Intense Group Behavior and Brand

Negativity: Comparing Rivalry in

Politics, Religion, and Sport Cody T.
Havard
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/intense-group-behavior-and-brand-negativity-compari
ng-rivalry-in-politics-religion-and-sport-cody-t-havard/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Rivalry in Sport: Understanding Fan Behavior and

Organizations 1st ed. Edition Cody T. Havard

https://ebookmass.com/product/rivalry-in-sport-understanding-fan-
behavior-and-organizations-1st-ed-edition-cody-t-havard/

Religion and the Rise of Sport in England David Hugh

Mcleod

https://ebookmass.com/product/religion-and-the-rise-of-sport-in-
england-david-hugh-mcleod/

Sport, Politics and Society in the Middle East Danyel

Reiche (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/sport-politics-and-society-in-the-
middle-east-danyel-reiche-editor/

Marxism, Religion, and Emancipatory Politics Graeme

Kirkpatrick

https://ebookmass.com/product/marxism-religion-and-emancipatory-
politics-graeme-kirkpatrick/
Deities and Devotees: Cinema, Religion, and Politics in
South India Uma Maheswari Bhrugubanda

https://ebookmass.com/product/deities-and-devotees-cinema-
religion-and-politics-in-south-india-uma-maheswari-bhrugubanda/

Hobbes On Politics And Religion Laurens Van Apeldoorn

https://ebookmass.com/product/hobbes-on-politics-and-religion-
laurens-van-apeldoorn/

The Palgrave Handbook of Sport, Politics and Harm

Stephen Wagg

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-sport-
politics-and-harm-stephen-wagg/

Late Romanticism and the End of Politics: Byron, Mary

Shelley, and the Last Men John Havard

https://ebookmass.com/product/late-romanticism-and-the-end-of-
politics-byron-mary-shelley-and-the-last-men-john-havard/

Ethics of Belonging: Education, Religion, and Politics

in Manado, Indonesia Erica M. Larson

https://ebookmass.com/product/ethics-of-belonging-education-
religion-and-politics-in-manado-indonesia-erica-m-larson/
Intense Group Behavior
and Brand Negativity
Comparing Rivalry in
Politics, Religion, and
Sport

Cody T. Havard
Intense Group Behavior and Brand Negativity
 Cody T. Havard

Intense Group
Behavior and Brand
Negativity
Comparing Rivalry in Politics, Religion,
and Sport
Cody T. Havard
The University of Memphis
Memphis, TN, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-23455-2 ISBN 978-3-031-23456-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23456-9

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my family, Kristin, Harrison, Lincoln, and Begley. Keep working,
dreaming, and singing. Never lose your imagination!
 Preface

This is my third book on the topic of rivalry and group behavior published
with Palgrave Macmillan. In 2020, the book focused on the definition and
examples of rivalry in sport. In 2021, my purpose of writing a new text
was to discuss group behavior and rivalry in and out of the sport context.
Specifically, the text described comparisons of rivalry and group member
behavior of sport fans and fans of non-sport settings. It introduced the
Group Behavior Composite (GBC), an instrument that combines the four
facets of the Rivalry Perception Scale (RPS) and Glory Out of Reflected
Failure (GORFing) to provide an overall view of negativity toward out-
groups and out-group members. Using the GBC, the Hierarchy of Out-
group Derogation (HOD) and Out-group Derogation Spectrum (ODS)
were introduced to provide readers with visual representation of group
member behavior and out-group derogation and negativity.
The current text expands upon the previous books, in particular the
last, by including additional comparisons of out-group negativity among
members of various settings. Specifically, religion is included in this text
along with a description of the comparison study between fans of sport
and politics in the United States. In this text, the HOD and ODS are
updated to include a total of 12 settings, which are (1) sport, (2) online
gaming, (3) athletic footwear, (4) politics, (5) comics, (6) theme parks,
(7) streaming, (8) religion, (9) mobile phones, (10) science fiction, (11)
athletic footwear, and (12) Disney Parks.

vii
viii PREFACE

A major focus of this text is also the discussion of ideas for future
research, practices, and programs that can be developed to help learn
more about rivalry and group behavior, and attempt to decrease out-
group derogation. To that end, this text introduces a program that will
work to better understand group behavior and such practices, along
with the site www.SharedPerspectives.org to provide visitors with rele-
vant information. It is the hope that readers find the information in this
text helpful in designing future research, planning future practices, and
working toward building more understanding and compassion among
individuals and groups.
It is with gratitude that I thank you for reading this and invite you to
join our journey.

Memphis, USA Cody T. Havard

 Acknowledgements

There are many people that I would like to thank for their help on this
and other projects and for their collaboration and support in my career
and life. I would like to start with my chapter co-authors and collaborators
in this text, Timothy Ryan, Michael Hutchinson, Daniel Wann, Frederick
Grieve, Ted Peetz, Megan Lomenick, Elizabeth Theis-Morse, and Peter
Longo. The help of these individuals has greatly enhanced the project.
I would also like to thank my colleagues at The University of Memphis
whom did not contribute to this book for their continued support and
discussion of important topics.
As with previous project, I would like to thank colleagues Julie
Partridge, Ryan Zapolac, and Joey Case for always lending their expertise
in areas of fandom studies, their experiences in the academy, and their
friendship. I would like to send a strong thank you to colleague Peter
Longo, who was very supportive in discussing my ideas and guiding me
in my research of rivalry in politics and sport, along with the broader
project. I would like to thank Dianna Gray and Linda Sharp for guiding
me through my doctoral studies and providing support throughout my
career. Thank you! Taking a class from Megan Babkes-Stellino as a
doctoral student was instrumental in shaping my view of how the research
I conduct impacts a larger audience, and how sport influences society
on a larger level. Guidance from David Stotlar helped my research and
career along the way, and for that I thank you. I want to thank colleagues
Brendan Dwyer, Lamar Reams, Terry Eddy, and Stephen Shapiro for their

