FOR THREE YEARS there was no war between Aram and Israel. 2But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah went down to see the king of Israel. 3The 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?”
4So 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.” 5But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, “First seek the counsel of the LORD.”
6So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, “Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?”
“Go,” they answered, “for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.”
7But Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there not a prophet of the LORD here whom we can inquire of?”
8The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, “There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.”
“The king should not say that,” Jehoshaphat replied.
9So the king of Israel called one of his officials and said, “Bring Micaiah son of Imlah at once.”
10Dressed in their royal robes, the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting on their thrones at the threshing floor by the entrance of the gate of Samaria, with all the prophets prophesying before them. 11Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, “This is what the LORD says: ‘With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.’”
12All the other prophets were prophesying the same thing. “Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious,” they said, “for the LORD will give it into the king’s hand.”
13The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look, as one man the other prophets are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably.”
14But Micaiah said, “As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me.”
15When he arrived, the king asked him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?”
“Attack and be victorious,” he answered, “for the LORD will give it into the king’s hand.”
16The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?”
17Then Micaiah answered, “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, ‘These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.’”
18The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Didn’t I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?”
19Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. 21Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22“‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.
“‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’
23“So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.”
24Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from the LORD go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.
25Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”
26The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city and to Joash the king’s son 27and say, ‘This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.’”
28Micaiah declared, “If you ever return safely, the LORD has not spoken through me.” Then he added, “Mark my words, all you people!”
29So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead. 30The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will enter the battle in disguise, but you wear your royal robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle.
31Now the king of Aram had ordered his thirty-two chariot commanders, “Do not fight with anyone, small or great, except the king of Israel.” 32When the chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, “Surely this is the king of Israel.” So they turned to attack him, but when Jehoshaphat cried out, 33the chariot commanders saw that he was not the king of Israel and stopped pursuing him.
34But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” 35All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. 36As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town; everyone to his land!”
37So the king died and was brought to Samaria, and they buried him there. 38They washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria (where the prostitutes bathed), and the dogs licked up his blood, as the word of the LORD had declared.
39As for the other events of Ahab’s reign, including all he did, the palace he built and inlaid with ivory, and the cities he fortified, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? 40Ahab rested with his fathers. And Ahaziah his son succeeded him as king.
41Jehoshaphat son of Asa became king of Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel. 42Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-five years. His mother’s name was Azubah daughter of Shilhi. 43In everything he walked in the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD. The high places, however, were not removed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there. 44Jehoshaphat was also at peace with the king of Israel.
45As for the other events of Jehoshaphat’s reign, the things he achieved and his military exploits, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? 46He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa. 47There was then no king in Edom; a deputy ruled.
48Now Jehoshaphat built a fleet of trading ships to go to Ophir for gold, but they never set sail—they were wrecked at Ezion Geber. 49At that time Ahaziah son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, “Let my men sail with your men,” but Jehoshaphat refused.
50Then Jehoshaphat rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the city of David his father. And Jehoram his son succeeded him.
Original Meaning
THE DEATH OF Ahab comes at the hands of the Arameans in his attempt to regain Ramoth Gilead, a city of refuge located in the eastern portion of the tribal territory of Gad (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8; 21:38).1 The battle takes place in alliance with Jehoshaphat king of Judah, the son of Asa, who became king over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab (1 Kings 22:41) and entered into a treaty with the prosperous Omrides.
Jehoshaphat may have entered into this alliance for potential benefits from Israel’s position in the Transjordan; Judah retained control over Edom and the southern port at Ezion Geber (22:48). The alliance was sealed through the marriage of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah to Judah’s crown prince Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18). Judah may have been a vassal, or it was a treaty of equals.2 Israel was the stronger of the two states, and until disaster hit both dynasties under Jehu, Judah participated in most of Israel’s wars. Jehoshaphat is consistently depicted as seeking to be faithful to Yahweh and his prophets (1 Kings 22:43), and therefore in constant tension with his ally Ahab, who was devoted to the Phoenician religion.
