A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ELIJAH-ELISHA STORIES

WITHIN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

____________________

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of

Old Testament Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

_____________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

____________________

by

Yue-Ming Joseph Chang

April 2000

To Plano Chinese Alliance Church for helping me to keep a spiritual balance in my academic study

To Daniel, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Priscilla for struggling so hard to pronounce the word “dissertation” in praying for their dad

To Esther for it is her insistence that has pushed me through the program

ABSTRACT

A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ELIJAH-ELISHA STORIES WITHIN THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

by

Yue-Ming Joseph Chang

Dallas Theological Seminary

Readers: Dr. Robert Chisholm, Jr., Prof. Don Glenn, Dr. Ron Allen

This study evolved from the questions: Do the stories of Elijah

and Elisha (1 Kgs 16:29-2 Kgs 13:21) have a coherent design? If so, what is

the message that the original author tried to convey, and what is its theolo-

gical contribution to the larger context of the Deuteronomistic History?

Underlying these questions is a search for a methodology that is the most

appropriate to analyze the narrative literature to which the stories of Elijah

and Elisha belong.

In chapter 1 this dissertation surveys the different interpretations

that have been offered for the stories of Elijah and Elisha. Chapter 2 argues

that, among the many varied approaches, the rhetorical analysis—a

narrative literature friendly approach—is the best tool to analyze the stories

of Elijah and Elisha. Many narrative elements are identified and their usage

explained in chapter 2. Chapter 3 surveys the history of the study of the

Deuteronomistic History, with an emphasis on its theology. With the

methodology defined in chapter 2, the method of rhetorical analysis is then

applied to the stories of Elijah in chapter 4 and the stories of Elisha in

chapter 5.

Chapter 6 synthesizes the analyses of Elijah (chapter 4) and Elisha

(chapter 5) and finds that a coherent design is evident in the stories of Elijah

and Elisha. Three major themes surface in the synthesis: (1) Yahweh’s

judgment on the rebellious, (2) Yahweh’s establishment of his representa-

tives, and (3) Yahweh’s care for the faithful and the needy. Three minor

themes also surface in the synthesis: (1) the centrality of the word of

Yahweh, (2) the changing status of the Israelites before Yahweh, and (3) the

recognition of the ownership of the land.

The themes discovered in the analyses of the stories of Elijah and

Elisha do contribute to the theology of the Deuteronomistic History. There

are six areas in which these contributions are seen. (1) Yahweh’s judgment

is inevitable when his people persist in sin. (2) There is preference for the

house of David. (3) Yahweh is the only true God, and he allows no rival.

(4) Yahweh especially cares for the remnant. (5) The word of Yahweh is to

occupy the central place in the lives of the Israelites. (6) Honoring Yahweh

is the prerequisite to living in the land.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For ten years, my wife, Esther, and I have been entrusted with

three major responsibilities: rearing a family, planting a church and

completing my PhD study. To these three seemingly competing events in

our lives, our Lord has proven himself faithful and his grace sufficient for all

three events to come to a concluding point where thanksgivings are whole-

heartedly offered.

Daniel, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Priscilla have grown up with the

majority of their lives being spent with their dad and mom in church and on

the seminary campus. They have become great children, honoring God in

their school achievements and testifying to the saving grace of our Lord

Jesus Christ. For the fun years that we have enjoyed together, we are

forever thankful.

Plano Chinese Alliance Church, with most of the congregation first

generation Christians and consisting of people from the countries of Taiwan,

China, Philippines, Malaysia and other places, has provided me the

environment to experience first hand the power of God’s word. God has

shown me how his word, when faithfully administered, can change lives

from paganism to Christianity. The brothers and sisters from this church

have demonstrated their great commitment to serve God, have supported me

graciously, and have helped me constantly to pursue a spiritual application

of my academic study.

Dr. Robert Chisholm, Jr., Professor Don Glenn, and Dr. Ron Allen,

all very fine scholars from this fine institution of Dallas Theological

Seminary, have contributed greatly to this dissertation. Their knowledge of

God’s word and other related study is profound. Their humility has

impressed me, and their encouragement has been deeply appreciated.

Special thanks go to Dr. Chisholm for his guidance and insightful advice

which have been instrumental to the completion of this dissertation. Special

thanks go also to Mr. Ellis Reed, a dear Christian gentleman who loves the

Lord and exemplifies this love by voluntarily helping students whose mother

languages are not English. Mr. Reed has spent innumerable hours in

correcting my English; his initial painful effort in proofreading this text has

made it much less painful for subsequent readers.

Finally, my love and my appreciation go to Esther. Thus far, we

have journeyed and have accomplished tasks together. May the Lord grant

us many more years of serving him together.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER

1. SURVEY OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ELIJAH AND ELISHA NARRATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Polemics to Baal Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Prophetic Veneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Prophetic Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Prophetic Vindication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Class Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Salvation Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Judgment and Revival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Feministic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A Call Back to Sinaitic Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Punishing the Hostile Civilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2. METHOD AND APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Diachronic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sociological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rhetorical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Elements of Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

vii

3. SURVEY OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY . . . . . . . 102 Noth’s Deuteronomistic History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Gerhard von Rad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Hans Walter Wolff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 The Redaction Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 A Single Composer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

4. THE STORIES OF ELIJAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Who is God? Baal or Yahweh? 1 Kgs 16:29-19:21 . . . . . . . . . 126 The Death of Ahab; 1 Kgs 20:1-22:50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Yahweh’s War against Ahaziah, the Descendant of

Ahab; 1 Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 1:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

5. THE STORIES OF ELISHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 The Succession Story/Establishing Elisha’s

Prophetic Authority (I); 2 Kings 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 The Moabite Battle/Yahweh’s First Test of

Joram’s Reign; 2 Kings 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (II); 2 Kings 4 . . . . . 211 Israel’s Spiritual Leprosy/Yahweh’s Second Test of

Joram’s Reign; 2 Kings 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (III); 2 Kgs 6:1-23. . 244 The Siege of Samaria/Yahweh’s Third Test of Joram’s

Reign; 2 Kgs 6:24-7:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 The Comparison between the Arameans under Siege

(2 Kgs 6:8-23) and the Israelites under Siege (2 Kgs 6:24-7:20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

