasion of the King of Judah’s visit to invite his
cooperation. What advantages and compensations he offered are not stated. It may
have been enough to point out that, if Syria once succeeded in crushing Israel, the
fate of Judah would not be long postponed. Jehoshaphat, who seems to have been
too ready to yield to pressure, answered in a sort of set phrase: "I am as thou art;
my people as thy people; my horses as thy horses." {2 Kings 3:7}
But it is probable that his heart misgave him. He was a truly pious king. He had
swept the Asherahs out of Judah, and endeavored to train his people in the
principles of righteousness and the worship of Jehovah. In joining Ahab there must
have been in his conscience some unformulated murmur of the reproof which on his
return to Jerusalem was addressed to him by Jehu, the son of Hanani, "Shouldst
thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath upon
thee from the Lord." But at the beginning of a momentous undertaking he would
not be likely to imitate the godless indifference which had led Ahab to take the most
fatal steps without seeking the guidance of God. He therefore said to Ahab,

"Inquire, I pray thee, of the word of the Lord today."
Ahab could not refuse, and apparently the professional prophets of the schools had
been pretty well cajoled or drilled into accordance with his wishes. A great and
solemn assembly was summoned. The kings had clothed themselves in their royal
robes striped with laticlaves of Tyrian purple and sat on thrones in an open space
before the gate of Samaria. o less than four hundred prophets of Jehovah were
summoned to prophesy before them. Ahab propounded for their decision the formal
and important question, "Shall I go up to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I
forbear?"
With one voice the prophets "philippised." They answered the king according to his
idols. Had the gold of Ahab or of Jezebel been at work among them? Had they been
in king’s houses, and succumbed to courtly influences? Or were they carried away
by the interested enthusiasm of one or two of their leaders who saw their own
account in the matter? Certain it is that on this occasion they became false prophets.
They used their formula "Thus saith Jehovah" without authority and promised
Jehovah’s aid in vain. Conspicuous in his evil ardor was one of them named
Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah. To illustrate and emphasize his jubilant prophecies he
had made and affixed to his head a pair of iron horns; and as though to symbolize
the bull of the House of Ephraim, he said to Ahab, "Thus saith Jehovah. With these
shalt thou push the Assyrians until thou have consumed them." And all the
prophets prophesied so.
What could be more encouraging? Here was a patriot-king, the hero victor in great
battles, bound by fresh ties of kinship and league with the pious descendant of
David, meditating a just raid against a dangerous enemy to recover a frontier-
fortress which was his by right; and here were four hundred prophets-not Asherah-
prophets or Baal-prophets, but genuine prophets of Jehovah-unanimous, and even
enthusiastic, in approving his design and promising him the victory! The Church
and the world were-as they so often have been-delightfully at one.
"One with God" is the better majority. These loud-voiced majorities and
unanimities are rarely to be trusted. Truth and righteousness are far more often to
be found in the causes which they denounce and at which they sneer. They silence
opposition, but they produce no conviction. They can torture, but they cannot
refute. There is something unmistakable in the accent of sincerity, and it was
lacking in the voice of these prophets on the popular side. If Ahab was deceived and
even carried away by the unwonted approval of so many messengers of Jehovah,
Jehoshaphat was not. These four hundred prophets who seemed superfluously
sufficient to Ahab by no means satisfied the King of Judah.
"Is there not," he asked with uneasy misgiving, "one prophet of the Lord besides,
that we might inquire of him?"
One prophet of the Lord besides? Were not, then, four hundred prophets of the
Lord enough? They must have felt themselves cruelly slighted when they heard the

pious king’s inquiry, and doubtless a murmur of disapproval arose amongst them.
And the King of Israel said, "There is yet one man." Had Jehoshaphat been secretly
thinking of Elijah? Where was Elijah? He was living, certainly, for he survived even
into the reign (apparently) of Jehoram. But where was Elijah? If Jehoshaphat had
thought of him, Ahab at any rate did not care to mention him. Perhaps he was
inaccessible, in some lonely unknown retreat of Carmel or of Gilead. Since his
fearful message to Ahab he had not been heard of; but why did he not appear at a
national crisis so tremendous as this?
"There is yet one man," said Ahab. "Micaiah, the son of Imlah, by whom we may
inquire of the Lord; but"-such was the king’s most singular comment-"I hate him;
for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil."
It was a weak confession that he was aware of one man who was indisputably a true
prophet of Jehovah, but whom he had purposely excluded from this gathering
because he knew that his was an undaunted spirit which would not consent to shout
with the many in favor of the king. Indeed, it seems probable that he was, at this
moment, in prison. Jewish legend says that he had been put there because he was
the prophet who had reproved Ahab for his folly in suffering Benhadad to escape
with the mere breath of a general promise. Till then he had been unknown. He was
not like Elijah, and might safely be suppressed. And Ahab, as was universally the
case in ancient days, thought that the prophet could practically prophesy as he
liked, and not merely prophesy, but bring about his own vaticinations. Hence, if a
prophet said anything which he disliked, he regarded him as a personal enemy, and,
if he dared, he punished him-just as Agamemnon punished Calchas.
Jehoshaphat, however, was still dissatisfied; he wanted further confirmation. "Let
not the king say so," he said. If he is a genuine prophet, the king should not hate
him, or fancy that he prophesies evil out of malice prepense. Would it not be more
satisfactory to hear what he might have to say?
However reluctantly, Ahab saw that he should have to send for Micaiah, and he
dispatched a eunuch to hurry him to the scene with all speed.
The mention of a eunuch as the messenger is significant. Ahab had become the first
polygamist among the kings of Israel, and a seraglio so large as could never be
maintained without the presence of these degraded and odious officials who here
first appear in the hardier annals of the orthern Kingdom.
This eunuch, however, seems to have had a kindly disposition. He was good-
naturedly anxious that Micaiah should not get into trouble. He advised him, with
prudential regard for his own interest, to swim with the stream. "See, now," he said,
"all the prophets with one mouth are prophesying good to the king. Pray agree with
them. Do not spoil everything."
How often has the same base advice been given! How often has it been followed!

How certain is its rejection to lead to bitter animosity. One of the most difficult
lessons of life is to learn to stand alone when all the prophets are prophesying falsely
to please the rulers of the world. Micaiah rose superior to the eunuch’s temptation.
"By Jehovah," he said, "I will speak only what He bids me speak."
He stood before the kings, the eager multitude, the unanimous and passionate
prophets; and there was deep silence when Ahab put to him the question to which
the four hundred had already shouted an affirmative.
His answer was precisely the same as theirs: "Go up to Ramoth Gilead and prosper,
for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king!"
Every one must have been astonished. But Ahab detected the tone of scorn which
rang through the assenting words, and angrily adjured Micaiah to give a true
answer in Jehovah’s name. "How many times," he cried, "shall I adjure thee that
thou tell me nothing but that which is true in Jehovah’s name." The "how many
times" shows how faithfully Micaiah must have fulfilled his duty of speaking
messages of God to his erring king.
So adjured, Micaiah could not be silent, however much the answer might cost him,
or however useless it might be.
"I saw all Israel," he said, "scattered on the mountain like sheep without a
shepherd. And Jehovah said, These have no master, let every man return to his
house in peace."
The vision seemed to hint at the death of the king, and Ahab turned triumphantly to
his ally, "Did I not tell you that he would prophesy evil?"
Micaiah justified himself by a daringly anthropomorphic apologue which startles
us, but would not at all have startled those who regarded everything as coming from
the immediate action of God, and who could ask, "Shall there be evil in a city, and
the Lord hath not done it?" The prophets were self-deceived, but this would be
expressed by saying that Jehovah deceived them. Pharaoh hardens his heart, and
God is said to have done it.
He had seen Jehovah on His throne, he said, surrounded by the host of heaven, and
asking who would entice Ahab to his fall at Ramoth Gilead. After various answers
the spirit said, "I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets, and
will entice him." Then Jehovah sent him, so that they all spoke good to the king
though Jehovah had spoken evil. God had sent to them all-king, people, prophets-
strong delusion that they should believe a lie.
This stern reproof to all the prophets was more than their coryphaeus Zedekiah
could endure. Having recourse to "the syllogism of violence" he strode up to
Micaiah and smote the defenseless, isolated, hated man on the cheek, with the
contemptuous question, "Which way went the spirit of the Lord from me, to speak