The Battle for Ramoth Gilead (22:1–40)
AHAB’S PREVIOUS WAR with Aram concluded with a treaty (20:34), which brought peace for a short period of time. Three years is a typological number rather than an exact chronological statement. Plans for the attack are laid during a state visit by Jehoshaphat. Judah has no interest in the battleground between Israel and the Arameans at the northeastern frontier of the heavily forested Gilead. Ahab’s question concerning Ramoth Gilead is intended to arouse shame and resentment (22:3), since the Arameans are violating the agreement made earlier at Aphek.
Ahab does not have sufficient resources to attack the Arameans on his own (22:4), so solicits help from his ally in enforcing the treaty. Jehoshaphat affirms his support with a traditional expression (cf. 2 Kings 3:7), but he refuses to proceed unless there is divine confirmation that the venture is within the divine will.
Consultations with the prophets interrupt the preparations for war (22:5–28). Such inquiries were a normal procedure (Num. 27:21; Judg. 1:1; 20:27–28; 1 Sam. 23:2, 9–10; 30:7–8). Ahab apparently knows the Lord is not with him in this battle, as stated in his response to Micaiah son of Imlah (vv. 8, 15–16). But Ahab has determined his course of action irrespective of the outcome of the consultations. It seems the function of the royal prophets was to sanction the decisions of the king rather than provide actual guidance. The episode reveals the problem of false prophecy among the official prophets of the king and the dilemma of conflict with other prophets who did not conform.
The inquiry unfolds in two scenes. In the first, four hundred prophets of the king (cf. 1 Kings 18:19) affirm Ahab’s intention to go to war (22:5–6). They carry on their ecstatic behavior before the two kings, who sit in their royal regalia in the open space at the entrance of the city gate.3 The message of Ahab’s prophets is affirmed and reiterated in a circumstantial amplification (22:10–12). Their leader Zedekiah makes himself iron horns to act out the message of how the Arameans will be utterly defeated.4
In the second Micaiah is first persuaded to verbally confirm the message of Ahab’s prophets (vv. 7–23): Yahweh will give Ramoth Gilead over to the king’s control (vv. 6b, 15b).5 But the king knows Micaiah is only giving him the answer that will confirm the loyalty of his prophets rather than the divine word. At the request of Ahab, Micaiah elaborates that the armies of Israel will be scattered like sheep without a shepherd and will return home without leaders (22:17). In other words, Ahab will die. The contradiction with Micaiah’s first response is clarified with a vision (vv. 19–23), which explains the behavior of Ahab’s prophets and how it is possible for the initial words of Micaiah to conform to them.
The lengthy inquiry involving Micaiah is a verbal drama to establish prophetic legitimacy.6 Prophetic enmity against Micaiah is longstanding; Ahab’s messenger expects a discordant message, so he prevails on the prophet to conform to the word of the other prophets (22:13). Micaiah makes clear that he can do nothing other than speak the word of Yahweh; this he does, to the end that the deceit of the royal prophets of Ahab is fully disclosed. The vision serves to explain the willful self-deception of the false prophets and legitimates Micaiah’s word.
Micaiah does not claim, as charged by Zedekiah (22:24), that the spirit of Yahweh has left Zedekiah and gone over to him. Micaiah can only speak the truth he has seen in the vision (v. 14).7 The prophets, in their desire to affirm the intent of the king, have carried out God’s will as decided in the heavenly court. The false prophets confirm the self-determined decision of the king, because divine judgment has already been decided against him (v. 20). Both the false prophets and the king are culpable in their resolve to carry out their own purposes, irrespective of God’s guidance. This is not a situation of being unknowingly misled. Their deception lies in the belief they can deny the word of Yahweh and succeed.
In Micaiah’s vision, the heavenly court is the counterpart of a royal council (cf. Job 1:6); the King is surrounded by his attendants, each assigned to fulfill specific roles (1 Kings 22:19). “Host of heaven” is the term for celestial bodies worshiped by foreign nations (Deut. 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3). In that vision these are divine beings in service to God.8 The question to the heavenly court is how to entice Ahab to go into battle at Ramoth Gilead. The persuasion of Ahab is to accomplish the invincible will of God.9 This persuasion is to guarantee that Ahab will fall in battle; his judgment is decreed.