The Sword of Hazael and the Sword of Jehu; 2 Kings 8-10. . . 270 The Smoldering Fire Burned Again and the Renewal

of Yahwistic Worship; 2 Kings 11-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 The Conflict over Golden Calf Worship; 2 Kgs 13:1-21. . . . . . 292 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

viii

6. SYNTHESIS OF THE ELIJAH AND ELISHA STORIES . . . 300 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Character and Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Plot and Plot Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 The Themes of the Stories of Elijah and Elisha . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

7. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ELIJAH-ELISHA STORIES TO THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Yahweh’s Judgment Is Inevitable When His People

Persist in Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 There Is Preference for the House of David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Yahweh Is the Only True God, and He Allows No Rival . . . . . 338 Yahweh Especially Cares for the Remnant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 The Word of Yahweh Is to Occupy the Central Place

in the Lives of the Israelites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Honoring Yahweh Is the Prerequisite to Living in the Land . . . 342 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the

Old Testament ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments AusBR Australian Biblical Review BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English

Lexicon of the Old Testament BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly Dtr Deuteronomistic Author DtrH Deuteronomistic History FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen

Testaments HR History of Religions HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

x

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series NASB New American Standard Bible NEB New English Bible NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIV New International Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version Or Orientalia (Rome) SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SR Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses TANAKH Torah, Nevi’im, Kethuvim, A New Translation of The Holy

Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xi

Plot Structure Sigla

• The first level of heading

† The second level of heading

‡ The third level of heading

1

PREFACE

Many books and articles have analyzed the text of Elijah and

Elisha (1 Kgs 16:29-2 Kgs 13:21); the interpretations from these analyses

have varied widely. Some writers view the text of Elijah and Elisha as

consisting of the “original text” and other “later additions;” thus, these

writers can examine the “original text” and come up with meanings which

can hardly be discerned by merely reading the entire plain text. Other

writers approach the text with certain philosophical or sociological

presumptions; the meaning of the text becomes very subjective and its result

uncontrollable. Still other writers analyze a portion of the text well but fail

to relate that portion to its context. Thus, it is evident that the meaning of

the text depends largely on the integrity that each writer is willing to grant to

it and the specific perspective that he or she may have presumed in his or her

approach to it.

This present writer believes, however, that the text of Elijah and

Elisha, when it is objectively analyzed, reveals the original author’s delicate

design. That design conveys clear messages which are consistent with the

2theology of the text’s larger context—the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges,

Samuel, and Kings). In order to find the design and then the messages of the

text and how they fit within the theology of the text’s larger context, this

present writer takes the following strategy.

In chapter 1, this dissertation briefly surveys the various

interpretations of the text of Elijah and Elisha and shows the need for a fair

approach and sound methodology to the analysis of the text.

In chapter 2, this dissertation points out different approaches used

by various writers in analyzing the text of Elijah and Elisha. This disserta-

tion also argues that rhetorical analysis, a synchronic methodology and a

sensitive tool for narrative literature, is the best way to study the text of

Elijah and Elisha. This dissertation also explores the method of the

rhetorical analysis and then defines its narrative elements as they are found

in the text of Elijah and Elisha. This methodology is then applied to the text

of Elijah and Elisha in chapters 4 and 5.

In chapter 3, this dissertation surveys the opinions regarding the

Deuteronomistic History, a history covering Joshua, Judges, Samuel and

Kings. This survey deals with opinions regarding the authorship and the

theology of the Deuteronomistic History. The survey’s primary interest,

3however, is in the theology as conveyed through the various studies of the

Deuteronomistic History.

In chapter 4, this dissertation analyzes the stories of Elijah from 1

Kgs 16:29 to 2 Kgs 1:18. This entire text is divided into three large episodes

to show how the settings, characters, and plots interact together to construe

the messages which Yahweh has intended to reveal through his prophet

Elijah.

In chapter 5, this dissertation analyzes the stories of Elisha from 2

Kgs 2:1 to 2 Kgs 13:21. This entire text is divided into ten episodes, with

each episode having its distinctive settings, characters or plots. These

episodes convey messages which Yahweh has intended to reveal through his

prophet Elisha.

Even though the need for proper analysis divides the text into

episodes in chapters 4 and 5, the messages from the stories of Elijah and

Elisha, nevertheless, are not episodic or fragmentary. They interlock and

form clear overarching themes. Chapter 6 of this dissertation seeks to

synthesize the three episodes in the stories of Elijah and the ten episodes in

the stories of Elisha in order to look at the entire stories of Elijah and Elisha

at the macro level. Through this synthesis, the major and minor themes of

the stories of Elijah and Elisha emerge.

4In chapter 7, this dissertation seeks to relate the themes as found

in the synthesis of the stories of Elijah and Elisha to the Deuteronomistic

theology. This is done to prove that the stories of Elijah and Elisha expound

the theology as expressed in the Book of Deuteronomy and thus form an

integral part of the Deuteronomistic History.

5

CHAPTER 1

SURVEY OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ELIJAH

AND ELISHA NARRATIVE

The fascinating stories of Elijah and Elisha have intrigued many

sharp minds, thus inviting many works and commentaries. A survey of

recent studies reveals a great variety in their approaches. In terms of

content, some writers analyze the Elijah-Elisha material in its entirety, while

others only deal with selective episodes within it. Occasionally a writer will

interpret the material from his own political, economical, or social

perspective. In terms of method, some writers analyze the material in its

canonical form, while others deal critically with the material and try to

locate sources contributed by different redactors. A brief survey will show

this point.

Polemics to Baal Worship

Among the major treatments of the Elijah-Elisha stories, Leah

6

Bronner takes the stories as a Yahwistic polemic against Baal worship.1

Using the Ras Shamra2 findings as her basis for the description of Baal

worship, Bronner argues that the Elijah-Elisha story was written to eradicate

the Israelites' attraction to Baal worship.3

Bronner points out many parallels between the Baal myth

discovered in Ugaritic and the motifs of the Elijah-Elisha story. One Ugarit

limestone stele, dating back to the 2nd millenium B.C., depicts Baal as

standing on what appears to be two undulating lines separated by three

horizontal lines. In one hand he is brandishing a club, and in the other hand

he is holding a stylized thunderbolt capped by a spearhead.4 Bronner

explains the symbolism as follows: the three horizontal lines symbolize the

earth; one undulating line underneath the feet of Baal represents the sea, the

other undulating line represents the waters under the earth. A club in one of

Baal’s hands represents thunder and is thus connected with Baal’s function

1 Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968). 2 Ras Shamra is on the northern Syrian coast where ancient Ugarit once stood.

