1 Kings 22:6
22:6 So the king of Israel assembled about four hundred prophets and asked them, “Should I attack Ramoth Gilead or not?”
1 They said, “Attack! The sovereign one
2 will hand it over to the king.”
1 Kings 22:10-11
22:10 Now the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah were sitting on their respective thrones, 3 dressed in their robes, at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria. 4 All the prophets were prophesying before them.
22:11 Zedekiah son of Kenaanah made iron horns and said, “This is what the Lord says, ‘With these you will gore Syria until they are destroyed.’”
1 Kings 22:19-22
22:19 Micaiah
5 said, “That being the case, hear the word of the
Lord. I saw the
Lord sitting on his throne, with all the heavenly assembly standing on his right and on his left.
22:20 The
Lord said, ‘Who will deceive Ahab, so he will attack Ramoth Gilead and die
6 there?’ One said this and another that.
22:21 Then a spirit
7 stepped forward and stood before the
Lord. He said, ‘I will deceive him.’ The
Lord asked him, ‘How?’
22:22 He replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The
Lord 8 said, ‘Deceive and overpower him.
9 Go out and do as you have proposed.’
Acts 13:8-10
13:8 But the magician Elymas
10 (for that is the way his name is translated)
11 opposed them, trying to turn the proconsul
12 away from the faith.
13:9 But Saul (also known as Paul),
13 filled with the Holy Spirit,
14 stared straight
15 at him
13:10 and said, “You who are full of all deceit and all wrongdoing,
16 you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness – will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?
17
1 tn Heb “Should I go against Ramoth Gilead for war or should I refrain?”
2 tn Though Jehoshaphat requested an oracle from “the Lord” (יְהוָה, Yahweh), they stop short of actually using this name and substitute the title אֲדֹנָי (’adonai, “lord; master”). This ambiguity may explain in part Jehoshaphat’s hesitancy and caution (vv. 7-8). He seems to doubt that the four hundred are genuine prophets of the Lord.
3 tn Heb “were sitting, a man on his throne.”
4 map For location see Map2-B1; Map4-D3; Map5-E2; Map6-A4; Map7-C1.
5 tn Heb “he”; the referent (Micaiah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
6 tn Heb “and fall.”
7 tn Heb “the spirit.” The significance of the article prefixed to רוּחַ (ruakh) is uncertain, but it could contain a clue as to this spirit’s identity, especially when interpreted in light of v. 24. It is certainly possible, and probably even likely, that the article is used in a generic or dramatic sense and should be translated, “a spirit.” In the latter case it would show that this spirit was vivid and definite in the mind of Micaiah the storyteller. However, if one insists that the article indicates a well-known or universally known spirit, the following context provides a likely referent. Verse 24 tells how Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face and then asked sarcastically, “Which way did the spirit from the Lord (רוּחַ־יְהוָה, [ruakh-Yahweh], Heb “the spirit of the Lord”) go when he went from me to speak to you?” When the phrase “the spirit of the Lord” refers to the divine spirit (rather than the divine breath or mind, Isa 40:7, 13) elsewhere, the spirit energizes an individual or group for special tasks or moves one to prophesy. This raises the possibility that the deceiving spirit of vv. 20-23 is the same as the divine spirit mentioned by Zedekiah in v. 24. This would explain why the article is used on רוּחַ; he can be called “the spirit” because he is the well-known spirit who energizes the prophets.
8 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
9 tn The Hebrew text has two imperfects connected by וְגַם (vÿgam). These verbs could be translated as specific futures, “you will deceive and also you will prevail,” in which case the Lord is assuring the spirit of success on his mission. However, in a commissioning context (note the following imperatives) such as this, it is more likely that the imperfects are injunctive, in which case one could translate, “Deceive, and also overpower.”
10 tn On the debate over what the name “Elymas” means, see BDAG 320 s.v. ᾿Ελύμας. The magician’s behavior is more directly opposed to the faith than Simon Magus’ was.
11 sn A parenthetical note by the author.
12 sn The proconsul was the Roman official who ruled over a province traditionally under the control of the Roman senate.
13 sn A parenthetical note by the author.
14 sn This qualifying clause in the narrative indicates who represented God in the dispute.
15 tn Or “gazed intently.”
16 tn Or “unscrupulousness.”
17 sn “You who…paths of the Lord?” This rebuke is like ones from the OT prophets: Jer 5:27; Gen 32:11; Prov 10:7; Hos 14:9. Five separate remarks indicate the magician’s failings. The closing rhetorical question of v. 10 (“will you not stop…?”) shows how opposed he is to the way of God.