unto thee?"
"Behold thou shalt know," was the answer, "on the day when thou shalt flee from
chamber to chamber to hide thyself." If the hands of the prophet were bound as he
came from the prison, there would have been an infinite dignity in that calm rebuke.
But as though the case was self-evident, and Micaiah’s opposition to the four
hundred prophets proved his guilt, Ahab sent him back to prison. "Issue orders,"
he said, "to Amon, governor of the city, and Joash, the king’s son, to feed him
scantily on bread and water till the king’s return in peace."
"If thou return at all in peace," said Micaiah, "Jehovah hath not spoken by me."
It is a sign of the extreme fragmentariness of the narrative that of Micaiah and
Zedekiah we hear nothing further, though the sequel respecting them must have
been told in the original record. But the prophecy of Micaiah came true, and the
unanimous four hundred had prophesied lies. There are times when "the Catholic
Church" dwindles down to the one man and the small handful of those who speak
the truth. The expedition was altogether disastrous. Ahab, perhaps knowing by
spies, how bitterly the Syrians were incensed against him, told Jehoshaphat that he
would disguise himself and go into the battle, but begged his ally to wear his robes
as was usual with kings. Benhadad, with the implacable hatred of one who had
received a benefit, was so eager to be avenged on Ahab that he had told his thirty-
two captains to make his capture their special aim. Seeing a king in his robes they
made a fierce onset on Jehoshaphat and surrounded his chariot. His cries for rescue
showed them that he was not Ahab, and they turned away. But Ahab’s disguise did
not save him. A Syrian-the Jews say that it was aaman-drew a bow with no
particular aim, and the arrow smote Ahab in the place between the upper and lower
armor. Feeling that the wound was deadly he ordered his charioteer to turn his
hands and drive him out of the increasing roar of the melee. But he would not
wholly leave the fight, and with heroic fortitude remained standing in his chariot in
spite of agony. All day the blood kept flowing down into the hollow of the chariot.
At evening the Syrians had to retire in defeat, but Ahab died. The news of the king’s
death was proclaimed at sunset by the herald, and the cry was raised which bade
the host disband and return home.
They carried the king’s body back to Samaria, and they buried it. They washed the
bloodstained chariot in the pool outside the city, and there the dogs licked the king’s
blood, and the harlot-votaries of Asherah bathed in the blood-dyed waters, as Elijah
had prophesied.
So ended the reign of a king who built cities and ivory palaces, and fought like a
hero against the foes of his country, but who had never known how to rule his own
house. He had winked at the atrocities committed in his name by his Tyrian queen,
had connived at her idolatrous innovations, and put no obstacle in the way of her
persecutions. The people who might have forgotten or condoned all else never forgot
the stoning and spoliation of aboth and his sons, and his death was regarded as a

retribution on this crime.
PARKER, "The End of Ahab
1 Kings 22
This chapter is really a continuation of chapter20. In the Septuagint version the
twentieth chapter immediately precedes the twenty-second. The three years without
war is a period which is reckoned from the peace which was so rashly made by
Ahab with Benhadad ( 1 Kings 20:34). It is clear that Benhadad has recovered his
independence, and is probably in a position of superiority; it is certain that he has
not restored Ramoth-gilead as he had promised to do, and his Revelation -
constructed army seems to him to be now sufficient to encounter successfully the
united hosts of Israel and Judah. In 1 Kings 22:42 of the same chapter we have seen
how Ahab was rebuked for allowing the enemy to escape. It has been supposed that
this conduct on the part of Ahab may have been due partly to compassion and
partly to weakness. The judgment of the Lord was, however, expressed in the
severest terms: "Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed
to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his
people" ( 1 Kings 20:42). In 1 Kings 22:3 we see these words signally fulfilled: The
king of Israel seems to have had a good cause when he said to 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?" On this occasion Ahab entered into an alliance with
Jehoshaphat king of Judah for the purpose of taking back the city which belonged
to Israel. Jehoshaphat made a deferential as well as a friendly reply, but insisted
upon the fulfilment of a religious condition. Jehoshaphat would make inquiry at the
word of the Lord. Thereupon four hundred prophets were gathered together, and
with one consent they advised that the attack should be made upon Ramoth-gilead.
Surely this was enough to satisfy the judgment and the conscience of the most
religious Prayer of Manasseh , yet Jehoshaphat was not content with the unanimous
reply which four hundred prophets had returned. "There is a spirit in man: and the
inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." All external unanimity
goes for nothing when the conscience itself dissents from the judgment which is
pronounced. There is a verifying faculty which operates upon its own responsibility,
and which cannot be overpowered by the clamour of multitudes who eagerly rush
down paths that are forbidden. Even when imagination assents to the voice of the
majority, and when ambition is delighted with the verdict of the prophets, there
remains the terrible yet gracious authority of conscience. Through all the clamour
that authority makes its way, and calmly distinguishes between right and wrong,
and solemnly insists that right shall be done at all hazards and in view of all
consequences. A vital lesson arises here to all who are anxious to know the right way
under difficult circumstances. It is not enough to have great numbers of authorities
on our side; so long as the conscience remains unsatisfied all other authorities are
"trifles light as air." Jehoshaphat was, therefore, uneasy, notwithstanding the
prophets had said, "Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king."
He inquired, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might inquire

of him? The word which Jehoshaphat used was the great word Jehovah. It was not
enough for him to use a religious or sacred term, he must have the prophecy
identified with the awful ame Jehovah, then it would come with final authority.
The king of Israel knew that there was another man whose very name signified
"Who is like Jehovah?" Ahab frankly declared that he hated Micaiah because he
never prophesied good concerning him, but always evil.
Observe the madness of Ahab"s policy, and note how often it is the policy which we
ourselves are tempted to pursue. We suppose that if we do not consult the Bible we
may take licence to do what seems good in our own eyes, and we imagine that by
ignoring the Bible we have divested it of authority. We flatter ourselves that if we do
not listen to an exposition of the divine word we shall be judged according to the
light we have, forgetting the solemn law that it is not according to the light we have
that we are to be judged, but according to the light we might have if we put
ourselves in right relations to the opportunities created for us by divine providence.
We know that if we go to hear a certain preacher he will insist upon "righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come;" and, supposing that we already know
everything that he will say, we turn away from him and listen to men who do not
profoundly treat vital subjects, or press home upon the conscience the terrible
judgments of God. What is this but closing our eyes to light, and supposing that
darkness is safety? What is this ostrich policy, but one that ought to be condemned
by our sense as well as shrunk from by our piety? Our duty under all critical
circumstances is to go to the truth-teller, and to get at the reality of things at all
costs. Where the truth-teller disturbs our peace and disappoints our ambition, we
ought to learn that it is precisely at that point that we have to become self-rectifying.
The truth-teller is only powerful in proportion as he tells the truth; officially, he is
nothing; his power is simply the measure of his righteousness. But do not men love
to be flattered, even in courses of evil? Is it not pleasant to go out to forbidden war
amid the huzzahs of thoughtless and irresponsible multitudes? Jehoshaphat,
however, was a just Prayer of Manasseh , and, as such, he protested against the sin
of the king of Israel, saying, "Let not the king say so." Jehoshaphat being so bent
upon having a complete judgment of the case, Micaiah was sent for. The king of
Israel wished to overawe the despised prophet by the pomp and circumstance under
which he was introduced to the royal presence. "The king of Israel, and
Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in
a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria;" and to increase the
impressiveness of the occasion, all the prophets prophesied before the kings. A
singular addition was made to the surroundings of the occasion which was intended
to impress the imagination and stagger the courage of the despised Micaiah. A man
bearing the name of Zedekiah (righteousness of Jehovah) made him horns of iron.
The use of symbolical acts is quite common in biblical history. We have already seen
Abijah engaged in an act of this kind: he "caught the new garment that was on him
and rent it in twelve pieces: and said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces." The
enthusiasm of Zedekiah inflamed the other prophets to the highest point of
excitement, and they shouted as with one voice, "Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and
prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king"s hand." In this instance the
prophets, overborne by the enthusiasm of Zedekiah, actually ventured to use the