The effective accomplishment of the divine will can take place without the conscious participation of his prophets—either positively, as in the case of Jeremiah (Jer. 20:7, 10), or negatively, as in the case of Ahab’s prophets (1 Kings 22:21–22). Ezekiel understands God to be adding to the punishment of the prophets by misguiding them to evil acts (Ezek. 14:9–10). The punishment on Ahab and his prophets is determined by their own hardness of heart, just as Pharaoh hardened his heart and then came under divine judgment of an unchanging will that led to his destruction.
A crux in this passage is the intent of the enticement as a “lying spirit” (22:23). The LXX renders this as a “false spirit” (pneuma pseudes), taking the Hebrew rûaḥ šeqer as deception by the divine messenger. However the question as to how the spirit will try to persuade Ahab suggests that the rûaḥ šeqer is not a deception on the part of the messenger, but a description of the effect his message will have on the king.10 Ahab is deluded; this delusion begins with his adoption of the message of his own prophets and his implicit recognition that Micaiah speaks the truth, contrary to Ahab’s own prophets.
The confrontation with Micaiah reaches its climax in the assault of Zedekiah (22:24) and the confinement imposed by the king until the truth of his words can be verified (vv. 26–27). “Amon the ruler of the city” and “Joash the king’s son” represent civil and regal authority. They are jointly responsible for sustaining Micaiah with sufficient physical provision until the king returns safely from battle. Restraint imposed on the prophet will prevent him from disseminating his pernicious views among the people. Micaiah for his part simply responds according to the prophetic test of truth as found in Deuteronomy 18:21–22. If Zedekiah and Ahab are vindicated, death is his well-deserved fate.
Ahab’s resolve to attack at Ramoth Gilead does not leave the question long in limbo. With the consultation at an impasse, the scene moves to the battlefront. His plan is to go into the battle disguised as a soldier, with Jehoshaphat filling the role of military leader. Ahab is the chief military leader, but disguises himself as an ordinary soldier because of the prophecy that the army will return without its king (22:17).11 Though he has chosen to disregard the oracle, he is not able to ignore it.
The strategy of the Aramean chariot commanders is to single out the king of Israel (22:31). Since Jehoshaphat alone is distinguished by the insignia of the military leader, the warriors focus their attention on him (v. 32). The outcry of Jehoshaphat informs them he is not the king of Israel, or it is a cry of alarm by which they recognize they have the wrong person. Ahab is hit by an inadvertent shot that pierces the scales of his armor at a vulnerable point. The shot is not an accident, however; it confirms the judgment that has been pronounced by Micaiah.
The wounded king demands to be taken from the troops; this is the first step in separating his fate from that of the army (22:34). The battle intensifies throughout the day, while the king faces the army propped up in his chariot. The end of the day seals the separate destinies of king and army. At evening the king dies (v. 35b), the blood from his mortal wound draining and collecting at the bottom of the chariot. At sunset, the army disperses; each of the soldiers returns to his own place of residence (v. 36). By the end of the day the king’s effort to subvert the word of doom spoken against him fails (v. 35).12 The central occurrence of the battle is the death of the king at Ramoth Gilead and the return of the armies in peace without their shepherd.
The death of the king is the first oracle to receive fulfillment on that fateful day. The body of the king is returned to Samaria, where the chariot is washed (22:37–38). Dogs lick up the blood of the slain king, fulfilling the judgment pronounced by Elijah for slaying Naboth (cf. 21:19).13 In that day confrontation between king and prophet is resolved. The whole event is about the fate of Ahab. The Aramean commander has no obvious interest in victory over the Israelites. His charioteers were commanded to target the king of Israel (v. 31); they passed up an opportunity to capture his ally (vv. 32–33). The defiance of Ahab in his death stands as a stark contrast to his humility when Elijah denounced him for the murder of Naboth (21:27–29).
