Micaiah's Vision & the Politics of Heaven--1 Kings 22

A threshing floor---the location of this meeting

Although Jehoshaphat was open to the alliance with Ahab against Aram, he insisted that they inquire of the Lord first via a prophet.  Ahab rolls out 400 false prophets who are all in favor of the campaign, but Jehoshaphat presses to hear from one of the Lord's prophets.  Reluctantly, Ahab summons the prophet Micaiah, and reluctantly, Michaiah engages truthfully with the two kings.

After initially replying with sarcasm, Micaiah warns the pair against battling with Aram.  He relays a very specific vision.  I supposed it's part of prophetic conventions, but the first verse reminds me of the way Isaiah began his beautiful vision in Isaiah 6:

Then Micaiah continued, "Listen to what the LORD says! I saw the LORD sitting on His throne with all the armies of heaven around Him, on His right and on His left.

And the LORD said, 'Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so he can be killed?' "There were many suggestions, and finally a spirit approached the LORD and said, 'I can do it!'

"'How will you do this?' the LORD asked. "And the spirit replied, 'I will go out and inspire all of Ahab's prophets to speak lies.' "'You will succeed,' said the LORD. 'Go ahead and do it.'

"So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all your prophets. For the LORD has pronounced your doom."

Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah walked up to Micaiah and slapped him
 across the face. "Since when did the Spirit of the LORD leave me to speak to you?" he demanded.
And Micaiah replied, "You will find out soon enough when you are trying to hide in some secret room!"  -1 Kings 19:19-25

This passage also has whisps of the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book of Job. Both convey the idea that there is a court of sorts above where the details of men's character and actions are debated. Both suggest that evil spirits are permitted to influence humans. It would make a good study to compare the two passages, and I'm sure someone has trod this ground and laid out the specific points of comparison and contrast.

Add caption

The bulk of the commentators agree that Micaiah's vision is not to be interpreted literally, but as a parable.  Yes, we can use it to extrapolate general principles about the spiritual world and God's relationship to us, but we shouldn't push the details too far.  Clarke, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Gill, Barnes, and Matthew Henry all fall into this camp. 

Here's a sampling of their thoughts:

"...all which are represented as in a vision, in which things are brought down to the capacities of men, and not as really transacted." -Gill 

"But it may be doubted whether we ought to take literally, and seek to interpret exactly, each statement of the present narrative. Visions of the invisible world can only be a sort of parables; revelations, not of the truth as it actually is, but of so much of the truth as can be shown through such a medium. The details of a vision, therefore, cannot safely be pressed, anymore than the details of a parable." -Barnes

Darby believes it reveals the politics of heaven with regard to kings which he differentiates from the common man

"That which is here in question is the government of God Now the principles of this government are laid open to us in the revelation made to Moses, when he went up the second time to Mount Sinai (Ex. 33). There was, first of all, goodness and mercy; then the declaration that the guilty shall not be held innocent; and, thirdly, a principle of public government, which caused the effects of misconduct to be felt, namely, that their children should bear its consequences (a principle which could not be applied where the soul is in question); but this principle important and salutary in the outward government of the world is verified daily in that of providence. This government of God was in exercise in the case of the kings; but the condition of Israel depended on the conduct of the kings." 

Leave it to Matthew Henry to extract every possible lesson from this vision:

"This matter is here represented after the manner of men. We are not to imagine that God is ever put upon new counsels, or is ever at a loss for means whereby to effect his purposes, nor that he needs to consult with angels, or any creature, about the methods he should take, nor that he is the author of sin or the cause of any man's either telling or believing a lie; but, besides what was intended by this with reference to Ahab himself, it is to teach us..."

What does Henry say it teaches us?  In short:

1)God is a great King above with a throne

2)God has many angels attending Him

3)That He not only knows about but intervenes in the affairs of men below

4)That God has many ways to bring about the fall of wicked men

5)That evil spirits are real and they wander around looking for men to devour

6)Under His watch, God allows these evil spirits to influence men, and sometimes for His own purposes 

7)Beware of false prophets

The commentators are somewhat divided upon whether this spirit is Satan or a representative of Satan.  This seems more tangential to me--interesting to ponder, but not critical in our understanding of the workings of God and man.  Satan or representative of Satan, we learn here (and elsewhere) that there are evil spirits looking for victims.   This should give us all a check in our spirits and prompt us to walk circumspectly.

The more pivotal question for me is---how to determine the difference between  when we are to interpret the Bible literally and when we are disrespecting the characteristics of the genre when doing so (for instance with figurative language in the psalms or when interpreting this parables)?  Prophecy seems to be a particularly muddy genre to interpret, and I would be curious to learn more about its conventions.

The book The Art of Biblical Narrative has given me cause to be more thoughtful about the genres of Biblical writings.   After reading this work, I realized that you can believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, yet, still have a whole host of legitimate interpretative questions which remain unresolved.  This parable is an excellent example---if pushed too far, I believe, as do most of the commentators, that we distort the text.  Yet, I also agree with them that certain general principles can be gleaned from the parable without manhandling it.    The most accurate interpretation is not as easy as we'd wish!