name of Jehovah which had not been used in the first instance. The excitement had
passed the point of worship and had become more nearly resembling the frantic cry
that was heard on Mount Carmel—"O Baal, hear us."
Is it possible that there can be found any solitary man who dare oppose such
unaminous testimony and complete enthusiasm? The messenger who was sent to call
Micaiah was evidently a man of considerate feeling who wished the prophet well.
Seeing that the words of the prophets had all declared good unto the king with one
mouth, the messenger wished that Micaiah should for once agree with the other
prophets and please the king by leaving undisturbed their emphatic and unanimous
counsel. Thus the voice of persuasion was brought to bear upon Micaiah, and that
voice is always the most difficult to resist. The temptation thus addressed to Micaiah
was thus double in force; on the one hand, there was the pomp and the terror of the
king who had sold himself to do evil, and who would shrink from the infliction of no
cruelty that would express his unreasoning and unlimited anger; on the other hand,
there was the goodwill of the messenger who wished Micaiah to escape all danger
and penalty, and for once to take the popular side. Micaiah"s reply is simply
sublime: "And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that
will I speak" ( 1 Kings 22:14). The humility of this answer is as conspicuous as its
firmness. Its profound religiousness saves it from the charge of being defiant.
Micaiah recognises himself merely in the position of a servant or medium who has
nothing of his own to say, who is not called upon to invent an answer, or to play the
clever man in the presence of the kings; he was simply as a trumpet through which
God would blow his own blast, or a pillar on which God would inscribe his own
message, or a voice which God would use for the declaration of his own will. It is
unjust to attribute obstinacy or any form of self-will or self-worship to Micaiah. If
he had consulted his natural inclination alone, he would have sought favour with the
king, and the logical effect of his subsequent position would have been that Ahab
would have endeavoured for ever to silence him by constituting him the prince and
leader of the four hundred prophets. Micaiah said in effect, what was said centuries
afterwards: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels." Micaiah lived in God, for
God, and had nothing of his own to calculate or consider. Until preachers realise
this same spiritual independence, they will be attempting to accommodate
themselves to the spirit of the times, and even the strongest of them may be betrayed
into connivances and compromises fatal to personal integrity and to the claims of
truth.
ow came the critical moment. ow it was to be seen whether Micaiah was to be
promoted to honour, or thrust away in contempt and wrath. It is easy to read of the
recurrence of such moments, but difficult to realise them in their agony. Yet these
are the moments which make history in its sublimest lines. It is not too much to say
that there have been points of time at which if certain men had given way, the whole
economy of the world would have been wrecked. The king addressed himself to the
prophet, saying: "Shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?"
The answer of Micaiah must have been a surprise to all who heard it, for he said,
"Go, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king" ( 1 Kings
22:15). This is an answer which cannot be understood in print. It was evident,

however, that Ahab was in no doubt as to its meaning, for the tone of the prophet
was a tone of almost contemptuous irony. If king Ahab had taken Micaiah"s literal
answer, he would have gone forth to the battle comforting himself with the thought
that he was carrying out the will of heaven; but he knew in his own soul that
Micaiah was not uttering that which expressed the reality of the case. With anger
the king said unto him, "How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me
nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord?" ( 1 Kings 22:16). Then
Micaiah replied in symbolic language, the meaning of which was vividly clear to the
mind of Ahab; for, turning to Jehoshaphat, he said, "Did I not tell thee that he
would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?" ( 1 Kings 22:18). Thereupon
Micaiah charged the whole band of prophets with being under the inspiration of a
lying spirit, and thus he put a stigma upon and extracted from their judgment every
particle of dignity and authority. But this was not to be borne, for Zedekiah went
near and smote Micaiah on the cheek and taunted him as being the only prophet in
Israel. Micaiah had to bear the sarcasm conveyed in the angry inquiry, "Which way
went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?" ( 1 Kings 22:24). Micaiah
like a true prophet leaves his judgment to the decision of time. He will not stoop to
argue, or to exchange words either of anger or of controversy; he simply says that
Zedekiah will one day see the meaning of the whole prophecy, and until that day
controversy would be useless. Micaiah had to pay for his fearlessness: he was
carried unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king"s Song of
Solomon , and was to be put in prison and fed with the bread of affliction and with
the water of affliction until Ahab returned in peace. Micaiah thus disappears from
history. Of his fate we know nothing; but there can be no difficulty in forecasting it
a cruel death. Micaiah knew well the meaning of the king"s message. It may be
difficult for the commentator to explain the expression "bread of affliction, and
water of affliction," but Micaiah knew the full meaning of the terms, and yet, whilst
their cruel sound was in his ears, he looked at the king and said, "If thou return at
all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me." Micaiah made also his appeal to the
people, and thus committed himself to the verdict of history, saying, "Hearken, O
people, every one of you" ( 1 Kings 22:28). See whether it is not a moment to be
proud of when Micaiah turns away in the custody of his persecutors, having
delivered his soul with fearlessness that did not cower or blanch even at the sight of
death in its most ghastly forms. Surely it is due to history to recognise the fact that
there have been men who have not counted their lives dear unto themselves when
they were called upon to testify for truth and goodness. The martyrs must never be
forgotten. Dark will be the day in the history of any nation when the men who shed
their blood that truth might be told and honour might be vindicated, are no longer
held in remembrance. In vain do we bring forth from our hidden treasure the coins
of ancient times, the robes worn in high antiquity by kings and priests, the rusty
armour of warriors, if there is no longer in our heart the tenderest recollection of
the men who wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted,
tormented, that they might save the torch of truth from extinction and the standard
of honour from overthrow.
Away the kings have gone, and instead of relying upon the word of the Lord, or
taking refuge in the sanctuary of great principles, they invent little tricks for the

surprise and dismay of the enemy. The king of Israel disguised himself, and
Jehoshaphat made himself as the king of Israel, but all their inventions came to
nothing. A certain man drew a bow at a venture and smote the king of Israel
between the joints of the harness. The poor king was fatally struck, he "was stayed
up in his chariot against the Syrians, and died at even: and the blood ran out of the
wound into the midst of the chariot.... And one washed the chariot in the pool of
Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armour; according
unto the word of the Lord which he spake." So will perish all the enemies of the
Lord. Differences of merely accidental detail there will always be, but no honour
can mark the death of those who have gone contrary to the will of heaven, and taken
counsel of their own imagination. How long shall the lesson of history be wasted
upon us? How long will men delude themselves with the mad infatuation that they
can fight against God and prosper? Horsemen and chariots are nothing, gold and
silver are valueless, all the resources of civilisation are but an elaborate display of
cobwebs: nothing can stand in the final conflict but truth, and right, and purity.
These are the eternal bulwarks, to these are assured complete and unchangeable
victory. If God be for us, who can be against us? and if God be against us no matter
what kings are for us, they shall be blown away of the wind as if contemptuously,
and cast out as refuse which is of no value. My soul, be thou faithful to the voice of
history nor tell lies to thyself, nor operate merely through imagination, ambition, or
selfish calculation, for the end of this course is death: not heroic death, not death
over which coming men and women will weep; but death that shall be associated
with dishonour, a thing to be forgotten, an event that never can be named without
bitterness and shame.
Selected ote
The Books of the Kings.—This section of Jewish history originally formed only one
book in the sacred writings. It was customary with the Jews to name the sacred
books from the word or words with which they commenced; and, while this practice
may have given rise to the designation, "Kings" ( 1 Kings 1:1), it is right to observe
that the title is well fitted to indicate the character of these historic compositions.
The annals given in these sacred registers are necessarily brief; but they extend
from the close of David"s reign till the commonwealth was dissolved, a period of
four hundred and twenty-seven years. Succinct as is the history contained in these
books, there are some peculiarities in them which should not be overlooked, and
from which not a little may be learned. There is not here a simple biography of the
various kings that occupied the thrones of Judah and Israel, nor is there a mere
detail of national movements and events, nor even a tabular register of ecclesiastical
affairs. The throne, the state, and the church, are all exhibited in their mutual
relations and bearings upon each other. Kings and people are held up to view as
existing and acting under the immediate government of God; and hence the
character of the ruler is always tested by the mode in which he adheres to the laws
of the Almighty, and developes the moral excellences of the people. The notice of his
accession to royal office is generally accompanied with an estimate of his conduct,
and the standard to which he is likened or contrasted is either the character of

David, of his own father, or of Jeroboam the son of ebat, "who made Israel to sin."
All the political events which are recorded, are brought forward chiefly to exhibit
the influence of religion on national prosperity: and, in this way, to show how the
divine King of Israel observed the conduct of his subjects, and rewarded their
fidelity or avenged their wickedness with expressions of righteous indignation. And
the affairs of the Church are all portrayed with the design of giving prominence to
the same important truth. Idolatry in Israel was treason against their King;
religious defection was open revolt; and every act of overt wickedness was an act of
rebellion. Hence there is a constant comparing or contrasting of religious state and
feeling with those of former times, and especially are the oracles of truth continually
elevated as the perfect standard to which the thoughts and actions of all should all
be conformed. The Mosaic promises and warnings are strikingly verified in the
Books of Kings—for this object they were written; and to the manifestation of this
the author has made his whole narrative conduce.
Much variety of opinion exists with reference to the author of these records, and the
period of their composition. Jewish tradition ascribes the authorship of the treatise
to Jeremiah the prophet; a supposition which is greatly strengthened by the
similarity of style and idiom which is traceable between the language of the Books of
Kings and that of Jeremiah.
GUZIK, "A. God foretells Ahab’s doom.
1. (1 Kings 22:1-4) Ahab sets his eyes upon Ramoth-Gilead.
ow three years passed without war between Syria and Israel. Then it came to pass,
in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went down to visit the king of
Israel. And the king of Israel said to his servants, “Do you know that Ramoth in
Gilead is ours, but we hesitate to take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?” So he
said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to fight at Ramoth Gilead?” Jehoshaphat
said to the king of Israel, “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as
your horses.”
a. Do you know that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, but we hesitate to take it out of the
hand of the king of Syria? Previously, the King of Syria promised to return certain
cities to Israel (1 Kings 20:34) in exchange for leniency after defeat in battle.
Apparently this was a city that Ben-Hadad never returned to Israel and it was in a
strategically important location.
b. Will you go with me to fight at Ramoth Gilead? King Ahab of Israel asked King
Jehoshaphat of Judah to help him in this dispute against Syria. This made some
sense, because Ramoth-Gilead was only 40 miles from Jerusalem.
PETT, "Ahab And Jehoshaphat Unite To Regain Ramoth-gilead For Israel And
Ahab Learns From A Prophet Of YHWH That They Will Be Successful But That