The epilogue on Ahab’s reign notes his significant achievements and his royal burial as a great king (22:39–40). The peaceful death of Ahab is recorded as a standard feature of the regnal framework.14 The paneling and furniture of his palace were inlaid with ivory, a sign of affluence and commercial relationships in the Iron Age (cf. Amos 3:15).15 He fortified and developed various cities, including Samaria the capital. The ninth-century period at Megiddo (Stratum VA–IVB) had several monumental palatial buildings built of ashlar masonry, some of which may have been Ahab’s work. Ahaziah took refuge in Megiddo at the time of Jehu’s revolt, indicating the administrative importance of the city until that time.16 Jericho is mentioned as another city rebuilt by Ahab at a terrible cost (cf. 16:34). The reign of Ahab is among the most influential and, by temporal standards, an almost incomparable success.
The Reign of Jehoshaphat (22:41–50)
ACCORDING TO THE Hebrew text, Jehoshaphat begins his reign in the fourth year of Ahab (22:41), so that his twenty-five year reign extends into the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab (2 Kings 8:16).17 This chronology accounts for Jehoshaphat’s being present in the battle against Moab during the time of Joram (2 Kings 3:1–27). The synchronisms of the Old Greek text (Lucian) sets the reign of Jehoshaphat earlier, beginning in the eleventh year of Omri (Ahab’s father), so that his death would have occurred during the brief reign of Ahaziah, just after the twenty-two year reign of Ahab (1 Kings 16:29).
However, the Hebrew text has two synchronisms for the beginning of the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram is already in the second year of his reign when Ahaziah son of Ahab dies (2 Kings 1:17); this accords with the Greek chronology. A second synchronism states that Jehoram begins to reign in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab when Jehoshaphat is still king (2 Kings 8:16). According to the Hebrew text, Jehoshaphat appoints his son Jehoram as coregent during the reign of Ahab and before the battle against Moab. The sole rule of Jehoram begins only in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab. The reign of Jehoshaphat does extend into the reign of Joram son of Ahab, which explains his presence at the battle of Moab. Jehoshaphat thus begins his reign in the fourth year of Ahab, not during the time of Omri.
In Kings, events of the reign of Jehoshaphat are related in accounts of his wars with Israelite kings. His own reign is recounted in a regnal résumé. He is given credit for purging the “male shrine prostitutes.” His resolution of hostilities with Israel includes the marriage of his son Jehoram to Athaliah, daughter of Ahab (2 Kings 8:18). Edom is still subject to Judah in the time of Jehoshaphat (v. 47); during the reign of Jehoram, Edom revolts and set up its own king in perpetuity (2 Kings 8:20–22; 2 Chron. 21:8–10). Like Solomon, Jehoshaphat controls the seaport at Ezion Geber on the Gulf of Aqaba (1 Kings 22:48; cf. 9:26), but his effort to launch a sailing fleet fails. Apparently he attempts to renovate the ships used by Solomon, but they prove to be unseaworthy and never leave port.18 The Judean mariners are not prepared for such voyages, but Jehoshaphat refuses the assistance of Ahaziah, whose alliance with Phoenician expertise may have been of great assistance (22:49).
The two kingdoms ally themselves against the Arameans, but Jehoshaphat determines to maintain his economic and territorial independence. His control of Edom supports Israel because it cuts off Aramean access to the Red Sea. For this reason Israel, Judah, and Edom unite to resist Moabite aspirations for independence (2 Kings 3:4–27).
Bridging Contexts
ISRAEL AND ARAM. The biblical narrative asserts a treaty alliance between Ahab and the Arameans (1 Kings 20:34), though not always a peaceful one. The Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III, which describes the Aramean coalition at Qarqar, likewise shows that Ahab stood in a treaty relationship with the Aramean king.19 But Israel was not a satellite state of Aram-Damascus; Ahab was able to retrieve territory that had been lost. The war with Ramoth Gilead was an attempt to enforce the terms imposed on Ben-Hadad at the treaty of Aphek. These events must have been shortly after the battle of Qarqar, since that coalition took place in the last year of his reign.20 Dispute over a treaty did not preclude a coalition against a common enemy.
The same western alliance seems to have remained intact confronting Shalmaneser again in 849, 848, and 845 B.C.21 The change in Aramean dominance over Israel is most easily explained with the coup of Hazael and his wars with Joram at Ramoth Gilead (2 Kings 8:28–29). The disintegration of the coalition enabled the Assyrian victories beginning in 841 B.C.
