1 Kings 22:3-8

22:3 The king of Israel said to his servants, “Surely you recognize that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us, though we are hesitant to reclaim it from the king of Syria.” 22:4 Then he said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to attack Ramoth Gilead?” Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, “I will support you; my army and horses are at your disposal.” 22:5 Then Jehoshaphat added, “First seek an oracle from the Lord.” 22:6 So the king of Israel assembled about four hundred prophets and asked them, “Should I attack Ramoth Gilead or not?” They said, “Attack! The sovereign one will hand it over to the king.” 22:7 But Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there not a prophet of the Lord still here, that we may ask him?” 22:8 The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, “There is still one man through whom we can seek the Lord’s will. But I despise him because he does not prophesy prosperity for me, but disaster. His name is Micaiah son of Imlah. Jehoshaphat said, “The king should not say such things.”

tn Heb “Do you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us, and we hesitate to take it from the hand of the king of Aram?” The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course, you must know!”

tn Heb “Like me, like you; like my people, like your people; like my horses; like your horses.”

tn Heb “and Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel.”

tn Heb “the word of the Lord.” Jehoshaphat is requesting a prophetic oracle revealing the Lord’s will in the matter and their prospects for success. For examples of such oracles, see 2 Sam 5:19, 23-24.

tn Heb “Should I go against Ramoth Gilead for war or should I refrain?”

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.

tn Heb “to seek the Lord from him.”

tn Or “hate.”

tn The words “his name is” are supplied for stylistic reasons.