He Will Die In The Attempt (1 Kings 22:1-29).
Ahab’s life has been one of continual contact with prophets of YHWH as YHWH
has sought to win him back to true obedience. Indeed that is the only reason why it
has been portrayed in such detail, for the prophetic author’s concern has been to
demonstrate that the final fall of both Israel and Judah occurred in spite of all
YHWH’s attempts to prevent it. And now Ahab’s life will end with a description of
one final conflict with a prophet of YHWH, a conflict which illustrates the fact that
Ahab’s previous repentance had only been temporary, and that he had soon fallen
back into his old ways.
Uniting with Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, Ahab planned to regain Ramoth-gilead
from the Aramaeans, and to that end prophets were called on to prophesy what
would happen when they made the attempt. His own prophets prophesied complete
success. But Jehoshaphat then asked for a genuine prophet of YHWH to be
consulted, and this prophet, Micaiah, declared that while the project would be
successful, Ahab would die in the attempt. Ahab was not, however, to be dissuaded,
for in contrast to this one negative voice about four hundred prophets viewed the
situation favourably, and so he had Micaiah put in prison in order that when he
returned safely he could punish him as a false prophet. Micaiah’s reply was simply
that if he did return in peace then it would be true that YHWH had not spoken
though him. But he had no doubt as to what would happen.
Analysis.
a And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel, and it
came about in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the
king of Israel. And the king of Israel said to his servants, “You know that Ramoth-
gilead is ours, and we are still, and do not take it out of the hand of the king of Aram
(Syria)?” And he said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to battle to Ramoth-
gilead?” And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “I am as you are, my people as
your people, my horses as your horses” (1 Kings 22:1-4).
b And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Enquire first, I pray you, for the
word of YWHW” (1 Kings 22:5).
c Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred
men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I
forbear?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the
king” (1 Kings 22:6).
d But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here a prophet of YHWH besides, that
we may enquire of him?” And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet
one man by whom we may enquire of YHWH, Micaiah the son of Imlah. But I hate
him, for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said,
“Let not the king say so.” Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, “Fetch
quickly Micaiah the son of Imlah” (1 Kings 22:8-9).
e And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah were sitting each
on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place at the entrance of the gate of
Samaria, and all the prophets were prophesying before them (1 Kings 22:10).

f And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron, and said,
“Thus says YHWH, with these you will push the Aramaeans (Syrians), until they
are consumed.” And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, “Go up to Ramoth-
gilead, and prosper, for YHWH will deliver it into the hand of the king” (1 Kings
22:11-12).
g And the messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him, saying, “Behold
now, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth, let your
word, I pray you, be like the word of one of them, and do you speak good” And
Micaiah said, “As YHWH lives, what YHWH says to me, that will I speak” (1 Kings
22:13-14).
h And when he was come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we
go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?” And he answered him, “Go up
and prosper, and YHWH will deliver it into the hand of the king” (1 Kings 22:15).
g And the king said to him, “How many times shall I adjure you that you speak
nothing to me but the truth in the name of YHWH?” (1 Kings 22:16).
f And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep which
have no shepherd. And YHWH said, These have no master. Let them return every
man to his house in peace.” And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not
tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” (1 Kings 22:17-
18).
e And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear you the word of YHWH. I saw YHWH
sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand
and on his left”. And YHWH said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and
fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said on this manner, and another said on that
manner.” And there came forth a spirit, and stood before YHWH, and said, “I will
entice him. And YHWH said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will
be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You will entice him,
and will also prevail. Go forth, and do so’ ” (1 Kings 22:19-22).
d “ ow therefore, behold, YHWH has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
these your prophets, and YHWH has spoken evil concerning you” (1 Kings 22:23).
c Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah on the
cheek, and said, “Which way went the Spirit of YHWH from me to speak to you?”
And Micaiah said, “Behold, you will see on that day, when you shall go into an inner
chamber to hide yourself” (1 Kings 22:24-25).
b And the king of Israel said, “Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the
governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son,, and say, ‘Thus says the king, put
this fellow in the prison, and feed him with food of affliction and with water of
affliction, until I come in peace. ’ ” And Micaiah said, “If you return at all in peace,
YHWH has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Hear, you peoples, all of you” (1
Kings 22:26-28). ’
a So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-
gilead (1 Kings 22:29).
ote that in ‘a’ the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat plan to go up against Ramoth
Gilead, and in the parallel they do so. In ‘b’ Jehoshaphat asks for the word of
YHWH, and in the parallel Ahab has the prophet who brings it put in prison
because he does not like what he says. In ‘c’ the king’s false prophets prophesy
success for the king, and in the parallel, having been challenged by Micaiah, the

false prophet Zedekiah smites him for claiming that it is he who has the Spirit
rather than Zedekiah and the false prophets. In ‘d’ Jehoshaphat enquires if there is
no prophet of YHWH to speak to them, but Ahab complains that he only speaks evil
concerning him, and in the parallel Micaiah says that YHWH has spoken evil
concerning him. In ‘e’ the kings sit on their thrones at the gates of the city with all
the false prophets gathered around them and in the parallel YHWH is pictured by
Micaiah as sitting on His throne with the host of Heaven gathered around Him, and
listening to a spirit who will put lies in the mouths of the prophets. In ‘f’ the false
prophets vividly portray Ahab’s coming victory, and in the parallel the true prophet
vividly portrays his death. In ‘g’ the king’s messenger adjures Micaiah to speak fair
words to the king, and in the parallel the king adjures him to speak the truth to him.
Centrally in ‘h’ Micaiah forecasts victory, which is partly true, (apart from the
small matter of the death of Ahab).
1 Kings 22:1
‘And they continued three years without war between Aram (Syria) and Israel.’
For three years after the previous encounter there had been no war between Aram
and Israel. Indeed, as we have seen above, they had collaborated together in order
to see off Shalmaneser III of Assyria. But now Ahab saw the opportunity to obtain
back from the Aramaeans control of Ramoth-gilead, an Israelite city in
Transjordan. Its return may well have been part of the previous treaty when Ben-
hadad had been defeated and had had to yield. But if so it had never been actioned.
PULPIT, "And they continued [rather, rested. Heb. sate, dwelt. Cf. 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 Kings 20:34-43. 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.
2 But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah
went down to see the king of Israel.

BAR ES, "This visit indicates an entire change in the relations which we have
hitherto found subsisting between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The common
danger to which the two kingdoms were exposed from the growing power of Syria had
probably induced them to forget their differences. Jehoshaphat’s eldest son, Jehoram,
was married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab: but apparently the bond between the two
families had not hitherto led to any very close intimacy, much less to any joint military
expeditions. Jehoshaphat seems to have taken no part in the former Syrian wars of
Ahab, nor did he join in the great league against the Assyrians (1Ki_22:1 note). His visit
now was probably one of mere friendliness, without any political object. Ahab, however,
turned the visit to political advantage. From this time until the displacement of Ahab’s
dynasty by Jehu, very intimate relations subsisted between the two kingdoms (1Ki_
22:49; 2Ki_3:7; 2Ki_8:28-29; 2Ch_20:36, etc.).
GILL, "And it came to pass in the third year,.... Of the peace, before it was
expired:
that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel; to Ahab,
from Jerusalem to Samaria, reckoned thirty two miles (m); either to make peace with
him, and put an end to the wars which subsisted between Israel and Judah since the
division of the kingdom, 1Ki_22:44 or to contract an affinity with him, by marrying his
son to a daughter of Ahab, 2Ki_8:18 or rather after peace was made, and that
strengthened by the marriage; and so he went merely to pay a visit, as he judged he
might then with great safety; and he and all his retinue were entertained by Ahab in a
very sumptuous and liberal manner, 2Ch_18:1.
(m) Bunting's Travels, &c. p. 178. near 40, Rainold. Praelect. 31. col. 266.
JAMISO , "Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of
Israel — It was singular that a friendly league between the sovereigns of Israel and
Judah should, for the first time, have been formed by princes of such opposite
characters - the one pious, the other wicked. Neither this league nor the matrimonial
alliance by which the union of the royal families was more closely cemented, met the
Lord’s approval (2Ch_19:2). It led, however, to a visit by Jehoshaphat, whose reception
in Samaria was distinguished by the most lavish hospitality (2Ch_18:2). The opportunity
of this visit was taken advantage of, to push an object on which Ahab’s heart was much
set.
K&D, "1Ki_22:2-4
In the third year (not necessarily “towards the end of it,” as Thenius supposes, for
Jehoshaphat's visit preceded the renewal of the war) Jehoshaphat visited the king of
Israel, with whom he had already formed a marriage alliance by marrying his son to
Ahab's daughter (2Ch_18:1; 2Ki_8:18). Ahab then said to his servants that the king of
Syria had kept the city of Ramoth in Gilead (probably situated on the site of the present
Szalt: see at Deu_4:43), which he ought to have given up, according to the conditions of
the peace in 1Ki_20:34, and asked Jehoshaphat whether he would go with him to the
war against Ramoth, which the latter promised to do. “I as thou, my people as thy
people, my horses as thy horses;” i.e., I am at thy service with the whole of my military
power. In the place of the last words we have therefore in the Chronicles ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִ ַ ָ‫ך‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫ע‬ְ‫,ו‬ “I