Israelite kings and God’s will. If the prophetic message recorded in Kings was to have validity, it had to be anchored in the official annals of the kings of Israel.22 The truth about God and the people was established in accepted political events. Prophetic records complemented the archival annals. The visions of Micaiah son of Imlah were not retained in royal sources, which merely recorded that “Ahab slept with his fathers” (1 Kings 22:40). The Deuteronomistic prophets retained this appraisal, even though it was obviously contrary to the usual epitaph for an ignoble death. They found it sufficiently consistent to juxtapose this with the irrational behavior of a king who virtually brought his death on himself.
Fully realizing that Micaiah was being pressured into conformity by Ahab’s own prophets, the king willfully challenges what he knows to be a word from Yahweh. A word of prophecy given by those who follow false worship has no more integrity than the life of such prophets. Micaiah confirms in a vision the culpability of following such prophecies. It is an evidence of divine judgment already determined against a recalcitrant king.
A distinction between the function of the government and the practice of faith is necessary, even under the ideal of a theocracy (the belief that God is the real ruler of the nation).23 Nations around Israel practiced a kind of theocracy in which the king was anointed by his god so long as he ruled; his rules were the rules of the gods.24 Citizens of the state could not question his legitimacy. The king made the rules for citizens as if received from the gods. An offense against the rules of state was an offense against the king himself.
In the biblical world, the values of life are given by God, not by the king; offenses are against the victim and against God, not against king and state. The king did not establish the law, but under the covenant he was responsible to enforce the law as given. God declared the way of life that was right for his people; prophets and priests told the king whether he was fulfilling that role. God did not rule through the king alone; the function of the king was to obey the will of God, punish offenders, and provide for their victims. Prophet and priest provided guidance, accountability, and reconciliation; when they failed in their task, the will of God also failed.
The roles of king, priest, and prophet were clearly specified (Deut. 17:14–18:22). The responsibility of the king was to know the covenant, which was managed by the priests, and to fulfill its requirements (Deut. 17:18–20). The king had no privileged status in religious practice or knowledge of the divine will. He was dependent on other mediators to know God’s will. Priests or Levites were normally consulted for divination under the covenant, usually through the use of the Urim and Thummim. When the priest wore his vest in the inner sanctuary, he not only represented the people to God but also inquired for divine judgment on their behalf. In the choice of Joshua as successor to Moses, Eleazar the priest consulted the Urim on his behalf before the entire assembly (Num. 27:12–23). This method was capable of giving more than a positive or negative reply (Judg. 1:1–2; 20:18; 1 Sam. 10:22; 2 Sam. 5:23–24).25
Consultation with prophets rather than with priests in preparation for battle was outside usual procedure. Instead of the venerable Urim and Thummin were ecstatics who brandished symbolic tools (1 Kings 22:11–12). Jehoshaphat’s suspicion appears well founded. Nevertheless, prophecy was a legitimate means of discerning the divine will. God promised to raise up a prophet like Moses who would continue to fill the revelatory role, as opposed to other forms of divination that were the abomination of the nations (Deut. 18:9–22). The role of the prophets was serious; failure to deliver the divine word was at the cost of their own life.
In governance Israel distinguished between the sacred and the common, or what we might call the secular. Among the other nations the king mediated the laws of the gods, so religion and governance functioned as a seamless entity. The king regulated and enforced the religion of the people. In Israel kings could be called to account by priests and prophets.
The prophet Amos, for example, was a farmer from Tekoa in the hill country of Judah (Amos 1:1). God called him to leave his own country to confront the evils of Jeroboam II king of Israel. Amaziah was serving as the priest of Jeroboam at Bethel (7:10). The judgment pronounced by Amos was unacceptable to him, as it threatened king and country, so he demanded the prophet leave (7:12–13). Amos in turn declared his unqualified independence from the religion of the state. He was not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; he was called by God from his vocation as a farmer to speak God’s word against the house of Jeroboam and the state of Israel (7:14–15). This calling of Amos could not be altered by the protestations of a priest in the service of the king. Israel was destined for exile according to the truth of his word (7:16–17). Neither king nor priest had control over the message of the prophet.