ix
x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

support and collaboration. I also want to thank Yuhei Inoue for his help
on and guidance throughout my career.
Family is a constant source of enjoyment and adventure for me, and
I want to sincerely thank my mother Adella Havard, my sister Amy
Havard and her family Dimitri (Meech), Edie, Simon, and Lola Vigushin,
and Edith “Granny” Lambeth (posthumously), Clara “Mimi” Havard
(posthumously), and Tommy Havard (posthumously). Finally, I want to
thank my rock and foundation, my wife Kristin, our two boys Harrison
and Lincoln, and our brave companion Begley for keeping my days fun,
busy, and always fulfilling. Thank you and I love you all!
Thank you all for your support, collaboration, and inspiration!

Cody T. Havard
 Contents

1 Group Behavior and Negativity: Why Comparisons Are

Needed 1
Cody T. Havard
Need for Comparison Studies 3
Chapter Introductions 5
How to Use This Text 6
Thank You and Welcome to the Journey 6
References 7
2 Investigating Perceptions of Out-groups in Sport
and United States Politics 13
Cody T. Havard and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse
Background 15
Social Identity Theory in Politics and Sport 15
Rivalry in Sport and Politics 18
The Current Study 23
Method 24
Participants 24
Instrument 25
Data Collection 27
Results 27
Testing the Hypotheses 28
Discussion 33

xi
xii CONTENTS

Political and Sport Out-group Perceptions and Likely

Behaviors 33
Common In-Group Influence on Out-Group Perceptions
and Likely Behaviors 35
Out-Group Perceptions and Likely Behaviors Among
Democrats and Republicans 37
Implications and Future Investigation 38
Appendix 41
References 44
3 Rivalry and Group Behavior in Sport and Religious
Brands 57
Cody T. Havard, Michael Hutchinson, Timothy D. Ryan,
and Meagan Lomenick
Background 59
The Current Study 61
Method 62
Instrument and Participants 62
Results 64
Testing the Hypotheses 64
Discussion 67
Implications and Future Research 68
References 70
4 Revisiting the Hierarchy of Out-group Derogation
and the Out-group Derogation Spectrum 77
Cody T. Havard, Frederick G. Grieve, and Ted B. Peetz
Background 78
Group Competition and Rivalry 79
Negative Group Behavior 80
The Current Study 81
Method 82
Items 82
Data 83
Results 83
Research Question 1 83
Discussion 86
Hierarchy of Out-Group Derogation 86
 CONTENTS xiii

Out-Group Derogation Spectrum 87

General Discussion 88
Future Study 89
References 90
5 Shared Perspectives: Can Common Interests Help
Decrease Out-Group Derogation? 97
Cody T. Havard, Daniel L. Wann, Frederick G. Grieve,
Michael Hutchinson, and Timothy D. Ryan
Implications 99
Implications for Research 99
Implications for Practice 103
Shared Perspectives 106
References 109
6 Continuing the Journey 113
Cody T. Havard
References 117

Index 119
 Abbreviations

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

GBC Group Behavior Composite
GORFing Glory Out of Reflected Failure
HOD Hierarchy of Out-group Derogation
MANCOVA Multivariate Analysis of Covariance
MANOVA Multivariate Analysis of Variance
MTurk Amazon Mechanical Turk
ODS Out-group Derogation Spectrum
OIC Out-group Indirect Competition
OP Out-group Prestige
OS Out-group Sportsmanship
RPS Rivalry Perception Scale
SIT Social Identity Theory
SoS Sense of Satisfaction
SSIS-R Sport Spectator Identification Scale-Revised

xv
 List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Hierarchy of Out-group Derogation 87

Fig. 4.2 Out-group Derogation Spectrum 88
Fig. 5.1 Hierarchy of Out-group Derogation 106
Fig. 5.2 Out-group Derogation Spectrum 106

xvii
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Measures used in current study 28

Table 2.2 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing by sport
vs. politics 30
Table 2.3 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing
by politics only vs. sport and politics 30
Table 2.4 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing by sport
only vs. sport and politics 31
Table 2.5 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing by party
affiliation 32
Table 2.6 Scale items used in the current study to measure rivalry
in sport 41
Table 2.7 Modified scale items used in the current study to measure
rivalry in politics 42
Table 3.1 Descriptives and reliability of scales used in study 65
Table 3.2 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing by sport
vs. religion 66
Table 3.3 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing by sport
vs. sport/religion 66
Table 3.4 Fan identification, attitude, RPS, and GORFing
by religion vs. religion/sport 67
Table 4.1 Significant differences among settings 84

xix
 CHAPTER 1

Group Behavior and Negativity: Why

Comparisons Are Needed

Cody T. Havard

Abstract This introductory chapter provides a glimpse at the information

that will be covered in the text, along with a brief review of relevant
literature. The chapter proceeds to provide readers with descriptions of
each subsequent chapter and chapter topics. Further, information to help
researchers, practitioners, and students read the text to receive the greatest
benefit is offered. The chapter concludes with a welcome to readers and
encourages engagement with the material and important topic of inquiry.