am with thee in the war,” i.e., I will assist thee in the war.
BE SO , "1 Kings 22:2. The king of Judah came down to the king of Israel —
Having now, as he supposed, made a firm peace with him, by the alliance contracted
between Jehoram his son, and Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter, 2 Kings 8:18; 2
Chronicles 18:1. It is strange that so good a man would be so closely connected with
a king revolted, from the worship of God! But he appears to have been of to easy a
temper, which betrayed him to many inconveniences.
ELLICOTT, "(2) Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down.—The fuller account
of the Chronicles (2 Chronicles 17) notices that the early part of his reign had been
marked by a continuance or increase of the prosperity of Asa; but (1 Kings 18:1)
adds, in significant connection, he “ had riches and honour in abundance, and
joined affinity with Ahab,” so that this prosperity was, at any rate in part,
dependent on a change of policy from enmity to alliance, with apparently some
measure of dependence, dangerous alike spiritually and politically, but probably
thought to be a necessity. The visit of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 18:2) was one of
festivity, of which Ahab took advantage.
PETT, "1 Kings 22:2
‘And it came about in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came
down to the king of Israel.’
The visit of Jehoshaphat to Israel may have been simply a ceremonial one, or it may
have been to do with trading arrangements. Or it may even have been with the
venture that follows in mind. Whichever way it was he was clearly invited to the
council meeting which Ahab held with a view to his plan to regain Ramoth-gilead.
PULPIT, "And it came to pass in the third year [Of the peace; not after the death of
aboth, 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 Chronicles 18:1, 2 Chronicles 18:2). It is
probable that it was the growing power of Syria had led to this affinity and
alliance.]
BI 2-50, "Jehoshaphat the King of Judah.
Character of Jehoshaphat
In Ahab we have an instance of a wicked man partially reclaimed, frequently arrested,

but yet finally hardened in his iniquity. In Jehoshaphat, again, we have a still more
affecting example. We see how a man, upright before God, and sincere in serving Him,
may be betrayed into weak compliances; and how dangerous and melancholy the
consequences of these compliances may be. The general uprightness of Jehoshaphat, his
sincerity in serving God, is expressly acknowledged and commended by the prophet in
the very act of condemning his sin (1Ki_22:3). The 17th chapter of Second Chronicles
gives an account of his piety and zeal at the beginning of his reign, and before the event
to which the prophet refers; and the 19th and 20th chapters prove the continuance of
these excellent dispositions, even after that most sad and untoward occurrence. Such a
prince, we might naturally imagine, opposed to all corruption in the worship of God,
would be especially studious to keep himself and his people separate from the
heathenism and idolatry of the adjoining kingdom of Israel. He could have no sympathy
with the spirit which animated that kingdom under the auspices of the infamous
Jezebel—no toleration for the abuses which prevailed after she had secured the open
establishment of the very worst form of paganism. Yet, strange to tell, the besetting sin
of this good man was a tendency to connect himself with idolaters. The single fault
charged against this godly prince is his frequent alliance with his ungodly neighbours.
Thus, in the first place, Jehoshaphat consented to a treaty of marriage, probably at the
beginning of his reign (2Ch_17:1). He “joined affinity with Ahab” by marrying his son to
Ahab’s daughter (2Ki_8:18). This was the first overture towards an alliance. Then,
secondly, Jehoshaphat twice joined in a league of war with the King of Israel; first, in the
expedition against Syria which we have been considering; and again, shortly after an
attack upon the Moabites (2Ki_3:7). Lastly, in the third place, Jehoshaphat consented,
though reluctantly, in the close of his reign, to a commercial alliance of his people with
the ten tribes. As to the sin itself with which Jehoshaphat is charged, and the probable
reasons or motives of its commission,—we cannot suppose that, in forming an alliance
with the ungodly, Jehoshaphat was actuated by fondness for the crime, or by
complacency in the criminal. We must seek an explanation of his conduct rather in
mistaken views of policy than in any considerable indifference to the honour of God, or
any leaning to the defections of apostasy and idolatry. For this end, let us consider the
relative situation of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and the feelings which their
respective kings, with their subjects, mutually cherished towards one another. The first
effect of Jeroboam’s revolt with the ten tribes from the house of David, was a bitter and
irreconcilable hostility between the two rival kingdoms of the ten, and of the two tribes.
And, as if to widen and perpetuate the breach, each party in turn had recourse to the
expedient of calling in foreign aid against the other. At the instigation probably of
Jeroboam, Shishak, King of Egypt, who had formerly been his patron and protector,
invaded Judah. And again, by way of retaliation, the King of Judah soon after invited the
Syrians to ravage the territory of the hostile kingdom of Israel (2Ch_16:1-14.). In course
of time, however, when a generation or two passed away, something like a change, or a
tendency to approximation, began to appear. The feelings of hostility had in some degree
subsided, the memory of former union had revived, and the idea might again not
unnaturally suggest itself to a wise and patriotic statesman, of consolidating once more
into a powerful empire communities which, although recently estranged, had yet a
common origin, a common history, a common name, and, till lately, a common faith,—
whose old recollections and associations were all in common. The manifest folly, too, of
exposing themselves, by intestine division, to foreign invasion, and even employing
foreigners against each other, might prompt the desire of bringing the kingdoms to act
harmoniously together, whether in peace or in war. Such might very reasonably be the
views of an able, enlightened, and conscientious sovereign, pursuing simply, in a sense,
the good of his country; and such, probably, were the views of Jehoshaphat. His

favourite aim and design seems to have been, to conciliate the king and people of Israel;
at least, he was always ready to listen to any proposals of conciliation. Nay, we may
believe that this good man proposed, by the course which he adopted, to leaven them
with the spirit of a better faith, and ultimately bring them back again to the legitimate
dominion of the house of David, and the pure worship of the God of their fathers. If so,
his object was certainly not unlawful; but in the pursuit of it, he was tempted to an
unlawful compromise of principle. In his anxiety to pacify, to conciliate, and to reclaim,
he was tempted to go a little too far,—even to the sacrificing of his own high integrity,
and the apparent countenancing of other men’s iniquities. And is not this the very sin of
many good and serious Christians, who manifest to the world, its follies and its vices, a
certain mild and tolerant spirit, and are disposed to treat the men of the world with a
sort of easy and indulgent complacency; justifying or excusing such concessions to
themselves by the fond persuasion, that they are but seeking, or at least that they are
promoting, the world’s reformation? No doubt, it is your duty to conciliate all men, if
you can; but there is such a thing as conciliating, and conciliating, and conciliating, till
you conciliate away all the distinctive characteristics of your faith.
1. Thus, as to the first point, Jehoshaphat, when he consented to an alliance with the
King of Israel, no doubt contemplated the possibility of doing him some good. Such
was his hope. How in point of fact was it realised? He has descended from his footing
of unquestioned and uncompromised integrity, and involved himself irretrievably in
the very course he should be rebuking. And so it must ever be. The very first step a
good man takes from the eminence on which he stands apart, as the friend of God
and the unflinching enemy of all ungodliness in the world, he compromises his
authority, his influence, his right and power of bold remonstrance and unsparing
testimony against the corrupt lusts and the angry passions of men. He gives up the
point of principle, and as to any resistance that he may make in details, men see not
what there is left to fight for. Is not this the natural, the necessary result of such a
conciliatory course? If you condescend to flatter men in their vanities, will they listen
to you when you gravely reprehend their sins? No; they will laugh you to scorn. If
you countenance them in the beginning of their excess, will they patiently bear your
authoritative denunciation of its end? No; they will contemptuously reject it as a
fond folly, or indignantly resent it as an insult. If you go with them one mile, may
they not almost expect you to go two?—at least, you have no right to take it very
much amiss if they go the two miles themselves.
2. But, in the second place, Jehoshaphat not only failed to arrest Ahab in his sinful
course—he was himself involved in its sinfulness. Instead of reclaiming this wicked
prince, he was himself betrayed into a participation in his wickedness he joined him
in his unholy expedition. And be sure, we say to all professing Christians, that you
too, if you try thus artfully to gain the advantage over the world, will find the world
too much for you. For Satan, the god of this world, is far more than a match for you
in this game of craft, and compromise, and conciliation. Beware how you step out of
your own proper sphere, as a separate and peculiar people. Then go not along with
them at all—no, not a single step: for a single step implies tampering, in so far, with
your religious and conscientious scruples; and when these are once weakly or wilfully
compromised, Satan’s battle is gained. The rest is all a question of time and of
degree. Stand fast, then, in your liberty. “All things are lawful unto you, but all things
are not expedient.” Be not yourselves “brought under the power of any”; and
consider what may “edify” the Church and glorify God (1Co_6:12; 1Co_10:23), Stand
fast in your integrity.
3. For, thirdly, see what hazard Jehoshaphat ran. Not only did he sin with Ahab, but