For a summary of the history of Ugarit and the excavations at Ras Shamra see Claude F. A. Schaeffer, The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra—Ugarit, the Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1936 (London: Oxford University Press, 1939).

3 Bronner, Stories of Elijah and Elisha, 54, 139-40. 4 Ibid., 55-56.

7

as the god of rain. The spear may represent either lightning or a sacred tree

or a plant.5 Consistent with what the stele illustrates, many Ugaritic texts

support Baal as master over the natural forces of lightning, fire, and rain.

Baal is variously described as a god who gives grain, oil, and wine; a god

who revives the dead and heals the sick; and a god who bestows the

blessings of progeny.6

Bronner finds polemical parallels in the Elijah-Elisha story. Elijah

was portrayed as the prophet who commanded fire to come down from

heaven (2 Kgs 1:10, 12, 14) and who was translated by a chariot of fire and

horses of fire (2 Kgs 2:11).7 Elijah proclaimed drought at the beginning of

his ministry (1 Kgs 17:1); conversely, he called out to Yahweh for rain after

the contest on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:41-45).8 Yahweh granted both of

his requests. Similarly, Elisha was able to call down water to fill the ditches

(2 Kgs 3:17).9

According to Ugaritic mythology, Anat, the sister and consort of

5 Ibid., 56. 6 Ibid., 54. 7 Ibid., 57, 64. 8 Ibid., 75. 9 Ibid., 76.

8

Baal, killed Mot, the enemy of Baal. Anat crushed, winnowed, burned,

and ground the corpse of Mot, and then planted it in the ground. This brutal

process enabled Baal to come back to life from the underworld, thus

returning growth and fertility to the earth.10 However, as Bronner points

out, the author of Kings showed that it was Elijah who had the power to

multiply grain and oil (1 Kgs 17:14). Similarly, Elisha provided oil for the

widow and her two sons (2 Kgs 4:1-7), as well as a meal for his disciples (2

Kgs 4:38-41).11

Elisha asked God to bestow a child to the Shunammite woman (2

Kings 4). This parallels the Ugaritic story in which Baal requested El to

give a child to Dnil who had made a food offering to Baal and requested a

male offspring from him.12

Ugaritic literature recorded that Anat punished a king, who did not

honor his vow, by making him ill, but El restored the king’s health through

magic in response to the king's son’s request.13 Through the prophets,

10 Ibid., 80-81. 11 Ibid., 83. 12 Ibid., 89. 13 Ibid., 103-4.

9

Bronner points out, Yahweh used his power both to punish and to heal (1

Kgs 14:1-13; 2 Kgs 4:20-37; 8:9).14 Elisha revived a lad (2 Kings 4), and

Elisha’s bones even revived a dead man (2 Kgs 8:20-22).15

Baal was called "Rider of the Clouds,” but it was Elijah who

actually was taken up by a whirlwind to heaven (2 Kgs 2:11).16 Baal warred

against Prince Sea/Judge River and defeated him with his special weapons

"Expeller" and "Driver.” Elijah and Elisha were able to divide the Jordan

River (2 Kgs 2:8, 14).17 At Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18) Baal found himself no

match for Yahweh. When Elijah fled south to Mount Horeb, he went in a

direction away from Mount Casius, SPn, in the north, which was the domain

of Baal, according to Canaanite mythology.18 Even the Naboth story was a

polemic to the Phoenician-Canaanite concept of kingship, in which the

Ugaritic material supported, at least in theory, the contention that the king

was the owner of all soil.19 Bronner concludes:

14 Ibid., 99, 105. 15 Ibid., 106. 16 Ibid., 123. 17 Ibid., 133. 18 Ibid., 137. 19 Ibid., 138.

10

Throughout the stories of Elijah and Elisha, one finds as we have endeavored to show, that the historian was well acquainted with Canaanite mythology and consciously wished to weaken its grip on the people by illustrating with concrete examples, that all powers attributed to Baal could only be performed by the Lord, God of Israel. There is in other words polemical parallelism in the discussed narratives, that intentionally aimed to undermine the authority and influence of Baal. The myths ascribed colossal powers to this deity. He was the god of rain and thus also of fertility. Man, beast and field depended on him for fecundity. The narrator of the Elijah and Elisha cycles demonstrates that these legends about Baal were false, by illustrating with concrete examples from the lives of the prophets. Step by step he showed that the powers attributed to Baal, are controlled only by the God of Israel. He alone can bestow the blessing of rain and fertility to the land. He bestows life or death. These stories endeavored to diminish the people's attraction for the seductive Baal cult.20

Prophetic Veneration21

Tucker labels 2 Kings 2-7 as legend. He defines legend as

literature that deals with holy men, holy places, or religious ceremonies.

Regarding the purpose of legends, he writes:

Legends of the lives and deeds of holy men tend to glorify those men and often present them as examples for later generations. Legends of sacred places and religious ceremonies usually explain and justify the

20 Ibid. 21 This dissertation follows Moore on this classification. See Rick D. Moore,

God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series (JSOTSup), no. 95 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990), 106-10.

11

sacredness of the place or the religious practice in terms of some miraculous occurrence or historical event.22

Rofé expands the classification from legend, in which the story is

mainly used to express prophetic veneration, to didactic legend, in which

spiritual truth is communicated. 23 He argues that 1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs

4:1-7; 2 Kgs 5; and 2 Kgs 10:1-11 play down the importance of miracles and

are used mainly for didactic purposes. For Rofé, these stories teach that the

Lord's intervention is an answer to prayer (1 Kgs 17:21-22), encourage

Yahweh’s people to recognize his action (2 Kgs 5:15), and show them the

effect of his spoken words (1 Kgs 17:14, 16).24

Prophetic Conflict

Using 1 Kings 22 as a starting ground, DeVries applies textual

criticism, literary and form criticism, tradition-history and redaction

criticism to the prophetic legends in the Former Prophets. He points out that

22 Gene Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1971), 38-39. 23 Alexander Rofé, "Classes in the Prophetical Stories: Didactic Legenda and

Parable," in Studies on Prophecy, Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (VTSup) vol. 26 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 143-64.

24 Ibid., 151.

12

among the prophets there were always conflicts between those who

prophesied in favor of their king and those who prophesied against their

king in the name of Yahweh. This antagonism among the prophets had the

detrimental effect of encouraging the political leaders, confident that some

prophets would always support them, to make rash and ill-advised alliances.