Keywords Rivalry · Group membership · Group behavior · Group

negativity · Out-group derogation

C. T. Havard (B)
The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
e-mail: chavard@memphis.edu

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2023
C. T. Havard, Intense Group Behavior and Brand Negativity,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23456-9_1
2 C. T. HAVARD

There exists a common refrain that if one wants to maintain peace in a

public setting, whether a family reunion or holiday gathering, an event
at a local community center, or a meeting among colleagues, friends,
business associates, or acquaintances, one should avoid speaking about
religion, politics, and sport. This type of refrain, stated in various forms,
has also led to another popular observation that we all need to learn to
have difficult conversations with each other in a respectful manner rather
than avoid certain topics. Well, this book does not avoid such topics,
and instead focuses on religion, politics, and sport. In particular, this
text includes investigations detailing how the three settings, and others,
may influence the way individuals view others they see as members of
in-groups and out-groups.
Competition, rivalry, group membership, and in-group bias/out-
group derogation are topics commonly discussed by academics, practi-
tioners, and individuals every day, often without people even realizing.
Group membership begins with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978),
which states that people seek membership in groups they believe will
afford them some form of benefit. Such associations allow individuals to
feel a sense of belonging (Festinger, 1954; Wann, 2006), uniqueness from
those that don’t share similar characteristics (Berendt & Uhrich, 2016;
Berendt et al., 2018; Delia, 2015; Smith & Schwartz, 2003), while also
providing people with vicarious achievement when an associated group is
successful (Cialdini et al., 1976).
Competition and rivalry can influence the way individuals view each
other (Havard, Gray, et al., 2013), support each other (Havard, 2014),
and interact in a myriad of ways (Havard, 2020c). The information in this
text provides further insight regarding rivalry, competition, and group
membership is impacted by various group and consumer settings. This
text is also a follow-up to previous writings on the topic of rivalry and
group behavior (see Havard, 2020b, 2021b), and provides readers with
important findings about how the groups in which we seek membership
can influence the way we view others we see as similar and different.
I also take a little different approach than in the past, as I focus more
on the findings in the text and existing literature relevant to the specific
investigations and ideas in the text. Being the third text on this topic, it
seems appropriate to take such an approach. To that end, this chapter will
briefly discuss the importance of comparison studies of group behavior
and out-group derogation among fans of sport and non-sport settings,
 1 GROUP BEHAVIOR AND NEGATIVITY … 3

before introducing the chapters of the text, and discussing how different
readers can use the text to further their understanding and engagement
with group membership.

Need for Comparison Studies

Rivalry exists when individuals view others or another group as a threat to
their in-group, and their self-identity (Havard, 2014; Kilduff et al., 2010;
Tyler & Cobbs, 2015). Therefore, the study of rivalry is the investigation
of a phenomenon that influences the ways in which individuals view the
self, other in-group members, and people belonging to competing out-
groups. Rivalry can exist among various groups (Wann et al., 2016), and
on different levels of intensity (Converse & Reinhard, 2016; Havard &
Reams, 2018; Tyler & Cobbs, 2017). Feelings of rivalry can be influenced
by team identification (Wann, Havard, et al., 2016), gender (Havard,
Eddy, et al., 2016), league affiliation (Cobbs et al., 2017; Havard, 2016;
Havard & Eddy, 2013; Havard & Reams, 2016; Havard, Wann, et al.,
2013, 2017; Havard, Wann, Ryan, et al., 2017), regional location (Cobbs
et al., 2019), promotional messaging (Nichols & Raska, 2016; Havard,
Wann, et al., 2018), and mediated headlines and stories (Havard & Eddy,
2019; Havard, Ferrucci, et al., 2021). In turn, rivalry can influence atten-
dance (Havard, Shapiro, et al., 2016), willingness to pay premium prices
(Sanford & Scott, 2016), and consumption via television (Mahony &
Moorman, 1999).
Of all the positive outcomes of rivalry, it can also carry very nega-
tive consequences such as increased out-group derogation and negativity
(Havard, Reams et al., 2013), perceptions of violence at events (Raney &
Kinally, 2009), celebration of rival failure (Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Ciakara
et al., 2011; Havard, 2014), and willingness to consider instrumental
(Wann, Carlson, et al., 1999; Wann, Waddill, et al., 2017) and anony-
mous physical aggression (Havard, Wann et al., 2013, 2017; Wann &
Waddill, 2013; Wann, Haynes, et al., 2003; Wann, Peterson, et al.,
1999). Further, the study of rivalry has enhanced fields such as manage-
ment (Havard, 2018a; Kilduff, 2016), popular culture (Havard, 2018b),
consumer behavior (Ewing et al., 2013; Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas,
2014), entertainment (Havard, 2020a, 2021a), politics (Hibbing et al.,
2008; Karnacki, 2018; Miller & Conover, 2015), and themed entertain-
ment (Havard, Baker, et al., 2023; Havard, Wann, Grieve, et al., 2021b;
Havard, Wann, Grieve, et al., 2021). Because the phenomenon can carry
4 C. T. HAVARD