The indictment of the prophets who wrote Kings is that the kings of Israel never followed the covenant. They attempted to create a state religion of their own making, like the other nations. Ahab had his prophets who made it their priority to say what the king wanted to hear (22:13). The king also maintained the cult centers where the people worshiped. Ahab was typical of the other kings with whom he made alliances. There was only one exception to the support of the prophets: Micaiah. In the end Micaiah had no influence over the four hundred prophets in the service of the king; he merely determined the fate of the king in his declaration of God’s plan.
Jehoshaphat is presented as a vacillating king; he calls for additional prophetic consultation, yet he submits to Ahab in going to war and risking his life. His reign is briefly summarized in Kings, as compared with the detailed account of his reforms and conquests in Chronicles (2 Chron. 17:1–20:36). The Chronicler read Kings as expressing a negative view of Jehoshaphat and is unequivocal in retaining that viewpoint. Jehoshaphat does follow the policies of Asa his father, who removed cult prostitution and idolatry (2 Chron. 20:32). Like Asa, he fails to remove the country shrines, which compromise worship at one central sanctuary (v. 33).
Particularly reprehensible is the alliance Jehoshaphat has with the northern kingdom, the one sin for which he is severely castigated. After the battle at Ramoth Gilead, Jehu the son of Hanani confronts Jehoshaphat in the palace to reprimand him and declare that great wrath rests on him, though no consequence is noted (2 Chron. 19:1–3). Later, Eliezer son of Dodavahu declares that the achievements of Jehoshaphat will be destroyed (20:37); the loss of his trading fleet is because of his union with Ahaziah son of Ahab.
In Chronicles, one of the lessons to be learned from Jehoshaphat is that judgment can be mollified, if not averted, by timely action. The warning of Jehu is followed by the report of a major judicial reform (2 Chron. 19:4–11), as justice comes more centrally under the jurisdiction of the king in Jerusalem. More significantly, judicial reform is followed by an account of a major war against the hordes from Transjordan. Unlike the war against Moab reported in Kings, Jehoshaphat acts in complete dependence on God without any reliance on Israel or other allies (20:1–30). The result is an outstanding triumph for the Judean armies without any warfare on their part; their only action is the recovery of an enormous spoil.
The importance of humility, repentance, and complete reliance on God in the face of grave danger needs to be made repeatedly. For all this Jehoshaphat is not completely exonerated; approval for his reign remains qualified. Jehoshaphat does not achieve purity of worship. He continues to experience divine wrath to the extent that his efforts at economic success fail with the loss of his ships, but that judgment is certainly not what it might have been.
Contemporary Significance
FREE HUMAN BEINGS and God’s will. Life is dangerous. There is much outside of human control and much that cannot be known. At times decisions need to be made that involve danger. Without adequate knowledge or control in such circumstances, mortals are driven to seek power and knowledge outside their sphere. For Christians this is natural. Christians believe that God, the Creator, is in control of events and that he has a personal interest in those who trust him. The question for Christians, as it was for Ahab and Jehoshaphat, is how to access that power, how to obtain the knowledge that is necessary for particular decisions.
Magic and manipulation stand in contradiction to a Christian view of God. God is sovereign in every aspect of his providential care. The account of Ahab and Jehoshaphat in the war at Ramoth Gilead confirms this view of God. There was no question about the sovereignty of God; their intent was to learn the divine purpose to guide them in their course of action.
Situations like this are complicated by human volition. Ahab and Jehoshaphat both declared their desire to know the divine will, but neither of them seems to have been willing to follow through on the implications of that desire. Ahab chose to follow his own prophets, though he did not really believe they declared the will of Yahweh; Jehoshaphat thought it expedient to follow Ahab, though he specifically challenged Ahab’s prophets and found them wanting. Perhaps they presumed on divine mercy or thought that their decision to proceed could influence the divine response. Their situation is not different from that of contemporary Christians. Often there seems to be ambiguity about God’s will in particular situations; it is also difficult to distinguish between human volition and a genuine commitment to follow his will in all ways.