Their bad decisions eventually led to the ruin of the nation.25

Prophet against prophet was only a symptom. The root cause was

king against prophet, thus requiring a prophet to oppose the king. Kings, as

the representatives of political power, had systematically been trying to

institutionalize the prophetic revelation, to undermine and subvert the

authority of prophetism and with it the cherished traditions of primitive

Yahwism. The prophet legend collection as a whole, of which the Elijah

and Elisha stories are part, represents the constant overriding concern to

counteract political power.26

25 Simon J. DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah

Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1978), 150.

26 Ibid., 149-50.

13

Prophetic Vindication

Long compares the Elisha miracles (2 Kgs 2:23-24; 4:1-7; 4:38-41;

6:1-7; 13:20-21) to the shamanism among the Netsilik, the North

Americans, the Murngin in Australia, the central Asians, and the middle

Indians. He points out that the social function of the Elisha miracles was to

vindicate the prophets. The miracles were recorded to reinforce the

institution of prophecy at a time of great turmoil in Israel when shamanism

was in actual decadence.27

Class Struggle

LaBarbera examines the two military campaigns led by the

Aramean king against Elisha and against the king of Israel in 2 Kgs 6:8-

7:20. He points out that the ruling elite, as represented by the kings of Aram

and Israel, had control over the military establishment and tended to favor

the Canaanite deities. The Israelite peasants, whose interests were supported

by Yahwistic religion with Elisha as their representative, used this

miraculous story to express their fundamental social antagonism to the

27 In Long’s opinion, prophecy is one of the ethnographical functions similar

to shamanism. Burke O. Long, "The Social Setting for Prophetic Miracle Stories," Semeia 3 (1975): 46-63.

14

ruling elite. Thus it was justifiable to mention that

Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name. Horse and chariot he has cast into the sea (Exod 15:3, 4).28

In the Books of Kings Brueggemann sees a tension existing in

various kings who were formally legitimate and yet at the same time

scandalously illegitimate. According to Deut 17:14-20, an Israelite king

was legitimate only if he was a "brother,” i.e., related in ethnicity, and if he

read and used the Torah as the blueprint for life. With the exceptions of

Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:5-7) and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:2; 23:25), these kings were

scarcely legitimate according to Deut 17:14-20.29 Linking the prophets

together with the Torah as decisive agents of history, Brueggemann sees the

whole history of Kings as the interplay of tension among these factors.30

Along a similar line, Gottwald looks at the Elijah-Elisha story as

conflict between the prophets and the kings over military and political

28 Robert LaBarbera, "The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in

2 Kings 6:8-7:20," Catholic Biblical Quarterly (CBQ) 46 (1984): 651. 29 Walter Brueggemann, 2 Kings, Knox Preaching Guide (Atlanta, GA: John

Knox Press, 1982), 2. 30 Walter Brueggemann, 1 Kings, Knox Preaching Guide (Atlanta, GA: John

Knox Press, 1982), 2.

15

policies. Gottwald sees the kings and their officers as abandoning or

victimizing the lower classes of the community. He sees the prophets as

advocating the cause of the lowly Yahwists and, through prophetic

intervention, bringing the basic needs of these common folk to the attention

of the leadership.31

Todd takes the Elijah-Elisha stories as a reflection of the peasants’

social struggles against the Omrid dynasty. According to Todd, the pressure

from four areas not only pushed the peasants out of their inherited land but

also pushed them further down the social strata to the very bottom. They

were considered as “expendables.”32 First, it was the drought and famine in

Elijah’s time that forced the peasants off a land which could not produce

enough to sustain them. Second, warfare, corvée, and heavy taxes during

war-time drew more men from the land, thus increasing the load on the

family left behind. Third, the marginal land-owners already under pressure

would have been very vulnerable to being bought out by city entrepreneurs

who had but one single purpose—to squeeze out as much production as

31 Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible – A Socio-Literary Introduction

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 351-52. 32 Judith A. Todd, “The Pre-Deuteronomistic Elijah Cycle,” Elijah and Elisha

in Socioliterary Perspective, ed. Robert B. Coote (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 7-8.

16

possible from the land. The squeeze that was applied to the land would

further decrease the ability of the peasant to live off the land; many flew into

cities and formed a class of unskilled laborers on the fringes of society.

Fourth, the pressure from the previous three areas increased the incidence of

interest-bearing loans which then led into debt-slavery. Foreclosure on

loans abetted the transfer of land from the more egalitarian inheritance

system into the prebendal and patrimonial land tenure systems, which not

only decreased the peasants' interest in production but also forced the

peasants into groups of “expendables” called “sons of the prophets.” Elisha,

the leader of this expendable class, provided sustenance and refuge for these

sons of the prophets. The stories written about his miracles focused on food,

shelter, tools, and healing, practical concerns of his “sons of the prophets.”