strong negativity among groups and group members, it is important that

researchers and practitioners work to better understand such behavior and
stimuli that can influence individuals and groups to behave in various
ways. One way to help learn more about rivalry and behavior is to inves-
tigate how the groups we are members of can influence our views of
relevant out-groups and out-group members.
For the last several years, we have engaged in research meant to
help increase understanding of how group membership can influence
rivalry and negativity toward others. In particular, at the time of writing
we have compared feelings of rivalry and views of out-groups among
fans of sport with fans of Disney Parks (Havard, Wann, Grieve, et al.,
2021a), streaming (Havard, Ryan, et al., 2021), mobile phones (Havard,
Hutchinson, et al., 2021), comics (Havard, Grieve, et al., 2020), science
fiction (Havard, Wann, et al., 2021), theme parks (Havard, Baker, Wann,
Grieve, et al., 2023), athletic footwear (Havard, Reams, et al., 2022),
and online and console gaming (Havard, Fuller, et al., 2021; Havard,
White, et al., 2021). Further, in the previous text (see Havard, 2021b),
we compared overall feelings of negativity toward relevant out-groups
using the Group Behavior Composite (GBC) to provide readers with
information regarding which group setting influences the most nega-
tivity (Havard, Grieve, et al., 2021) through the use of the Hierarchy
of Out-group Derogation (HOD) and Out-group Derogation Spectrum
(ODS).
It is important to establish a comparison of group settings that influ-
ence group negativity to varying degrees so future researchers and practi-
tioners can better understand how feelings of rivalry can be impacted by
fandom and group setting. For a myriad of reasons discussed previously
and covered in the following chapters, having such information can help
shape future study along with strategies meant to decrease animosity and
derogation toward the out-group. This text extends comparisons of group
settings by including religion and a discussion of political party compe-
tition in the United States. Further, the current text updates the HOD
and ODS to provide interested stakeholders with important information
about group behavior moving forward. The rest of this chapter includes
brief introductions of each chapter, followed by how the text can be used
by readers.
 1 GROUP BEHAVIOR AND NEGATIVITY … 5

Chapter Introductions
Following this introductory passage, Chapter 2 describes a comparison of
fan behavior and out-group derogation among fans of sport and fans of
political parties in the United States. Specifically, main effects regarding
perceptions of out-groups between fans of sport and political parties are
analyzed. Next, investigation of the common in-group (Gaertner CITE)
follows by comparing how being a member of one group (either sport
or politics) differs from being a fan of both groups (sport and politics)
in terms of out-group derogation. Finally, rival perceptions of individuals
identifying as Republicans and Democrats are analyzed.
Chapter 3 conducts another comparison of fandom/group settings
that influence strong negativity toward the out-group. Fans of sport
perceptions of out-groups are compared to fans/members of religious
groups to determine where differences exist. The common in-group
(Gaertner et al., 1993) is also investigated in Chapter 3 to determine
if membership in multiple groups is correlated with more positive percep-
tions of the out-group than those engaging in identity foreclosure (i.e.,
being a member of only one group; Beamon, 2012).
Chapter 4 provides an update to the HOD and ODS by comparing
Group Behavior Composite (GBC; Havard, Grieve et al., 2021) scores
among 12 different settings. In particular, the chapter compares overall
out-group negativity among fans of sport, politics, online gaming, reli-
gion, athletic footwear, gaming consoles, streaming, theme parks, comics,
science fiction, Disney Parks, and mobile phones. Chapter 4 concludes
with future avenues of research to better understand the HOD and ODS.
Chapter 5 offers a different approach to an academic chapter by
discussing ideas for future research and practice projects with the overall
goal of better understanding of group member behavior and decreasing
animosity among out-groups. Further, the chapter introduces a proposed
website, www.SharedPerspectives.org, that will act as a resource for inter-
ested visitors wanting to understand more about rivalry, competition,
group behavior, and how fandom/group setting may influence the ways
individuals view others. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of
a project to better help grow understanding of group member behavior
and out-group derogation. Chapter 6 offers conclusionary remarks on
the text, and also encourages interested parties to engage in active
research and learning about group behavior and derogation of relevant
out-groups.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 armed with bow and shield: ¹⁸and next to him
Jehozabad, and with him an hundred and
fourscore thousand ready prepared for war.
¹⁹These were they that waited on the king,
beside those whom the king put in the fenced
cities throughout all Judah.
17. armed with bow and shield] i.e. light-armed troops; compare
note on xiv. 8.
 Chapter XVIII.
1‒3 (compare 1 Kings xxii. 1‒4).
The Alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab.

¹Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour

in abundance; and he joined affinity with
Ahab.
1. joined affinity] Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat married
Athaliah the daughter of Ahab (2 Kings viii. 16, 18, 26). Athaliah
though called “daughter” of Omri in 2 Kings viii. 26 was really his
grand-daughter.

²And after certain years he went down to Ahab

to Samaria. And Ahab killed sheep and oxen
for him in abundance, and for the people that
were with him, and moved him to go up with
him to Ramoth-gilead.
2. killed sheep and oxen] This phrase implies a feast, for flesh is
eaten in the East only on festal occasions. The phrase used for
supplying necessary food is to set bread and water before one.

Ramoth-gilead] Deuteronomy iv. 43; 1 Kings iv. 13, xxii. 3; 2

Kings viii. 28, ix. 1 and 14. Ramoth was a city of refuge and (under
Solomon) the seat of the governor of a province. Probably it was the
most important Israelite city east of Jordan. Its site has not been
certainly identified (see Barnes’ note on 1 Kings iv. 13). Probably it
was on the Yarmuk near Edrei. In 1 Chronicles vi. 80 it is mentioned
as a city assigned to the sons of Merari. Apparently it was captured
from Israel by the Syrians in the time of Baasha or of Omri, and was
not restored in accordance with the treaty referred to in 1 Kings xx.
34.