Another problem in discerning God’s will for particular situations is the question of knowing how to ascertain it. Mysticism is practiced in various forms; one form is an encounter with God in which his word is immediately received for guidance in a particular situation. Sometimes such encounters are completely unsolicited and have made the recipients aware of information that is most pertinent to their situation. Most pastors have encountered such experiences, and in many instances they have been genuinely edifying. At the same time there is much that is declared to be God’s will received in some form, sometimes even an interpretation of the Bible, which has no more to do with his will than the asseverations of Ahab’s prophets.
Christians are agreed on the efficacy of prayer in discerning and doing God’s will. This is not in contradiction to God’s sovereignty over all things, nor is it a denial of humans to make their own decisions, for which they are fully responsible. Terrance Tiessen proposes a model of divine sovereignty that affirms meticulous providence and human freedom of a spontaneous or voluntary kind.26 In a significant sense God fully determines human history and responds to his creatures within it. This responsiveness is facilitated by his possessing knowledge of how creatures will act in particular circumstances. This has been called God’s “middle knowledge.”
God’s “natural knowledge” is those events that are determined by the past; God’s “free knowledge” is the sum of all events that God knows because he has freely determined them; God’s “middle knowledge” is that which God knows could happen if particular circumstances existed prior to and at the moment of the events in question. The “middle knowledge” model of providence proposes that God has determined the future on the basis of how people will freely respond to situations, including their response to his own persuasions or actions. Fully knowing how people will respond does not in any sense limit the freedom of that response; such knowledge is necessary if God is to carry out his sovereign purposes.
Libertarian freedom demands that it is impossible to have knowledge of how a free volitional being will necessarily respond given a certain set of circumstances. The actions of Ahab and Jehoshaphat are portrayed as being their own pure volition, but fully within God’s sovereign knowledge of their choices. God’s will in this instance does not have to do with the outcome of the battle at Ramoth Gilead; it has to do with divine judgment of Ahab for choices that he has voluntarily made. Ahab knows this judgment through the prophet Micaiah well enough to fear it; he demands that only Jehoshaphat be identified as the military leader in battle.
This could do nothing to avert divine judgment. The Aramean soldiers were especially charged with targeting the king of Israel in battle; this was their own choice as a military strategy. When that attempt fails, they quite freely carry out God’s judgment with the random shot of an arrow that pierces the king’s armor. The divine will is carried out within the freely chosen actions of all the individuals involved. Ahab is not deceived; he fully knows that his prophets are lying and is told why they are lying. There is every reason for Ahab to have chosen differently, but he has passed the point of no return. He operates under delusion, a self-imposed blindness. The divine message plunges him headlong into judgment. This judgment does not violate Ahab’s volition; it comes because of it.
Prayer is not only a means for discerning God’s will; it is also a means for achieving it. Tiessen summarizes the importance of prayer in providence; in his eternal purpose God does not act alone.
He has given his children the privilege of participation in his program for establishing his kingdom on earth. One of the most significant means of our involvement is through petitionary prayer, because it is here that we attempt to discern God’s will in particular situations, we align our own desires with his, and then we ask God to do what we believe he wants to do. Although God could work without us, he delights to answer the prayers of his children, and to be glorified by their thanksgiving when he does so.… In prayer we do not seek to change God’s mind. We seek to discern his will and to pray accordingly, believing that there are some things that God has determined to do in answer to prayer so that our prayers are a necessary—though not a sufficient—“cause” of the ultimate outcome.27
This is prayer as God intends it; it is not simply a desire to be prudent in a course of action. Even if we grant Ahab the most generous allowance in his desire to know God’s will, it hardly appears that his desire is to align his desires with God’s greater plan of providence. Prayer is not to manipulate God to achieve a particular personal desire, which seems more likely Ahab’s motive in consulting with his prophets.
Pressures on Christians to conform. A further issue for Christians is to live with integrity within a society that has a conflicting worldview. This was the problem for Jehoshaphat; while he desired to know God’s will, he was unable to counter the worldview of the political forces arrayed against him. All advanced societies must come to terms with two fundamental issues.28 One is the relation of the individual to society, the world of people. The second is the relation of the individual and society to the world of nature and to the universe itself. The first issue is addressed in law and government; the second issue finds expression in religion; in this respect every person in the world is religious.