In addition to the "expendables,” according to Todd, the upper

classes of the Israelite society also grew dissatisfied with the ruling "house

of Ahab.” Naboth, the representative of the upper classes, was killed by the

king in their controversy regarding the ownership of Naboth’s land. This

murder sent a chilling message to the Israelite land owners and pushed them

further toward a coalition with Elisha.33

33 Ibid., 8-9.

17

Todd further points out that the Shunammite woman, the

representative of the feminine side of the upper class who could attain to the

status of wealth but never that of power, also reacted toward the existing

social order and the political system which undergirded it. This feminine

group showed their allegiance to Elisha and supported him financially in

order to see a revolution that would increase their power to the equivalence

of their rank.34 These social-economic factors eventually brought about the

bloody revolution led by Jehu who had been anointed by Elisha. The Elijah-

Elisha story, according to Todd, was a collection of the oral stories of the

prophets' words and actions written down after the revolution to legitimatize

Jehu.35

Hill follows the same general direction of class struggle and

establishes Elijah as the unifier who combined the factions of the Yahwists,

the anti-Omrids, and other classes, ultimately resulting in the downfall of the

Omrid dynasty. Hill reaches this conclusion by comparing Elijah with local

heroes of Palestine such as Musa as-Sadr (the 12th Imam according to Shiite

Muslems), the rectors of Al-Azhar University in Cairo between 1680 and

34 Ibid., 9. 35 Ibid., 10.

18

1838, Mohammed ibn ‘Abd el-Wahhab (born 1703, the unifier of Saudi

Arabia), and Honi the Circle-drawer (a charismatic Jewish miracle-worker

in 1st century B.C. Palestine).36 Elijah’s social background, which is lacking

in the biblical account, is compensated for by Hill through his study of the

monotheistic local heroes.37 This approach provides much sociological

background for the Elijah-Elisha story, but it remains at best, as confessed

by Hill, somewhat sketchy and speculative.38

Salvation Stories

Moore makes an excellent literary-aesthetic analysis of the three

Elisha episodes in 2 Kgs 5:1-27; 6:8-23; and 6:24-7:20. By gathering the

contextual factors that are gleaned from the analysis of these three Elisha

episodes, Moore refutes (1) Hermann Gunkel’s view of seeing the Elisha

stories as prophetic veneration, (2) Burke O. Long’s view of seeing the

Elisha stories as Prophetic Conflict, (3) Leah Bronner’s view of seeing

Elijah-Elisha stories as deliberate polemics against Canaanite mythology,

36 Scott D. Hill, "The Local Hero in Palestine in Comparative Perspective,"

Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary Perspective, ed. Coote, 47-51, 57. 37 Ibid., 41. 38 Ibid., 72.

19

and (4) Robert LaBarbera’s view of seeing Elisha stories as a class

struggle against the socio-economic oppression within ninth-century Israel.39

Moore proposes, instead, that these three narratives are didactic

salvation stories set against the Aramean military threat of ninth-century

Israel; the stories reflect Yahwism’s theological struggle with Aramean

domination.40 The stories are the loyal Yahwists’ efforts to “identify and

explicate the saving action of Yahweh at a time when Aram’s sustained

military threat against Israel placed a question mark over Yahweh’s role as

Israel’s deliverer.”41 Moore’s contribution is especially in the integration,

not dichotomization, of literary and historical approaches.

Judgment and Revival

Corl sees the Elijah-Elisha story as God's judgment on the

unfavorable condition of the Israelite people followed by the favorable

response of the people after God's discipline.42 Corl characterizes the

39 Moore, God Saves, 105-28. 40 Ibid., 150. 41 Ibid., 128. 42 J. Banks Corl, "Elijah and Elisha within the Argument of Kings" (Th.M.

thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987).

20

ministry of Elijah as tragedy (a movement from ideal to unideal) and the

ministry of Elisha as comedy (a movement from unideal to ideal). Elijah

came to bring judgment in a time when the Israelites were in darkness, but

Elisha came to bring about revival. In Corl’s own words:

The period between Mt. Carmel and the succession of Elijah by Elisha can be summarized as one of comic movement, from the depths of the unideal to a more acceptable state of affairs in which the prophets of YHWH had freedom to minister publicly. Regardless of Ahab's spiritual state one fact is obvious about the period following Mt. Carmel, the Lord's prophets were no longer hiding in caves from Jezebel (cf. 18:4). The contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal had been the turning point. Elijah had invited the whole nation to watch and then to make a choice. When YHWH answered with fire they fell on their faces in repentance and proclaimed "YHWH is God!" At Elijah's bidding they seized the 450 prophets of Baal so that he could slay them. God had reassured Elijah at Horeb that He had kept 7,000 men who had not served Baal. No doubt the three prophets who aided Ahab against Syria were among this number, as well as the "sons of the prophets" who make their first appearance at this point in Kings (20:35). Far from hiding, they do not hesitate to follow the example of their mentor Elijah in rebuking Ahab (20:40-43). In the final chapter of 1 Kings it is interesting that the prophets of Ahab's court, though false, claimed to testify in the name of YHWH (22:11, 24), not Baal or some other deity. If not in truth at least in name YHWH was once more the God of Israel. At this point in the history of Israel's covenant relationship Ahaziah was not allowed the opportunity of consulting a foreign god, as his father had done for so long (2 Kings 1:16-17). YHWH's prophets had become a force for the king of Israel to consider.43

43 Ibid., 48-49.

21

Feministic Approach

Granowski in her treatment of the Elijah-Elisha stories

concentrates only on women: Jezebel (1 Kgs 19, 21; 2 Kgs 9), the widow of

Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:8-24), the widow of one of the sons of the prophets (2

Kgs 4:1-7), the Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 4:8-37; 8:1-6), Naaman’s

Israelite servant girl (2 Kgs 5:1-4), and the cannibalistic mothers in besieged

Samaria (2 Kgs 6:24-33).44

Granowski points out that there is a deceptively rigid religious

hierarchy in the Deuteronomistic perspective. The female characters – even

those as exemplary in their devotion as the Shunammite and the little maid –

achieve narrative presence only insofar as they testify to and facilitate the

spiritual efficacy of the prophets. Granowski sees the Deuteronomist as

circumscribing the female characters so that their access to the divine lies

only through these “men of God.”45

Mary Shields approaches the Elisha story from a feminist

perspective. She regards the child of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4) as

Elisha’s responsibility. She contends that Elisha raped the Shunammite

44 Janis Jaynes Granowski, "Polemics and Praise: The Deuteronomistic Use of

the Female Characters of the Elijah-Elisha stories" (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1996). 45 Ibid., 196.

22

woman based on his presumption that it was her desire to have a son.

Shields highlights the feminine achievement by pointing out that even

though the Shunammite woman was not named, she was mentioned as a

woman of valor (2 Kgs 4:8). Since this woman was the initiator of major

events in this episode, there was a clear reversal of role and power in the

traditional male society. 46

A Call Back to Sinaitic Covenant

From his approach of tradition-literary analysis, Roberts focuses

on 1 Kgs 17:1-19:14 and contends that this ninth century prophetic material

was incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History and received almost no

redaction.47 Elijah was portrayed with strong affinities to the prophet

Samuel as king-maker and king-breaker. Both acted as cultic officials,

intercessors, covenant mediators, and proponents of holy war.48 Roberts

also compares Elijah to Moses. This comparison reveals that the theology of

46 Mary E. Shields, "Subverting a Man of God, Elevating a Woman: Role and

Power Reversals in 2 Kings 4," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (JSOT) 58 (1993): 59-69.

47 Kathryn Lee Roberts, “Elijah and Ninth Century Israelite Religion” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996), v.