³And Ahab king of Israel said unto

Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Wilt thou go with
me to Ramoth-gilead? And he answered him, I
am as thou art, and my people as thy people;
and we will be with thee in the war.
3. and we will be with thee in the war] In 1 Kings the
corresponding phrase is, my horses as thy horses. The phrases in 1
Kings need not be more than the expression of oriental politeness.
At the present day the Arab says to his guest, My house is thy
house, but he generally means very little by the words. The
Chronicler, however, interpreting by the event, turns the vaguer
phrase of Kings into a definite promise.

4‒27 (= 1 Kings xxii. 5‒28).

The Prophecy of Micaiah.

This narrative, apart from its intrinsic interest, is of great value for
the welcome light it throws upon the prophets in Israel. The direct
references of the later Prophets have accustomed us to the thought
that they had to contend with unworthy representatives of their
calling. Here we are made to realise with peculiar vividness that
even in the early stages of the national history the false prophet was
a menace to Israel’s spiritual enlightenment. Micaiah spake few
words, yet he deserves to rank with the great Prophets. He
resembles them at least in his overmastering conviction of the truth
and in his resolution to proclaim it, whatever cost of personal
suffering it may entail. His opponents were professedly servants of
Jehovah, and it is noteworthy that Micaiah does not accuse them of
deliberate intent to deceive Ahab but rather of self-deception and
ignorance of the truth (verse 21). Their ignorance of course was
blameworthy, for it was due to their willingness to prophesy smooth
things: they lacked that utter integrity of heart and entire devotion to
his prophetic calling which Micaiah possessed.

⁴And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel,

Inquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord
to-day.
4. Jehoshaphat] Compare 1 Kings iii. 11.

Inquire ... at the word] Compare Daniel ii. 10 (Authorized

Version), “no king ... asked such things at any magician.” The use of
“at” after verbs of asking is obsolete.

⁵Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets

together, four hundred men, and said unto
them, Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle,
or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for
God shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
5. the prophets] These no doubt were prophets of Jehovah (not
of Baal); compare verse 4 and note on verse 6.

Shall we go ... or shall I forbear?] In 1 Kings, “Shall I go ... or shall

I forbear?” (so LXX., but not Peshitṭa, of Chronicles).

⁶But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here

besides a prophet of the Lord, that we might
inquire of him? ⁷And the king of Israel said
unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man by
whom we may inquire of the Lord: but I hate
him; for he never prophesieth good
concerning me, but always evil: the same is
 Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat
said, Let not the king say so.
6. But Jehoshaphat said] The insertion of this lengthy account of
an event which principally concerns the Northern Kingdom is
remarkable, seeing that the Chronicler nowhere else inserts a
narrative dealing with the affairs of north Israel. Some commentators
find the chief motive for its insertion in this verse which credits
Jehoshaphat with an honourable desire to ascertain Jehovah’s real
will. A secondary motive may be that the story shows very clearly the
obstinate wickedness of Ahab, as the Chronicler would regard it, and
so lends point to the censure which is subsequently passed on
Jehoshaphat (xix. 2) for his alliance with the northern king.

Is there not here besides a prophet of the Lord] Or, Hath not the
Lord here yet another prophet. The unanimity of the four hundred
prophets aroused the suspicion of Jehoshaphat.

⁸Then the king of Israel called an officer ¹, and

said, Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imla.
¹ Or, eunuch.

8. called an officer] The Hebrew word means “eunuch.” From 1

Samuel viii. 15 we may perhaps conclude that such officers were
known in Israel from the very beginning of the monarchy. Compare 1
Chronicles xxviii. 1, note.

⁹Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the

king of Judah sat each on his throne, arrayed
in their robes, and they sat in an open place ¹
at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all
the prophets prophesied before them.
 ¹ Hebrew a threshing-floor.

9. in an open place] Render, in a threshing-floor. The threshing-

floor was convenient as being a large flat open space; compare
Genesis l. 10; 1 Chronicles xiii. 9, xxi. 18 ff.

¹⁰And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made

him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the
Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians,
until they be consumed. ¹¹And all the prophets
prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-
gilead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver
it into the hand of the king. ¹²And the
messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to
him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets
declare good to the king with one mouth: let
thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of
theirs, and speak thou good.
10. made him horns of iron] For a similar use of symbolic action
by a prophet compare Jeremiah xxvii. 2 (also xxviii. 10). For the
meaning of the phrase compare Amos vi. 13, “Have we not taken to
us horns?” i.e. “Have we not acquired military power?”

shalt thou push] Compare Deuteronomy xxxiii. 17. So Rameses II

is described in an Egyptian psalm as “the strong bull against the
Ethiopians; his horn pushes them.” (Erman, Ancient Egypt, English
Translation, p. 57.)

¹³And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what

my God saith, that will I speak.
 13. what my God saith] Render, surely, what my God shall say.
The Divine message has not yet come to the prophet.

¹⁴And when he was come to the king, the king

said unto him, Micaiah ¹, shall we go to
Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?
And he said, Go ye up, and prosper; and they
shall be delivered into your hand.
¹ Hebrew Micah.

14. Go ye up ... into your hand] Micaiah addresses both kings. In

1 Kings Ahab only is addressed, Go and prosper, for the Lord shall
deliver it into the hand of the king. Micaiah repeats in mocking tones
the utterance of the other prophets.

¹⁵And the king said to him, How many times

shall I adjure thee that thou speak unto me
nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?
15. that thou speak unto me nothing but the truth] The scorn in
Micaiah’s voice was noticed by the king.