he was on the point of perishing with him in his sin. The King of Judah was saved
himself, as by fire; but his ally, his confederate, was lost. And had he no hand, had he
no concern, in the loss? Had he honestly remonstrated with him? Had he fearlessly
protested against him, and sharply rebuked and withstood him? Oh! such wounds
would have been kind and precious. But he had been too merciful; he had been
pitiful, falsely pitiful,—what a thought is this, that, in making flattering advances to
sinners, and dealing smoothly with their sins, you not only endanger your own peace,
but you accelerate and promote their ruin! You may save yourselves by tardy yet,
timely repentance; you may extricate yourselves ere it be too late;—but can you save,
can you extricate those whom your example has encouraged, or your presence has
authorised? (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
The King of Israel.—
The character of Ahab
I. The king’s wilful purpose (verses 1-6). Ahab’s purpose is announced in the beginning
of the chapter. We find him, after three years of peace, preparing to attack the Syrians.
The Syrian king, whom Ahab had treated with such ill-timed lenity, and with whom he
had made so sinful a compromise, has, as might have been anticipated, failed to fulfil
the: stipulated terms of ransom, and to restore the cities of Israel. Ahab, provoked at his
own simplicity in having suffered so favourable an opportunity to slip, through his fond
trust in the honour of a perfidious prince, and stung by the recollection of the prophet’s
rebuke, conceives the design of retrieving his error, and compelling the fulfilment of the
treaty, on the faith of which he had been weakly persuaded to liberate the enemy whom
God had doomed. In this Ahab acts under the impulse of resentment and ambition. He
burns with the desire of avenging a personal wrong and insult, rather than of fulfilling
the decree of God. Had he consulted the will of God, he must have seen and felt that it
was now too late for him to take the step proposed. He had let the time go past. When
God gave him victory, and assured him of power over his enemy, then he should have
used his opportunity. This he had failed to do; and for his failure he had been reproved
by God, and warned by the prophet that his people and his life were forfeited. Certainly
Ahab should have been the very last person to think of rousing and provoking the very
foe who, by the Divine sentence and by his own compromise, had gained so sad and
signal an advantage over him. But instead of following so wise a course, Ahab blindly
rushes into the opposite extreme from his former fault; and because before he has been
blamed for not going far enough, with God on his side, he is provoked to go too far now,
though God has declared against him. He is not without his reasons, and they are very
plausible reasons, to justify the step proposed.
1. In the first place, it is in itself an act of patriotism and of piety; at least it looks very
like it, and may easily be so represented.
2. Secondly, it has received the countenance of a friend (verse 4). And that friend is
not a wicked man, but one fearing God, and acknowledged by God as righteous.
3. And, thirdly, it has obtained the sanction of four hundred prophets (verse 6). And
these are not prophets of Baal. Looking, then, at the act itself as an act of patriotic
and pious zeal, encouraged by the consent of his friend and the concurrence of the
prophets, Ahab, we may think, might well be misled. And we might pity and excuse
him too, as one misled, did we not see him so willing to be so. Is he not all the while
deceiving himself, and that too almost wilfully and consciously? O beware, ye

pilgrims in an evil world, ye soldiers in an arduous fight, beware of your own rash
wilfulness, of the weakness of compliant friends, and of the flattering counsels of evil
men and seducers, who in the last times—in the last and critical stage of individual
experience, as well as of the world’s history—are sure to wax worse and worse! There
is no design, no device, no desire of your hearts, which you may not find some
specious arguments to justify, some friends to countenance, ay, and some prophets,
too, to sanction.
II. The Lord’s gracious opposition (verses 7-23). The King of Israel is satisfied with the
oracular answer of the prophets. Not so, however, the King of Judah. He suspects
something wrong, missing probably among the four hundred some one of whom he has
heard. This Micaiah is supposed to be the prophet who reproved Ahab formerly, on the
occasion of his compromise with the Syrian king; and it was probably his boldness on
that occasion that caused him to be imprisoned. And is not this the spirit in which good
advice is too often asked, and the word of God consulted,—when it is too late,—when a
man’s mind is already all but made up? You go when your conscience will not otherwise
let you alone, or when the remonstrances of pious friends trouble you; you go to some
man of God, to God Himself, by prayer and the searching of His word:—for what? what
is it that you want?—light for duty, however self-denying? or light to justify your
doubtful course? He stands before the princes, undaunted by their royal state. First of
all, he rebukes the prejudice of Ahab, by seeming to flatter it (verse 15). The irony
conveys a cutting reproof, and a merited one; and with this the holy prophet might have
left the prince to believe his own and his flatterers’ lie. But the mercy of God and the sin
of Ahab are to be yet more signally brought out. Even to the last, in judgment God
remembers mercy. The very scene of judgment which the prophet discloses does not
imply any fixed and irrevocable design of wrath against Ahab;—with such a design,
indeed, the disclosure of the scene would be incompatible and inconsistent. The
sentence of final infatuation does not come without previous intimation. However you
may be deceived, or maybe deceiving yourselves, is there not a voice of truth, or a
prophetic warning, which you feel might keep you right—if you wore but willing to be
kept right?
III. The issue of the contest (verses 29-38). And here, in the first place, let the expedient
by which Ahab consults his own safety be observed. For he does not feel entirely
comfortable and secure; he cannot rid himself of the uneasy apprehension which the
prophet’s word has suggested. There is danger. Ahab, knowing the hazard, cunningly
proposes to resign the post of honour to his ally: “And the King of Israel said unto
Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and enter into the battle; but put thou on thy robes.
And the King of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle” (verse 30). And what
are we to expect but that, false to his God, a man will be false to his friend also. Let none
trust the fidelity of him who is not faithful to his best, his kindest, his most generous
benefactor,—his Saviour, his God. Consult your own conscience.
1. Beware of the beginning of Ahab’s evil course-his fatal compromise with the
enemy of his peace. See that you enter into no terms with any sin, and that you be
not hardened through its deceitfulness. When God in Christ gives you the victory,
delivering you from condemnation by His free grace, and upholding you by His free
Spirit; when, justified and accepted in the Beloved, you see every sin of yours
prostrate beneath your feet, stripped of all its power to slay or to enslave you—be
sure that you make thorough work in following out the advantage you have gained—
that you listen to no plausible proposals of concession—that you suffer no iniquity to
escape—that you mortify every lust.