48 Ibid., 44.

23

the northern prophetic circle was written to challenge the encroaching

Baalism and to call the people to exclusive allegiance to the Sinaitic

Covenant, which culminated in the covenant renewal on Mount Carmel.49

Punishing the Hostile Civilian

Yafé uses the traditio-historical approach on 1 Kings 21. He

maintains that "Naboth’s grounds for rejecting the king’s offer had more to

do with his personal animosity towards the king than with his allegiance to

an ancient law which would have prevented him from selling his family

inheritance to an outsider. This assumption is reinforced even further by the

possibility that Ahab and Naboth were members of the same family."50

Yafé’s diachronic treatment of the text allows him to see certain sections of

the material as later additions and therefore to interpret the story in a

completely different light:

According to our alternate interpretation of the story, Naboth, a conservative Israelite, disliked the king so much – probably because of his progressive policies – that he did not even consider the option of selling his cherished land to him. Further, the text offers enough clues to infer from it that a dispute might have ensued between the

49 Ibid., 172-73. 50 Felipe C. Yafé, “The Case of Naboth's Vineyard (1 Kings 21): A historical,

sociological and literary study” (PhD diss., The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990), 2.

24

parties and that a curse might even have been uttered by the angered citizen. It is precisely the uttering of such a curse that led to the trial of Naboth and to his subsequent execution. In addition to finding that there are sufficient grounds to believe that Naboth might have offended the king, our alternate understanding of the story will also indicate that the king might have had the right to inherit the land and that the trial against Naboth was conducted fairly. By means of this new analysis of the account we will also realize that the sin for which the king is pardoned is not Naboth’s death, but rather that of his alleged idolatrous practices. Many of our assumptions concerning this “other” interpretation of the story stem from the fact that certain sections of the text which were added at a later date had the virtue of drastically changing the message of an earlier account, which according to our view, was not so hostile towards the king and his policies.51

Summary

Because the Elijah-Elisha stories are narrative literature, this in

itself is a contributing factor to the various interpretations. As is typical of

narrative material, the author will not summarize in a couple of sentences all

that he intends to say. But rather, through the settings, the portrayal of the

characters, and the development of the various plots, the author, by use of

his carefully constructed material, wants to mold an attitude and thus a

conviction in the reader’s mind.

Therefore, the entire Elijah-Elisha corpus must be viewed as

51 Ibid., 2-3.

25narrative literature in its canonical form. The approach to the material has

to be synchronic instead of diachronic in order fully to appreciate the

author’s literary expression. To achieve this end, poetics, the science of

narrative literature, will be discussed in the next chapter to familiarize the

reader with the basic literary components in the Elijah-Elisha stories and the

rules governing their use.

26

CHAPTER 2

METHOD AND APPROACH

From the perspective of text composition, there are two basic ways

to approach a narrative. The diachronic approach seeks to study the text

along the historical time line and tries to find out the compositional process

of the text from the oral stage all the way to the final written stage. The

synchronic approach seeks to study the text in its current form and tries to

relate the narrative to its context. In addition to these two approaches, there

is also sociological analysis, which seeks to find out the role that social and

cultural forces play in shaping literary perception.

Diachronic Approaches

In the previous chapter, we have seen many diachronic approaches

in the treatment of the Elijah-Elisha stories. These diachronic approaches

are natural extensions of critical scholarship in the study of the Pentateuch.

For the last hundred plus years, study of the Pentateuch has predominantly

utilized the methods of source criticism, form criticism, or tradition-

27

historical criticism. These critical methods have found their way into

studies of the former prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). The

term Hexateuch has been coined in source critical scholarship to include the

book of Joshua with the five books of Moses to show that these six books

form the basic literary unit in the larger history of Israel (Genesis—2

Kings). In the field of source critical study, the sources of JEDP not only

were discovered in the Hexateuch but also were discerned in Judges,

Samuel and even Kings.1

The classic form of source criticism as promoted by Wellhausen

reckons the four literary sources as the primary constituents of the

Pentateuch or Hexateuch. Arranged in chronological sequence, these are J

(for Yahwist), E (for Elohist), D (for Deuteronomist), and P (for Priest or

Priestly Document). J is commonly assigned to the tenth-ninth centuries

B.C. and is regarded as the court product of the southern kingdom. E is

commonly assigned to the ninth-eighth centuries B.C. and is regarded as the

product of the northern kingdom. D is chiefly found in the book of

Deuteronomy. It is a seventh century work framed in the eighteenth year of

1 For a brief description of the source critical activities in Former Prophets

see D. N. Freedman, “Hexateuch,” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 2:597-98.

28

Josiah (621 B.C.). The final document, P, is commonly assigned to sixth-

fifth centuries B.C. as a work compiled by a priestly editor from the

surviving temple records during the Exile.2 Source criticism seeks to

separate a written document into the original sources, and this method is

analytical and diachronic in nature.

Near the end of the 19th century, Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932)

spearheaded a new methodology in the study of the Old Testament called

form criticism. Form criticism seeks to analyze and interpret the literature

of the Old Testament through a study of its literary types or genres

(Gattungen). Gunkel has identified each literary type/genre through: (1) its

common store of thoughts and moods, (2) its traditional linguistic form, and

(3) the life-situation, or Sitz im Leben, of the people, in which the literary

type/genre originated, is used and is transmitted.3 Gunkel’s methodology

presupposes Wellhausen’s source criticism and puts the emphasis on the

oral stages of the literature. Form criticism seeks to understand the oral

composition and transmission prior to the writing of the sources into the

extant documents. Form criticism, when applied to biblical narrative

2 For a brief introduction to source criticism see D. N. Freedman,

“Documents,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:860-61. 3 John H. Hayes, An Introduction to Old Testament Study (Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1979), 127.

29

literature, finds it to be predominantly legend and not history.4 Consider

Gunkel’s words:

Consider especially the central portion of the Second Book of Samuel, the history of the rebellion of Absalom, the most exquisite piece of early historical writing in Israel. The world that is there portrayed is the world that we know. In this world iron does not float and serpents do not speak; no god or angel appears like a person among other persons, but everything happens as we are used to seeing things happen. In a word, the distinction between legend and history is not injected into the Old Testament, but is to be found by any attentive reader already present in the Old Testament.5

From the introduction above, it is evident that the form critical

approach is also analytical and diachronic in nature. Though very helpful in

discerning the genre of other literature, in the discussion of narrative

literature, form criticism presupposes source criticism and tends to be

subjective at times.