¹⁶And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon

the mountains, as sheep that have no
shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no
master; let them return every man to his
house in peace. ¹⁷And the king of Israel said to
Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would
not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?
16. as sheep that have no shepherd] Compare Matthew ix. 36.
 the Lord said, These have no master; let them return, etc.] The
prophet has had a vision of Israel’s army, defeated and scattered,
like a flock of sheep wandering shepherdless upon the mountains.
God, he means, proclaims that in the coming battle their king will fall
and they will be beaten and dispersed.

¹⁸And he said, Therefore hear ye the word of

the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting upon his
throne, and all the host of heaven standing on
his right hand and on his left.
18. And he said] There are three stages in the prophet’s dealings
with the king, (1) irony in verse 14, (2) serious advice in verse 16,
(3) denunciation of death in verses 18‒22.

the host of heaven] angelic beings are meant, as in Psalms ciii.

21, and probably also in Nehemiah ix. 6; Daniel iv. 35, etc., but in
these passages the usual meaning “the stars” is possible. The
parallel verse in Kings (1 Kings xxii. 19) is apparently the earliest
clear instance of the phrase in the significance “angelic beings.”

¹⁹And the Lord said, Who shall entice ¹ Ahab

king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at
Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after
this manner, and another saying after that
manner.
¹ Or, deceive.

19. Who shall entice Ahab] So 1 Kings (Revised Version). The

same Hebrew word is used in Jeremiah xx. 7, “thou hast deceived
(margin ‘enticed’) me,” where Jeremiah complains that he has been
called to the fruitless labour of a hated prophet. For the underlying
thought that delusion is sometimes a preliminary part of Divine
punishment compare 2 Thessalonians ii. 11 (compare 2
Thessalonians ii. 9) and the famous saying, “quem Deus vult perdere
prius dementat.” It should be noted however that the “lying spirit” in
the mouth of the 400 prophets played only a subordinate part in
Ahab’s fall, and indeed could have played no part at all, but for the
fact that the king was more than willing to be enticed. Ahab had
already made up his mind; he consulted the 400 only as an
afterthought to satisfy Jehoshaphat (verse 4), he excluded the plain-
speaking Micaiah until Jehoshaphat insisted on his presence (verses
6, 7), and he scorned the true prophet’s warning of the falseness of
the 400 (verse 26). Delusion as a Divine punishment comes only
upon the man who is willing to be deluded.

²⁰And there came forth a spirit ¹, and stood

before the Lord, and said, I will entice him.
And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith?
²¹And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he
said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail
also: go forth, and do so.
¹ Hebrew the spirit.

20. a spirit] Hebrew the spirit, but the definite article simply
singles out one spirit from the rest. The Evil Spirit (Hebrew “the
Satan”) is not meant here but simply a superhuman being, such as
was generally conceived to be the cause of the ecstatic condition
manifested by prophets of this type (compare 1 Samuel x. 5, 6).

²²Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a

lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets;
and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning
thee.
 22. the Lord hath put a lying spirit...] This and the preceding
verse are singularly interesting for the frankness with which they
apparently regard Jehovah as causing moral evil. Of course the
passage is not to be regarded as a philosophical pronouncement on
the origin of moral evil. Rather is it to be treated as a naïve
expression regarding a great fact of human life—see the conclusion
of the note on verse 19, who shall entice Ahab. Physical evils are
constantly declared in the Old Testament to originate in Jehovah’s
will; they are often sent by Him as punishments for sin. Here too it is
only as the penalty of previous sinfulness (verse 8 “I hate him”) that
the evil moral condition of the prophets who are deluded by the lying
spirit from Jehovah is imposed. A parallel may be found in Ezekiel
xiv. 1‒11. It is, however, a higher plane of thought when Jeremiah
expresses the conviction that the false prophets of his day are not
inspired at all by Jehovah, but speak solely out of their own hearts
(Jeremiah xxiii. 16, 21).

²³Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came

near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and
said, Which way went the spirit of the Lord
from me to speak unto thee?
23. Zedekiah] He takes the lead as in verse 10.

smote ... upon the cheek] This phrase is tantamount to “gave an

insulting blow”; compare Micah v. 1; Matthew v. 39.

²⁴And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see on

that day, when thou shalt go into an inner
chamber ¹ to hide thyself.
¹ Or, from chamber to chamber.

24. Behold, thou shalt see] Micaiah answers Zedekiah’s gibe with
the verb “see” (rather than “know”) because of its double meaning,
“Behold, thou shalt be a seer, thou shalt possess the power of
vision,” when it is too late.

go into an inner chamber] i.e. seek safety in hiding from enemies;

compare 1 Kings xx. 30 (same Hebrew phrase).

²⁵And the king of Israel said, Take ye Micaiah,

and carry him back unto Amon the governor of
the city, and to Joash the king’s son;
25. carry him back] Micaiah is not to accompany the expedition,
having foretold its failure.

²⁶and say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow

in the prison, and feed him with bread of
affliction and with water of affliction, until I
return in peace.
26. bread of affliction ... water of affliction] Compare Ezekiel iv. 9‒
11.

²⁷And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in

peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And
he said, Hear, ye peoples, all of you.
27. ye peoples, all of you] The “peoples” represented at this
gathering were probably, Israel, Judah, Edom, and Moab. The
clause occurs in Micah i. 2, and in all probability has been added to
the text of Kings (which the Chronicler here copies) by a glossator,
who perhaps thought that Micaiah and Micah were one and the
same person.

28‒34 (= 1 Kings xxii. 29‒37).