The answers given to religion are largely determinative of the answers provided for law and government. In ancient cultures religion was a significant force on law and government. As part of its culture, the Bible is a work of history in which an understanding of political fortunes is determined by a particular view of the universe or the relationship of God with the peoples in his world. At the same time a defense of faith in the divine covenant could only be provided through an explanation of how God was at work in the history of his people. The Israelite answer to the question of the relation of society to the cosmos proceeded from the affirmation that a sole and omnipotent Lord is responsible for all creation. His ways are just and purposeful, and destiny is largely determined by a readiness to embrace and uphold his eternally valid covenant. Israel had a share in its destiny and was required to accept the challenge of this responsibility. Responsibility for their destiny granted them dignity and hope.
The issues of law and religion are interdependent, but they are seldom in true equilibrium. “It is this that makes for the immemorial rivalry between church and state.”29 It is evident that law and government in modern secular societies have been influenced by fundamental concepts of faith. American coins bear the phrase “In God We Trust.” The name “The Dominion of Canada” was adopted from Psalm 72:830 through the influence of Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley, a Baptist from New Brunswick, representing confederation in 1864.
As law evolves in North America it reflects the changing influences of fundamental values. Advocacy for religious freedom has led to the restriction of religious freedom, such as the right to display a Christmas crèche in a public place or the right to have religious instruction in a public school. Advocacy of animal rights has brought restrictions to traditional livelihoods such as the fur industry and to the use of animals in scientific research. The metaphysical or religious views of those in control in a society determine the laws that govern individual rights and relationships of a society.
Conflict of belief is as intense in secular societies as it was in Israel. Faith in the God of history and order is confronted by a view of individual liberties and rights as a self-sustaining value that can be imposed by legal authority. Social values that began as liberalism have become a religion.31 Liberalism arose as a solution to the destructive religious wars of Europe’s past and succeeded because it allowed people of different perspectives to live together in the same society. Meaning in life was sought outside of politics itself. Contemporary social liberals have neither an ultimate purpose nor a pattern of virtue, so only the belief system itself can supply these essential elements of life.
Liberalism grants meaning to life by making its prescribed individual freedoms a moral necessity to be imposed on all, including those who do not hold to the same norms of human relationships. There is a continual expansion of concepts like racism and political correctness to create instances of “oppression.” Racism once meant hatred of a person from another race, but it can now be freely applied to anyone who voices opposition to affirmative action, which is often racist and oppressive.
The feminism of Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique characterized the suburban home as a “comfortable concentration camp” for women. The use of Holocaust metaphors for a way of life she did not like was meant to endow the feminist crusade with an apocalyptic sense of urgency and significance. The right to kill the unborn, even when in the process of birth, is regarded as essential to freedom for women, and any alternative to abortion is regarded as oppressive of women.
As a religion, liberalism has become illiberal, incapable of even entering into reasonable debate over its own policies and values. Free speech and judicial restraint have been replaced by talk of oppression and rights as a way of reproducing good versus evil. Viewpoints based on faith or longstanding principle are demonized as a threat to social engineering according to individual choice as defined by liberal values.
Though the secular role of the state is necessary, it is absurd to think that faith is a purely private matter. If religion has no role in public society, then secularism becomes a state religion of its own, imposing its own values on people of all faiths and religion.32 This is really no different than Ahab choosing his own prophets who always say what he wants them to say. Values for ethics and law cannot be established apart from convictions that have a personal faith base, and in that sense are always religious. Freedom of religion in the secular state must not only allow for the public expression of various faiths, it must also allow for rational expression of faith convictions. To the extent that a state fails to do this, it will succumb to its own vices, just like Ahab and the state of Israel in listening only to their own prophets.
Christians, in this manifestation of a postmodern society, often find themselves in the unhappy lot of Jehoshaphat. Having a desire to seek an independent course of action, they are pressured in various ways to conform, even at risk to their own well-being. While they seek to do what is right, the high places remain and compromise the way of life they value most.