4 According to Gunkel, the distinctions between legend and history are many:

(1) Mode of transmission: legends originally were transmitted in oral tradition, history in writing. (2) Subject matter: legends deal with things that interest common people and have to do with private and family relations, while history deals with public occurrences and matters of political importance. (3) Sources: legends depend upon tradition and imagination, while history relies upon eyewitnesses and records. (4) Type of action narrated: legends frequently report things that are incredible—“violations of probability and even of possibility”—and involve the direct action of God or gods, whereas history deals with the credible. (5) Style and intent: history is prosaic and seeks to inform, while legends are poetic and aim to please, to elevate, to inspire, to instruct, and to move. Herman Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History, trans. W. H. Carruth (New York: Schocken Books, 1901), 1-12. See also the summary by Hayes, Introduction to Old Testament Study, 130-31.

5 Gunkel, Legends of Genesis, 10.

30

Gunkel’s work established not only the form-critical approach

to biblical study but also engendered a methodology subsequently

designated as the history of tradition, commonly known as tradition-

historical criticism. This approach seeks to recover the process and fortune

through which traditions passed and developed from their earliest

ascertainable form to their final textual expression.6 Source criticism

divides the text into ever increasing fragmentary sources; form criticism

attempts to isolate the smallest units of tradition and to trace their history. It

is tradition-historical criticism, however, that combines the results of source

criticism and form criticism and explains the organic structure and overall

unity of the text.7 The interpretation of history based upon tradition-

historical criticism, therefore, depends heavily upon the results of source

criticism and form criticism. This interpretation usually turns out to be

dramatically different from what is traditionally understood in the church

community.

Source, form, and tradition-historical criticisms are all analytical

and diachronic in nature. They are designed to break the text down into its

6 Hayes, Introduction to Old Testament Study, 180. 7 Ibid., 181.

31

component parts and to explain its presence historically. Since the

process requires many assumptions, often subjective, the result tends to be

very diversified.8

Sociological Analysis

Before moving to synchronic methods, one other approach—the

sociological approach—needs to be mentioned. This approach seeks to find

out the role that social and cultural forces play in shaping literary

perception. Knowing that the perceptions and literary conventions of the

Old Testament writers bear the stamp of their social and cultural situation,

the social scientists try to contribute to our understanding of the authors’

world by providing useful analogies from studies of modern societies.9 This

contribution mainly comes from several level. First, at the linguistic level,

it presupposes an oral tradition of literary genres. It depends on the study of

the literary genres of modern societies done by anthropologists and

folklorists to shed new light on the characteristics of the literary

8 E.g. Felipe C. Yafé, “The Case of Naboth’s Vineyard (1 Kings 21): A

Historical, Sociological and Literary Study,” (PhD diss., The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990).

9 Robert R. Wilson, Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 5-6. See also “class struggle” under chapter 1 of this dissertation.

32

conventions of the Old Testament. Second, at the cultural level, it draws

on the way modern societies function to help in understanding the social

structures and cultural institutions of ancient Israel. Third, at the

theological level, it depends on the social sciences to provide a more

profound understanding of Israel’s faith.10 This approach presupposes the

diachronic approach of form criticism.

The sociological approach inherits the general social patterns and

theories from some of the most influential social theorists such as Herbert

Spencer, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim.11 Herbert Spencer

(1820-1903) was a proponent of Social Darwinism. Drawing on Charles

Darwin’s work on the origin of species through natural selection, Spencer

held that all societies undergo an inevitable evolutionary development.12

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a major proponent of class struggle. He saw

history as a series of interactions between different social groups, each

having particular economic interests. According to Marx, the ruling class

who owns the society’s technological resources aims to control society’s

means of production and to exploit the working classes. The ruling class

10 Ibid., 6-7. 11 Ibid., 13. 12 Ibid.

33

seeks to perpetuate this situation and actively opposes social change by

using increasingly harsh means of repression. In contrast, the working

classes seek to reverse their oppression and eventually revolt. The

revolution leads to alterations in the social structure and permits the

development of new technology, and then the whole cycle is repeated.13

Max Weber (1864-1920) opposed Marx’s dialectical materialism and held

that history is shaped not by economic interests but by a society’s

commonly held value orientations.14 Emile Durkheim (1859-1917) held

that various sociological components of a culture have their own

independent existence. They can rightly be considered “facts” and may be

studied by the same scientific methods that are applied to physical “facts.”

Studying these sociological components will help us to understand how

they interact to shape the culture and impact individual lives.15

The problems of the sociological approach are many: First, the

compatibility of the sociological models applied to the biblical world needs

to be evaluated. For example, after seventy years of suffering, Marx’s

model proved wrong for the Russian society. Second, the generalizing

13 Ibid., 14. 14 Ibid., 15. 15 Ibid., 16.

34

character of sociological study yields difficulties when it is applied in the

study of history, which often emphasizes particulars.16 Third, sociological

data have their context; it is distorted when one tries to extract fragments

from their original context and apply them to ancient Israel.17 Fourth, there

are possibilities that atypical material may be used for comparative

purposes.18 Finally, in order to present a certain sociological model, the

exegetical integrity of the Old Testament text is often sacrificed.19

Rhetorical Analysis

A major synchronic approach to the narrative text of the Bible is

rhetorical analysis, which will be the method used in this dissertation.

Rhetorical analysis of biblical texts was first mentioned as such by James

Muilenberg in his 1969 presidential inaugural address to the Society of

Biblical Literature.20 Rhetorical analysis seeks to find not only the genres

or types used in the production of a biblical work, but also the ways in

16 Ibid., 28. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 29. 19 Ibid. 20 James Muilenberg, "Form Criticism and Beyond," Journal of Biblical

Literature (JBL) 88 (1969): 1-18.

35

which the biblical author borrowed or adapted those forms to suit his

purpose in weaving a work into a unified whole.21 This mandate to treat the

text as a unified whole spurred many scholars to turn to classical secular

literary criticism and employ its study methods to the biblical narrative.

Alter, Berlin, Bar-Efrat, Ryken, and Sternberg are among the scholars who

pioneered in the development of rhetorical analysis,22 though such analyses

are variously termed as literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, poetics,

narrative criticism, narratology, or even redaction criticism.23

21 In his own words, Muilenberg said, "What I am interested in, above all, is

in understanding the nature of Hebrew literary composition, in exhibiting the structural patterns that are employed for the fashioning of a literary unit, whether in poetry or in prose, and in discerning the many and various devices by which the predications are formulated and ordered into a unified whole. Such an enterprise I should describe as rhetoric and the methodology as rhetorical criticism." Ibid., 8.