The Death of Ahab at Ramoth-gilead.
 ²⁸So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the
king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead. ²⁹And
the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, I will
disguise myself, and go into the battle; but put
thou on thy robes. So the king of Israel
disguised himself; and they went into the
battle.
29. I will disguise myself] Despite the warning uttered by Micaiah
the two kings decide to seek battle, and Ahab, whose failing was not
the lack of courage, resolved to take part in the fighting. To avert the
fulfilment of the prophecy, he suggests that he should not wear his
royal insignia, whilst Jehoshaphat, whose life had not been
threatened, should wear his robes and be the obvious leader of the
allied army.

and they went into the battle] 1 Kings (more correctly) and he
(Ahab) went into the battle (so LXX. here).

³⁰Now the king of Syria had commanded the

captains of his chariots, saying, Fight neither
with small nor great, save only with the king of
Israel.
30. the captains of his chariots] Thirty-two in number (1 Kings).
While the rest of the Syrian army met the Israelite attack, the
chariots were to act as an independent force, whose primary task
should be to kill or capture Ahab. The king of Syria felt himself
overmatched and thought that the only chance of victory lay in the
fall of the Israelite commander. Compare 2 Kings iii. 26 (the king of
Moab tries to break through to the king of Edom).
 ³¹And it came to pass, when the captains of
the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said,
It is the king of Israel. Therefore they turned
about to fight against him: but Jehoshaphat
cried out, and the Lord helped him; and God
moved them to depart from him. ³²And it came
to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw
that it was not the king of Israel, that they
turned back from pursuing him.
31. saw Jehoshaphat ... to fight] The captains of the chariots who
had been instructed to direct all their efforts towards slaying the king
of Israel, at length perceived Jehoshaphat conspicuous in his royal
robes. The various chariots turned aside from lesser enemies, and
then, discovering their mistake and obeying their orders, left him to
continue their search for Ahab.

and God moved them to depart from him] These words anticipate
verse 32 and are not found in 1 Kings Jehoshaphat’s cry was to his
soldiers for aid, but the Chronicler apparently took it to be a cry to
Jehovah, and accordingly added these words.

³³And a certain man drew his bow at a

venture ¹, and smote the king of Israel between
the joints of the harness ²: wherefore he said to
the driver of the chariot, Turn thine hand, and
carry me out of the host; for I am sore
wounded.
¹ Hebrew in his simplicity.

² Or, the lower armour and the breastplate.

 33. And a certain man drew a bow] Render, But a certain man
had drawn a bow. God had already brought about that which the
Syrians were labouring to perform.

at a venture] literally in his innocence, i.e. without knowing that

he was aiming at Ahab. Compare 2 Samuel xv. 11.

between the joints of the harness] Probably between the

breastplate (or coat of mail) and the appendages to it; the wound
would be in the lower part of the body.

³⁴And the battle increased that day: howbeit

the king of Israel stayed himself up in his
chariot against the Syrians until the even: and
about the time of the going down of the sun he
died.
34. stayed himself up in his chariot] 1 Kings was stayed up. Ahab
sustained his reputation as a good soldier (compare 1 Kings xx. 14,
xxii. 31) to the last; his death caused the failure of the attack on
Ramoth (1 Kings xxii. 36).

Chapter XIX.
1‒3 (no parallel in Kings).
The Reproof of Jehu the Prophet.

¹And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah

returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem.
1. in peace] i.e. in safety. LXX. (B) omitted the phrase.
 ²And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out
to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat,
Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love
them that hate the Lord? for this thing wrath
is upon thee from before the Lord.
2. Jehu the son of Hanani] He must have been an old man at this
time, for he had prophesied against Baasha (1 Kings xvi. 1), since
whose reign two kings had ruled in Israel, viz., Omri (12 years) and
Ahab (22 years). It appears, however, as if the Chronicler ignored or
overlooked 1 Kings xvi. 1, for in 2 Chronicles xvi. 7 Hanani, Jehu’s
father, is mentioned rebuking Asa, Jehoshaphat’s father. The two
passages, in Kings and Chronicles, are not hopelessly irreconcilable,
but together they yield a very odd and improbable sequence: the son
active in Baasha’s reign, the father in Asa’s, and again after some 40
years the son in Jehoshaphat’s time!

and love them that hate the Lord] Compare Psalms cxxxix. 21,
22. Actually, of course, Ahab even in this narrative appears as an
adherent of Jehovah, whose prophets he consults. The phrase “them
that hate the Lord” reflects the Chronicler’s view of north Israel.

for this thing] Israel (in the Chronicler’s eyes) being wholly and
utterly bad, apostate from Jehovah, Jehoshaphat’s alliance with
Ahab had to be construed as a most serious sin which should meet
with severe punishment.

wrath is upon thee] the impending visitation of anger comes to

pass in the invasion of the Moabite and Ammonite tribes described in
chapter xx. For “wrath” (Hebrew ḳeṣeph) compare 2 Kings iii. 27,
Revised Version margin.

³Nevertheless there are good things found in

thee, in that thou hast put away the Asheroth
 out of the land, and hast set thine heart to
seek God.
3. good things] Compare xii. 12 (note).

the Asheroth] plural of “Asherah”; compare notes on xiv. 3, and

xv. 16.

4‒11 (no parallel in Kings).

Jehoshaphat’s Home Policy for Instruction in the Law and
Administration of Justice.

4‒11. This section has already been discussed in connection with

xvii. 7‒9, where see the head-note. Compare also the Introduction
§ 7, p. li.