2. Beware of provoking a slumbering foe. If there be any enemy of your peace to
whom, by former compliances or concessions, you have given an advantage over you,
beware of invading his territories again. Be on your guard against the very first
beginnings of evil—of any evil especially that you have ever, in all your past lives,
tolerated, or flattered or fondled in your bosoms, when you should have been nailing
it, without pity, to your Saviour’s cross.
3. Beware of the deceitfulness of sin. The wiles of the devil are not unknown to you.
In a doubtful case, where you are hesitating, it is easy for him to insinuate and
suggest reasons enough to make the worse appear the better cause. Generally you
may detect his sophistry by its complex character. Truth is simple; the word of God
is plain.
4. Beware of being hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Beware of a judicial
hardening of your hearts, or of your being given over to believe a lie. (R. S. Candlish,
D. D.)
3 The king of Israel had said to his officials,
“Don’t you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to
us and yet we are doing nothing to retake it from
the king of Aram?”
BAR ES, "By the terms of Ahab’s covenant with Ben-hadad, Ramoth in Gilead
ought, long ere this, to have been restored 1Ki_20:34. Hence, the claim “is ours,” i. e., “it
belongs to us of right though the Syrians still hold possession of it.”
GILL, "(And the king of Israel said unto his servants,.... His nobles, those of his
privy council, his ministers of state; or "had said" (n), some little time before
Jehoshaphat came:
know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours a city of refuge beyond Jordan, in the tribe
of Gad, and so of course must belong to the kingdom of Israel, of which see Jos_20:8.
and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria?) neither
demand it, nor take any measures to oblige him to deliver it up; representing it as a great
omission, and as a piece of negligence and slothfulness, or cowardice.
HE RY, "I. Ahab here meditates a war against the Syrians, and advises concerning it
with those about him, 1Ki_22:3. The king of Syria gave him the provocation; when he lay

at his mercy, he promised to restore him his cities (1Ki_20:34), and Ahab foolishly took
his word, when he ought not to have dismissed him till the cities were put into his
possession. But now he knows by experience, what he ought before to have considered,
that as the kisses, so the promises, of an enemy are deceitful, and there is no confidence
to be put in leagues extorted by distress. Benhadad is one of those princes that think
themselves bound by their word no further and no longer than it is for their interest.
Whether any other cities were restored we do not find, but Ramoth-Gilead was not, a
considerable city in the tribe of Gad, on the other side Jordan, a Levites' city, and one of
the cities of refuge. Ahab blames himself, and his people, that they did not bestir
themselves to recover it out of the hands of the Syrians, and to chastise Ben-hadad's
violation of his league; and resolves to let that ungrateful perfidious prince know that as
he had given him peace he could give him trouble. Ahab has a good cause, yet succeeds
not. Equity is not to be judged of by prosperity.
BE SO , "1 Kings 22:3. Know ye not that Ramoth in Gilead is ours? — Belongeth
to us by right, both by God’s donation, and by our last agreement with Ben- hadad,
1 Kings 20:34. It is probable Ben-hadad had not made good his part of the covenant,
to restore all the cities which the Syrians had taken from Israel, and that this was
one which he refused to deliver up.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Ramoth in Gilead.—The city is first mentioned (in Deuteronomy
4:43; Joshua 20:8; Joshua 21:38) as a city of refuge in the territory of Gad; then (in
1 Kings 4:13) as the centre of one of the provinces of Solomon, including the towns
of Jair, and the strong hill country of Argob. In the Syrian wars it appears as a
frontier fortress, taken and retaken. It had fallen into the hands of the Syrians, and
had not been restored according to promise. The defeat and death of Ahab were
subsequently avenged by Jehoram, who took it, and held it against all the attacks of
the enemy (2 Kings 9:1-14).
PETT, "1 Kings 22:3
‘And the king of Israel said to his servants, “You know that Ramoth-gilead is ours,
and we are still, and do not take it out of the hand of the king of Aram (Syria)?”
The result of the council meeting is briefly summed up in these words emphasising
the fact that Israel had been negligent in not arranging for the deliverance of
Ramoth-gilead out of the hands of the king of Aram earlier. In view of what follows
we must assume that the council agreed that the attempt should be made
PULPIT, "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 Kings 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 Kings 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
Chronicles 17:10-19). 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 Kings 22:4, 1 Kings 22:6, etc.), "Ramoth-Gilead," i.e;
of Gilead. See note on 1 Kings 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 Kings
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. Though so long a time had
elapsed, it was still in his hands], and we be still [ ‫ה‬ָ‫ָשׁ‬‫ח‬ is onomatopoetic, like our
"hush." Marg. rightly, silent from taking it. The word conveys very expressively
that they had been afraid of making any movement to assert their rights, lest they
should attract the attention and anger of their powerful and incensed neighbour],
and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria? [It is hardly likely that Ahab
could have forgotten the warning of 1 Kings 20:42. It is probable that Ben-hadad's
flagrant disregard of his treaty engagements determined him to run all risks,
especially if he could secure the help of the then powerful king of Judah.]
MACLARE , "UNPOSSESSED POSSESSIONS
This city of Ramoth in Gilead was an important fortified place on the eastern side of the
Jordan, and had, many years before the date of our text, been captured by its northern
neighbours in the kingdom of Syria. A treaty had subsequently been concluded and
broken a war followed thereafter, in which Ben-hadad, King of Syria, had bound himself
to restore all his conquests. He had not observed that article of peace, and the people of
Israel had not been strong enough to enforce it until the date of our text; but then,
backed up by a powerful alliance with Jehoshaphat of Judah, they determined to make a
dash to get back what was theirs, but whilst theirs was also not theirs.
Now, I have nothing more to do with Ahab and Jehoshaphat, but I wish to turn the
words of my test, and the thoughts that may come from them, into a direction profitable
to ourselves. ‘Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours?’ and yet it had to be got out of the
hands of the King of Syria.
I. What is ours and not ours.
Every Christian man has large tracts of unannexed territory, unattained possibilities,
unenjoyed blessings, things that are his and yet not his. How much more of God you and
I have a right to than we have the possession of! The ocean is ours, but only the little
pailful that we carry away home to our own houses is of use to us. The whole of God is
mine if I am Christ’s, and a dribble of God is all that comes into the lives of most of us.
How much inward peace is ours? It is meant that there should never pass across a
Christian’s soul more than a ripple of agitation, which may indeed ruffle and curl the
surface; but deep down there should be the tranquillity of the fathomless ocean,
unbroken by any tempests, and yet not stagnant, because there is a vital current running
through it, and every drop is being drawn upward to the surface and the sunlight. There

may be a peace in our hearts deep as life; a tranquillity which may be superficially
disturbed, but is never thoroughly, and down in its depths, broken. And yet, let some
little petty annoyance come into our daily life, and what a pucker we are in! Then we
forget all about the still depths in which we ought to be living; and fears and hopes and
loves and ambitions disturb our souls, just as they do the spirits of the men that do not
profess to have any holdfast in God. The peace of God is ours; but, ah! in how sad a sense
it is true that the peace of God is not ours!
What ‘heights’-for Ramoth means ‘high places’-what heights of consecration there are
which are ours according to the divine purpose and according to the fulness of God’s
gift! It is meant, and it is possible, and well within the reach of every Christian soul, that
he or she should live, day by day, in the continual and utter surrender of himself or
herself to the will of God, and should say, ‘I do the little I can do, and leave the rest with
Thee’; and should say again, ‘All is right that seems most wrong, If it be His sweet will.’
But instead of this absolute submission and completeness and joyfulness of surrender of
ourselves to Him, what do we find? Reluctance to obey, regret at providences, Self
dominant or struggling hard against the partial domination of the will of God in our
hearts. The mind which was in Jesus Christ, who was able to say, ‘It is written of Me, lo!
I come to do Thy will, O Lord!’ is ours by virtue of our being Christians; but, alas! in
practical realisation how sadly it is not ours!
What noble possibilities of service, what power in the world, are bestowed on Christ’s
people!’ All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth,’ says He. ‘And He breathed
on them, and said, As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.’ The divine gift to the
Christian community, and to the individuals that compose it-for there are no gifts given
to the community, but to the individuals that make it up- is of fulness of power for all
their work. And yet look how, all through the ages, the Church has been beaten by the
corruption of the world; and how to-day many of us are standing, either utterly careless
and callous about the diseases that we have the medicine to cure, or in desperation
looking about for other healing for the social and moral condition of the community
than that which is granted to us in Jesus Christ. ‘Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours,
and we be still, and take it not out of the hands of the King of Syria?’
There is ever so much in the world which belongs to our Master, and therefore belongs
to us, and which the Church is bound to lay its hand upon and claim for its own and for
its Lord’s. For remember, brethren, that all the gifts at which I have been glancing-and I
might have largely increased the catalogue-all these spiritual endowments of peace, and
safety, and purity, and joy, of religious elevation, and consecration, and power for
service, and the like-are ours by a threefold title and charter. God’s purpose, which is
nothing less for every one of us than that we should be ‘filled with all the fulness of God,’
and that He should ‘supply all our need, according to His riches in glory,’-that is the first
of the parchments on which our title depends. And the second title-deed is Christ’s
purchase; for the efficacy of His death and the power of His triumphant life have secured
for all who trust Him the whole fulness of this divine gift. And the third of our claims
and titles is the influence of that Holy Spirit whom Jesus Christ gives to every one of His
children to dwell in him. There is in you, working in you, if you have any faith in that
Lord, a power that is capable of making you perfectly pure, perfectly blessed, strong with
an immortal strength, and glad with a ‘joy that is unspeakable and full of glory.’
Oh! then, let us think of the awful contrast between what is ours and what we have. It is
ours by the divine intention, by the divine gift in its fulness and all-sufficiency, and yet
think of the poor, partial realisation of it that has passed into our experience. Be sure
that you have what you have, and that you make your own what God has made yours.

