uestion. The account of Jos. (Ant. vill. xv. 4) adds that Zedekiah sought to refute Micaiah’s prophecy by appealing to the prediction of Elijah (1 Kk 21%), who had foretold that the dogs should lick Ahab’s blood in Jezreel ; and that Zedekiah also challenged Micaiah to wither the hand that smote him, as had been done in the case of Jeroboam (1 Καὶ 18). Micaiah warned Zedekiah of the future perils that awaited him, and, when he was carried off by Ahab’s orders to suffer rigorous imprisonment, he contented him- self by ΒΡΡΒΊΟΝ eonideatly to the issue of events for proot that his prophecy had been true. At this point his history, which may have been continued in the source (Ewald, HJ, Eng. tr. iv. 76), breaks off abruptly, and is not resumed. The exordium, ‘Hear, ye peoples, all of you,’ is apparently an interpolation, taken from Mic 13, and due to a confusion of Micaiah the son of Imlah with the canonical Micah.
Much interest attaches to Micaiah’s vision. It is not to be taken, of course, as a literal description of an objective scene, but a question may be raised as to how far it shows us the form in which the truths proclaimed by the prophet were first
resented to his own mind, and how far he consciously cast these truths into this dramatic shape in order to convey them to others. In regard to such visions it seems best while allowing for a possible element of literary embellishment, to hold with Davidson (Ezekiel xxix.), that they are ‘not mere literary invention,’ but that the spontaneous working of a
rophet’s inspired imagination threw truths ‘into a physical wm, making them stand out before the eye of his phantasy
MICAIAH
as if presented to him from without.’ The vision, with its picture of a scene in heaven, is strikingly similar to the Prologue of Job (1612 21-6), Another parallel may be found in Zee 3, and the idea of a heavenly assembly is present also in Ps 896-7, The account of Micaiah’s vision embodies theological concep- tions which are strange and even perplexing to the Christian mind. In opposing the 400 prophets Micaiah did not question their claim to have J’’s inspiration, but simply asserted that this was in their case an inspiration of falsehood. The explana- tion of this (to us) apparently self-contradictory conception ig to be found in the strength of the OT idea that J” is supreme, and that nothing happens independently of Him. The pro- blems raised by the varied moral quality of events in relation to the holiness of J” were as yet in the background. A ‘spirit from J”,’ such as the ‘lying spirit’ of Micaiah’s vision, signified simply a real Divine influence directing actual events. In this OT view, to use the words of Schultz, ‘the Spirit of God is in itself only a wonderful power by which the life of mau is regulated . . . but in itself there is no direct moral element’ (Theology of OT, Eng. tr., ii. 205-208. See also Dillmann, A/t.-
‘est. Theol. 304-5; Stanley, Jewish Church, ii. 270). Schultz goes so far as to say (i. 257) that Micaiah ‘had at first, in accordance with the Divine will, to say what was untrue, because he was aware that God intended to beguile the king." This, however, seems an exaggeration. If Micaiah’s first reply had been anything but ironical, it would have been inconsistent with his position as a true prophet of J”, as well as with his declaration to the eunuch. In connexion with Micaiah’s standing as a true mophet, Zedekiah’s mocking remark deserves to be noticed. Whether we take it as in EV following MT, or in the sense of the LXX reading {ποῖον πνεῦμα κυρίου τὸ λαλῆσαν iv coi ;), the implication of the question is the same. Zedekiah did not deny the charge of false inspiration, but insinuated that Micaiah’s own inspiration was of the same kind. Had Micaiah been under any compulsion even temporarily to speak what was untrue, there would have been a measure of truth in Zedekiah’s taunt. We can only reconcile Micaiah’s conception of the ‘lying spirit from J”’ with the reality of his own inspiration, by regarding him as a messenger sent to declare the unqualified truth upon the situation. Stripped of all figurative dress, the facts which Micaiah proclaimed were these: that Ahab’s prophets were false prophets, that in spite of warning Ahab aol believe them, and would go to Ramoth-gilead to meet
is doom.
The whole history of Micaiah presents impres- sively the contrast between true and false pro- ὈΡΘΌΣ which became so marked afterwards in
eremiah’s time. We see in it already some of the features by which, apart from the decisive test of the event, the false could be distinguished from the true. The false prophets relied on the consent of numbers; their message fell in with the royal wishes; and, whatever truth there may be in Sine ata account of Zedekiah’s argument from Elijah, it at least illustrates the method of mechanical and mistaken inference from predic- tions already accredited which Jeremiah denounced in the false prophets who were his contemporaries (Jer 74 23%), Micaiah, on the other hand, was independent, conscious of Js inspiration, reso- lute to speak only what J” said to him, indifferent to the anger which his message might excite, and to the personal hardships and dangers he might ineur by delivering it. He stands out in this single scene which has been recorded of his life as a solitary and heroic figure, in whom are embodied many of the noblest characteristics of the true prophet, the instrument of God’s genuine revelation to men.