⁴And Jehoshaphat dwelt at Jerusalem: and

he went out again among the people from
Beer-sheba to the hill country of Ephraim, and
brought them back unto the Lord, the God of
their fathers.
4. Beer-sheba] Compare note on 1 Chronicles iv. 28.

brought them back] Some further measures against idolatry seem

to be meant.

⁵And he set judges in the land throughout all

the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, ⁶and
said to the judges, Consider what ye do: for ye
judge not for man, but for the Lord; and he is
with you in the judgement ¹. ⁷Now therefore let
the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed
 and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord
our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of
gifts.
¹ Or, in giving judgement Hebrew in the matter of judgement.

5. And he set judges] Compare verse 11 “also the Levites shall

be officers”; and Deuteronomy xvi. 18 “judges and officers shalt thou
make thee in all thy gates.”

In the earliest days justice was administered in Israel, as among

the Bedouin of to-day, probably by all heads of families and (in
difficult cases) by the one head who was distinguished above the
rest for impartiality and for knowledge of tribal custom. In later days
when Israel was settled in Canaan the “elders of the cities” and the
“elders of the priests” exercised the same functions. The priests also
at the great shrines, by their responses in matters brought for the
decision of the Divine oracle, exercised an important part in the
development and administration of law in Israel. In the monarchic
period the King acted as a judge before whom difficult and important
disputes seem to have been brought. His willingness to hear such
cases (2 Samuel viii. 15, xv. 3 ff.) and his wisdom in deciding them (1
Kings iii. 9, etc.) evidently affected his authority and popularity to no
small extent. In the present passage it is noteworthy that the King
delegates this authority even in Jerusalem.

Jehoshaphat’s measures, as here described, are twofold, (1) to

establish judges throughout the cities of Judah (compare
Deuteronomy xvi. 18), (2) to establish (in accordance with
Deuteronomy xvii. 8 ff.) a kind of court of appeal in Jerusalem itself.

⁸Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set

of the Levites and the priests, and of the
heads of the fathers’ houses of Israel, for the
 judgement of the Lord, and for controversies.
And they returned to Jerusalem.
8. for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies] By the
first expression the Chronicler refers to religious as contrasted with
civil cases (controversies), or perhaps more generally to matters
regarding which some decision could be found in the Law of the Lord
(i.e. in the Pentateuch, according to the Chronicler’s belief). The
second phrase (“controversies”) probably means civil disputes for
which arbitration, rather than a strictly legal decision, was suitable.

And they returned to Jerusalem] These words are certainly a

textual mistake. Read either, And they (the judges appointed by
Jehoshaphat) dwelt in Jerusalem: i.e. the most difficult cases could
always be decided in Jerusalem, because the judges were always
there. Or read, and for the controversies of the inhabitants of
Jerusalem (compare LXX.). In either case the change in Hebrew is
very slight.

⁹And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye

do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a
perfect heart.
9. a perfect heart] i.e. a heart undivided in its allegiance; compare
1 Chronicles xii. 38. The judges were not to attempt to combine the
service of God with the taking of bribes.

¹⁰And whensoever any controversy shall come

to you from your brethren that dwell in their
cities, between blood and blood, between law
and commandment, statutes and judgements,
ye shall warn them, that they be not guilty
towards the Lord, and so wrath come upon
 you and upon your brethren: this do, and ye
shall not be guilty.
10. between blood and blood] To decide between one kind of
blood-shedding and another, i.e. between manslaughter and murder.
Deuteronomy xvii. 8.

between law and commandment] To decide what particular

ordinance applies to a particular case.

ye shall warn them] Compare Ezekiel iii. 17‒21.

wrath] Hebrew ḳeṣeph; see note on verse 2.

¹¹And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over

you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah
the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of
Judah, in all the king’s matters: also the
Levites shall be officers before you. Deal
courageously ¹, and the Lord be with the
good.
¹ Hebrew Be strong and do.

11. Amariah] Perhaps the one mentioned in 1 Chronicles vi. 11 [v.

37, Hebrew].

matters of the Lord] i.e. in all religious and ritual questions.

Contrast the king’s matters, i.e. civil cases, such probably as
questions of taxation, military service, and so forth.

officers before you] i.e. waiting to execute your instructions.

 Chapter XX.
1‒4 (no parallel in Kings).
The Invasion of the Moabites and their Allies.

Verses 1‒30 of this chapter present an edifying tale of a

miraculous victory gained by Jehoshaphat over an invading horde of
desert tribes, a victory gained solely through prayer to Jehovah and
without a single blow being struck by a Judean soldier. The whole
narrative is an admirable example of midrashic narrative, and should
be compared with xiv. 9‒15 and xiii. 3‒20, where see notes.
Regarding the possibility of an historical foundation for the tale, see
the Introduction § 7, xlix, l, and compare G. A. Smith, Historical
Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 272, 273.

¹And it came to pass after this, that the

children of Moab, and the children of Ammon,
and with them some of the Ammonites ¹, came
against Jehoshaphat to battle.
¹ Perhaps an error for Meunim. So the Septuagint See chapter
xxvi. 7.

1. some of the Ammonites] Read, some of the Meunim. They

were an Arabian people whose name seems to be preserved in that
of Ma‘īn, an Edomitic village (south-east of Petra) on the pilgrim
route between Damascus and Mecca. The LXX. here, as also in
xxvi. 7; 1 Chronicles iv. 41, has Μειναῖοι (Μιναῖοι), and probably
intended thereby the Minaeans, a people who established a powerful
kingdom in South Arabia (see the note on 1 Chronicles iv. 41).