1 Kings 22 Study Notes

22:24-28 The remainder of this scene hardened the hostile positions toward the prophet Micaiah that had already been taken by the king.

22:29-30 Some critics find a discrepancy and a second literary source in Ahab’s instructions for Jehoshaphat to put on his royal attire when he already had it on in v. 10. However, it is reasonable to suggest that Jehoshaphat had changed out of these for the trip to battle at Ramoth-gilead. Both kings probably arrived at the site of battle in war armor rather than royal clothes. It might have seemed prudent to the vassal king to accept the strategy that ordered him to go into battle in royal robes, for this would typically draw heat away from Ahab, the superior king.

22:31-36 If, as the Assyrian report of the battle of Qarqar indicated, Ahab was stronger in chariotry than Ben-hadad, it was poor strategy to meet Ahab in a direct chariot battle. Perhaps concentrating his chariots on Ahab himself was a good alternate strategy for Ben-hadad. Ahab’s counter strategy, having Jehoshaphat serve as the bait for such an attack, seemed to neutralize Ben-hadad’s tactics. But God accomplished what human cunning could neither bring about nor prevent by ordaining the flight of a randomly shot arrow.

22:37-38 The Bible writers, at this point, were able to live with partial fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecy about Ahab’s death. One part was fulfilled when the dogs licked up his blood, though Ahab did not die at the place the prophecy indicated (see note at 21:19-24). Later, dogs licked up the blood of one of Ahab’s sons in Jezreel when Joram’s body was dumped there (2Kg 9:24-26). Possibly this later event marks the complete fulfillment of the prophecy from 1Kg 21:19-24 since a fate pronounced over a father can be representatively fulfilled in his son and since, according to ancient understanding, the blood of a father courses through the veins of his son.

22:39 Ahab’s ivory palace was probably a palace decorated with paneling containing ivory inlay.

22:40 Some interpreters argue that the statement that Ahab rested with his fathers is proof that the king died in peace and the text is a fictional recension. This conclusion is suggested by the fact that this statement is missing from the closers of other kings who died violently. However, to give this much weight to an irregularity in the formal closer opens the question of what to do with the fact that Ahab had no formulaic burial statement. Does this then prove that Ahab was never buried (see v. 37)? Of course not.

22:41-44 More is said about King Jehoshaphat in the record of Ahab than is said about him in his own record. The formal statements are ordinary. The evaluative part tells us that Jehoshaphat was a good king, but the fact that he made peace with the king of Israel may contain a veiled criticism (2Ch 19:1)—particularly since making peace with Israel meant accepting a vassal role to the king of Israel.

22:45-50 Despite Asa’s good intentions, his reforms left some work undone. His son Jehoshaphat had to remove the remaining male cult prostitutes. Edom seems to have been controlled by Jehoshaphat through the agency of a deputy. But the most noteworthy event may have been the failed effort to revive the sea trade to Africa for gold. After one failed attempt, Jehoshaphat compromised his loyalty to the house of Ahab in refusing to cooperate with Ahaziah in another attempt at restoring that trade. Again, we cannot realize the importance of this refusal unless we know that Jehoshaphat was a vassal king to Israel.

22:51-53 The account of Ahaziah is contained at the end of 1 Kings and the beginning of 2 Kings. The assessment of his reign is simple: He did what was evil in the Lord’s sight in that he supported the worship of Baal (Baal-melkart; see note at 16:25).