II. Then, let me suggest, again, how our text hints for us, not only the difference between
possession and realisation, but also our strange contentment in imperfect possession.
Ahab’s remonstrances with his servants, which make the starting-point of my remarks,
seem to suggest that there were two reasons for their acquiescence in the domination of
a foreign power on a bit of their soil. They had not realised that Ramoth was theirs, and
they were too lazy and cowardly to go and take it. Ignorance of the fulness of the gift, and
slothful timidity in daring everything in the effort to make it ours, explain a great deal of
the present condition of Christian people.
Is not that condition of passive acquiescence in their small present attainments, and of
careless indifference to the great stretch of the unattained, the characteristic of the mass
of professing Christians? They have got a foothold on a new continent, and their
possession of it is like the world’s drawing of the map of Africa when we were children,
which had a settlement dotted here and there along the coast, and all the broad regions
of the interior were blank. The settlers huddle together upon the fringe of barren sand by
the salt water, and never dream of pressing forward into the heart of the land. And so,
too, many of us are content with what we have got, a little bit of God, when we might
have Him all; a settlement on the fringe and edge of the land, when we might traverse
the whole length of it; and behold! it is all ours.
That unfamiliarity with the thought of unattained possibilities in the Christian life is a
damning curse of thousands of people who call themselves Christians. They do not
think, they never realise-and some of us are guilty in this respect-they never realise that
it is possible for them to be all unlike what they are now, and that, instead of the
miserable partial hallowing of their nature, and the poor, weak -I was going to say
strength, but it is not worth calling strength, that they possess, they might be as the
angels of God: ‘the weakest as David,’ and David as a very angel of heaven itself. Why is
it, why is it, that there is this unfamiliarity?
And then, another reason for the woful disproportion between what we have and what
we utilise is the love of ease, such as kept these Israelites from going up to Ramoth-
Gilead. It was a long way off; there was a river to be forded; there were heights to be
climbed; there were weary marches to be taken; there were hard knocks going in front of
the walls of Ramoth before they got inside it; and on the whole it was more comfortable
to sit at home, or look after their farms and their merchandise, than to embark on the
quixotic attempt to win back a city that had not been theirs for ever so long, and that
they had got on very well without.
And so it is with hosts of Christian people; we do not realise how much we have that we
never get any good out of. And, in the second place, we had rather just stay where we are,
and make the best of the world as it is, and the desires of our hearts go in another
direction than for our increase in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour. Ah,
brethren! if we had a claim to some great property, or any other wealth that we really
cared about, should we be so very indifferent as to asserting our rights? Should we not
fight to the death, some of us, for the last inch of soil, for the last ounce of treasure, that
belonged to us? When you really value a thing, you secure the greatest possible amount
of it; and there is very little margin between what you own and what you use.
And if there is such a tremendous difference between the breadth of the one and the
narrowness of the other in our Christian life, there can be no reason for it except this,
that we do not care enough about spiritual blessings and forces to make the effort that is
needed to win and keep, and get the good of, all that is ours.
And is not that something like despising the birthright? Is it not a criminal thing for

Christian people thus to neglect, and to put aside, and never to seek to obtain, all these
great gifts of God? There they lie at our doors, and they are ours for the taking. Suppose
a carrier brought you a whole waggon full of precious goods, and put them down at your
door, and you were not at the trouble to open your doors, or to carry the goods into your
cellars. That would not look as if you cared much either for the goods or for the giver.
And I wonder how many of us are chargeable with that criminal despising of God’s gifts,
which is clearly the explanation of our letting them lie rotting, as it were, at our gates?
We are starving paupers in the midst of plenty.
‘My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory, by Christ Jesus,’ says
Paul. You have the right to them all. Draw cheques against the capital that is lodged in
your name in that great bank.
III. And so, lastly, my text suggests the effort that is needed to make our own ours.
‘We be still, and take it not out of the hands of the King of Syria.’ Then these things that
are ours, by God’s gift, by Christ’s purchase, by the Spirit’s influence, will need our effort
to secure them. And that is no contradiction, nor any paradox. God does exactly in the
same way with regard to a great many of His natural gifts as He does with regard to His
spiritual ones. He gives them to us, but we hold them on this tenure, that we put forth
our best efforts to get and to keep them. His giving them does not set aside our taking.
However much we tried we could not take them out of His hand if it were clenched.
Open as His hand is, and stretched out to us as it is, the gifts that sparkle in it are not
transferred to our hands unless we ourselves put forth an effort.
So let me say that one large part of the discipline by which men make their own their
own is by familiarising themselves with the thought of the larger possibilities of
unattained possessions which God has given them. That is true in everything. To
recognise our present imperfection, and to see stretching before us glorious and
immense possibilities, opening out into a vista where our eyesight fails us to travel to its
end, is the very salt of life in every region. Artist, student, all of us ‘are saved by hope,’ in
a very much wider sense than the Apostle meant by that great saying. And whosoever
has once lost, or felt becoming dim, the vision before him of a possible better than his
present best, in any region, is in that region condemned to grow no more. If we desire to
have any kind of advancement, it is only possible for us, when there gleams ever before
us the untravelled road, and we see at the end of it unattained brightnesses and
blessings.
And we Christian people have an endless prospect of that sort stretching before us. Oh, if
we looked at it oftener, ‘having respect unto the recompense of the reward,’ we should
find it easier to dash at any Ramoth-Gilead, and get it out of the hands of the strongest of
the enemies that may bar our way to it. Let us familiarise ourselves with the thought of
our present imperfection, and of our future completeness, and of the possibilities which
may become actualities, even here and now; and let us not fitfully use what power we
have, but make the best of what graces are ours, and enjoy and expatiate in the spiritual
blessings of peace and rest which Christ has already given to us. ‘To him that hath shall
be given,’ and the surest way to lose what we have is to neglect to increase it.
And, above all, let us keep nearer to our Master, and live more in fellowship with our
Lord, and that will help us to deny ourselves to ungodliness and worldly lusts. It is the
prevalence of these, and the absence of self-denial, that ruins most of the Christian lives
that are ruined in this world. If a man wants to be what he is not, he must cease to be
what he is.
Self-sacrifice, and the emptying of our hearts of trash and trifles, is the only way to get

our hearts filled with God and with His blessing. Let us keep near Jesus Christ. If we
have Him for ours we have peace, we have power, we have purity. ‘He of God is made
unto us’ all in all, and every gift that may adorn humanity, and make our lives joyous and
ourselves noble, is given to us in Jesus Christ. Let us put away from ourselves, then, this
slothful indifference to our unattained possessions. ‘Know ye that Ramoth is ours?’ ‘Let
us be still’ no longer. ‘All things are yours, whether the world, or life, or death, or things
present, or things to come: all are yours if ye are Christ’s.’
4 So he asked Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me
to fight against Ramoth Gilead?”
Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, “I am as
you are, my people as your people, my horses as
your horses.”
BAR ES, "Ahab, well aware of the military strength of Syria, and feeling that he
cannot now expect divine aid 1Ki_20:42; 1Ki_21:21, asks the aid of Jehoshaphat, whose
military resources were very great 2Ch_17:12-19. Jehoshaphat’s answer is one of
complete acquiescence, without reserve of any kind (compare 2Ch_18:3). Jehoshaphat
was afterward rebuked for thus consenting to “help the ungodly” 2Ch_19:2. He probably
acted not merely from complaisance, but from a belief that the interests of his own
kingdom would be advanced by the step which he agreed to take. The power of Syria was
at this time very menacing.
CLARKE, "Wilt thou go with me - We find that there was a good understanding
between Jehoshaphat and Ahab, which no doubt was the consequence of a matrimonial
alliance between the son of the former, Jehoram, and the daughter of the latter,
Athaliah; see 2Ch_18:1; 2Ki_8:18. This coalition did not please God, and Jehoshaphat is
severely reproved for it by Jehu the seer, 2Ch_19:1-3.
GILL, "This affair being lately canvassed at the council board, and very much on Ahab's
mind, he puts this question to Jehoshaphat, his visitor, relation, and ally; wisely
considering that his own forces were small, and that to have such an auxiliary might be
of great advantage to him:
and Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art, my people as
thy people, my horses as thy horses; meaning, that he and his soldiers, foot and

1 kings 22 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 1 kings 22 commentary

Similar to 1 kings 22 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1 kings 22 commentary