1 Kings 22 2

1 Kings 22:2 kjv

And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel.

1 Kings 22:2 nkjv

Then it came to pass, in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went down to visit the king of Israel.

1 Kings 22:2 niv

But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah went down to see the king of Israel.

1 Kings 22:2 esv

But in the third year Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel.

1 Kings 22:2 nlt

Then during the third year, King Jehoshaphat of Judah went to visit King Ahab of Israel.

1 Kings 22 verses

1 Kings 22 2 Meaning

This verse describes a specific event after three years of peace between the Northern Kingdom of Israel (under Ahab) and the Southern Kingdom of Judah (under Jehoshaphat): King Jehoshaphat of Judah visited King Ahab of Israel. It sets the stage for a critical narrative concerning an alliance, a prophetic encounter, and subsequent conflict. The seeming peace masked underlying spiritual compromise and paved the way for Judah's king to engage in a dangerous entanglement.

1 Kings 22 2 Context

1 Kings 22:2 appears after a three-year period of relative peace between the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah, following prolonged hostilities (1 Kgs 22:1). This peace was likely solidified by a marriage alliance between Ahab's daughter, Athaliah, and Jehoshaphat's son, Jehoram (2 Chr 18:1). The narrative then moves immediately into the reason for Jehoshaphat's visit: Ahab's desire to reclaim Ramoth-Gilead from the Arameans (Syrians), a territory disputed between Israel and Aram (1 Kgs 22:3). This visit thus signals a pivotal moment where Jehoshaphat, despite his general righteousness as king of Judah, makes a critical error in aligning himself with Ahab, Israel's most notoriously wicked king. The context emphasizes Jehoshaphat's deviation from seeking God's counsel alone and stepping into a compromised partnership.

1 Kings 22 2 Word analysis

• And it came to pass: This common biblical phrase (וַיְהִי, wayehi) serves as a narrative transition, signifying that an event is unfolding. It often introduces significant moments in the unfolding of God's plan or human history within the biblical text, pointing to divine superintendence even in human actions.
• at the third year: (בַּשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, bashshanah hashshelîshît). This specifies a three-year duration of peace mentioned in the preceding verse (1 Kgs 22:1). The period of peace might have lulled Jehoshaphat into a false sense of security or enabled this alliance to deepen. The "third year" often carries symbolic weight in scripture (e.g., resurrection on the third day, third generation consequences), though here it primarily denotes a span of time without major conflict.
• that Jehoshaphat: (יְהוֹשָׁפָט, Yehoshaphat). Meaning "Yahweh has judged" or "Yahweh judges." He was the fourth king of Judah and largely depicted as a righteous king who initiated religious reforms, cleared idolatry, and strengthened the kingdom's defenses (2 Chr 17). However, his most significant flaw was his willingness to ally himself with the wicked House of Ahab, demonstrated precisely in this verse. His name ironically foreshadows the judgment, both divine and human, that his actions would invite.
• the king of Judah: This specifies Jehoshaphat's royal identity and his realm, the Southern Kingdom. This distinction between Judah and Israel is crucial throughout the book of Kings, highlighting their separate destinies and the contrasting spiritual trajectories of their leadership. Judah often had more righteous kings, preserving the Davidic line.
• came down: (וַיֵּרֶד, wayyerer) - Literally "descended" or "went down." Geographically, Jerusalem (capital of Judah) is typically at a higher elevation than Samaria (capital of Israel, though other cities like Jezreel could be involved). The phrase implies a journey from a higher to a lower place. Metaphorically, some scholars interpret "came down" as Jehoshaphat's spiritual descent, compromising his royal integrity and divinely guided path by associating with Ahab.
• to the king of Israel: This refers to Ahab, the reigning monarch of the Northern Kingdom. Ahab is consistently portrayed as one of the most evil kings of Israel, especially due to his promotion of Baal worship under the influence of his Phoenician wife, Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:30-33). The simple reference here assumes the reader's knowledge of Ahab's character, setting up the dramatic tension of a righteous king (Jehoshaphat) associating with an utterly unrighteous one.

• "And it came to pass at the third year": This phrase sets the stage chronologically, emphasizing that this event followed a specific period of peace. This duration might imply a season of ease or complacency, during which the alliance between Judah and Israel solidified, creating the opportune moment for Jehoshaphat to visit Ahab. It underlines a significant temporal marker leading to critical developments.
• "Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel": This words-group encapsulates the core action of the verse: a fateful visit between two monarchs with starkly contrasting spiritual loyalties. This association highlights Jehoshaphat's decision to enter a closer relationship with a pagan-worshipping king, rather than maintain the divinely mandated separation. It signifies a political alliance and likely personal bond, setting the foundation for the subsequent joint military campaign. This interaction directly contravenes numerous biblical warnings against forming alliances with idolatrous nations (Exod 34:15-16, Deut 7:1-4, Josh 23:12-13).

1 Kings 22 2 Bonus section

The "third year" of peace implicitly speaks to God's patient long-suffering before allowing judgment to fall, even amidst unholy alliances. This period might have offered opportunities for Jehoshaphat to reconsider his allegiance with Ahab, but he seems to have deepened it instead. Furthermore, while not explicitly mentioned in 1 Kings 22:2, the chronicler provides crucial background in 2 Chronicles 18:1, revealing that Jehoshaphat had already established a "marriage alliance" with Ahab, uniting their royal houses through their children. This deep personal bond, cemented over the preceding years of peace, likely compelled Jehoshaphat's visit and willingness to participate in Ahab's military ventures. This highlights how compromises in one area can lead to a web of entanglement that becomes increasingly difficult to escape. The biblical narrative carefully contrasts Jehoshaphat’s genuine, though flawed, faith with Ahab’s unbridled evil, underscoring the spiritual danger of "unequal yoking."

1 Kings 22 2 Commentary

1 Kings 22:2 is a succinct but profound verse, opening the pivotal narrative of Jehoshaphat's ill-fated alliance with Ahab. After three years of an uneasy peace, Jehoshaphat, a generally righteous king who feared the Lord, takes the perilous step of visiting Ahab, the most wicked king of Israel. This seemingly innocent social call is laden with spiritual peril. Jehoshaphat’s journey “down” to Samaria can be seen both geographically and spiritually, symbolizing a moral descent by associating with an idolatrous kingdom.

This verse reveals Jehoshaphat's fundamental flaw: a readiness to compromise his convictions and God’s standards for political stability or perceived national advantage. The peace of three years was not a sign of divine blessing on their union, but a period during which Jehoshaphat evidently overlooked the severe spiritual dangers of close ties with Ahab’s Baal-worshipping household, which was further cemented by a marriage alliance. This visit sets the stage for a chain of events, including Jehoshaphat's nearly fatal involvement in the battle for Ramoth-Gilead and his later rebuke by a prophet (2 Chr 19:2). It serves as a stark reminder of the danger in choosing convenience or earthly alliances over divine principles.

Examples:

• A believer prioritizing a financially lucrative partnership over adherence to biblical business ethics.
• A Christian leader aligning with secular movements that compromise core theological beliefs for perceived societal influence.
• An individual maintaining deep friendships with those actively hostile to Christian values, thus being unduly influenced rather than influencing.