22 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basics Books, 1982). Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983). Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, JSOTSup no. 70 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989). Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987). Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). As literary criticism is developed by these scholars, it becomes more evident that it can only be a synchronic and not a diachronic analysis. This method is at odds with source criticism (with its JEDP documentary hypothesis, for example) and form criticism. Both Berlin and Alter, unlike Muilenburg, offer approaches to biblical narrative that are in opposition to and corrective of the approaches of Wellhausen and Gunkel. For discussion of the difference of literary criticism compared to source criticism and form criticism, see Joe M. Sprinkle, “Literary Approaches to the Old Testament: A Survey of Recent Scholarship,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 32/3 (September 1989), 305.

23 Alan D. Ingalls, “The Literary Unity of the Book of Numbers,” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991), 8.

36

This literary criticism in its classical sense refers to the study

and evaluation of literature as an artistic production. This criticism deals

with the rhetorical, poetic, and compositional devices used by an author to

express his thoughts.24 Literary criticism in its classical sense is not to be

confused with the biblical “literary criticism,”25 which, like documentary

criticism, is another name for source criticism.

Powell points out that there are four major differences between

literary criticism (in its classical sense) and historical criticism (of which

source criticism, form criticism, and tradition-historical criticism are major

parts):26

1. Literary criticism focuses on the finished form of the text. The

objective of literary criticism is not to discover the process through which a

text has come into being but to study the text that now exists. In a

24 For literary criticism in its classical sense, see B. F. C. Atkinson, Literary

Criticism in Antiquity (Cambridge: at the University Press, 1934; repr., London: Methuen, 1952).

25 Krentz points out that Heinrich Zimmermann has called for limiting the term “literary criticism” to the study of sources (more properly called source criticism) for the sake of clarity. See Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 50. The German usage of this term “literary criticism” has become dominant in America, and the classical meaning of “literary criticism” has been lost as a result. Ibid., n. 36.

26 Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 6-10. Though Powell’s study is primarily in the New Testament, the comparison holds true in the study of the Old Testament.

37

historical-critical approach, compositional history of the text is usually

significant.

2. Literary criticism emphasizes the unity of the text as a whole.

Literary analysis does not dissect the text but discerns the connecting

threads that hold it together. The individual passages are interpreted in

terms of their contribution to the story as a whole. In historical criticism,

the narrative is viewed as compilations of loosely related pericopes, and

these individual units of tradition are most often the subject of analysis.

3. Literary criticism views the text as an end in itself. The

immediate goal of a literary study is to understand the narrative. The story

that is told and the manner in which it is told deserve full scholarly

attention. Historical criticism inevitably treats the text as a means to an end

rather than as an end in itself. The “end” for historical criticism is a

reconstruction of something to which the text attests.

4. Literary criticism is based on communication models of speech-

act theory. The philosophical bases for literary criticism are derived from

theories about communication. One representative theory is the speech-act

model proposed by Roman Jakobson.27 Every act of communication,

27 Ibid., 8-9.

38according to Jakobson, involves a sender, a message, and a receiver. In

literature, the sender may be identified with the author, the message with

the text, and the receiver with the reader. This can be represented like this:

Author Text Reader

The exact way in which these components interact with one

another is understood differently by different schools of literary criticism.

All theories of literature, however, understand the text as a form of

communication through which the author passes a message to the reader.

Historical criticism, on the other hand, approaches texts on the

basis of an evolutionary model. The text is viewed as the final form of

something that has evolved through sequential stages. The task of

interpretation, therefore, involves an analytical process that seeks to identify

these stages and to work backward through them in reconstructing a

hypothetical pattern of the text’s origin. A representative model is like this:

Historical Event

Oral Tradition

Early Written Sources

Text

39

In literary criticism, the text is viewed as the middle component in

an act of communication, whereas in historical criticism it is regarded as the

end product of a process of development. Literary criticism may be

regarded as dealing with a horizontal dimension of the text, and historical

criticism as treating mainly an intersecting vertical dimension. Based on

the differences in their approach, literary criticism and historical criticism

will produce different types of insight. Literary criticism is more likely to

describe the meaning of a text in terms of what it communicates between its

author and its reader, and historical criticism is more likely to describe its

meaning in terms of its origin and process of development.

There is an array of different methodologies in the field of literary

criticism. M. H. Abrams classifies these methodologies into four basic

types, which Powell summarizes as follows:28

1. Expressive types of criticism are author-centered and tend to

evaluate a work in terms of the sincerity and adequacy with which it

expresses the views and temperament of its writer.

2. Pragmatic types of criticism are reader-centered and view the

28 M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1953), 8-29. Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 11.

40

work as something that is constructed in order to achieve a particular

effect on its audience; the work is evaluated according to its success in

achieving that aim.

3. Objective types of criticism are text-centered, viewing the

literary product as a self-sufficient world in itself. The work must be

analyzed according to intrinsic criteria, such as the inter-relationship of its

component elements.

4. Mimetic types of criticism view the literary work as a reflection

of the outer world or of human life and evaluate it in terms of the truth or

accuracy of its representation.

The expressive, objective, and pragmatic types of literary criticism

correspond to the speech-act model in which the author communicates the

message through the text to the audience. Rhetorical criticism as is

practiced in biblical scholarship centers largely on the objective type, in

which the text is the focal point.29

The approach, therefore, is going to be synchronic, not diachronic.

We will try to treat the text as a unified whole as it is presented in the

29 Sprinkle, “Literary Approaches to the Old Testament,” 306-7.

41

canon. No attempt will be given to discuss the historicity of the text for

this is not the main goal of this dissertation.

Poetics

Poetics is the science of literature; it describes the basic

components of literature and the rules governing their use. Berlin defines

poetics as such:

The study of narrative, or narratology, is a subdivision of poetics. Poetics, the science of literature, is not an interpretive effort—it does not aim to elicit meaning from a text. Rather it aims to find the building blocks of literature and the rules by which they are assembled. In order to explain poetics as a discipline, a linguistic model is frequently offered: poetics is to literature as linguistics is to language. That is, poetics describes the basic components of literature and the rules governing their use. Poetics strives to write a grammar, as it were, of literature. The linguistic model is not accidental, for although poetics is as ancient as Aristotle, much of modern poetics, especially structural poetics, derives from linguistics. Nevertheless, for the sake of breaking free from the structural-linguistic association, and in order to differentiate more clearly between poetics and literary criticism, or interpretation, I would propose a different analogy. If literature is likened to a cake, then poetics gives us the recipe and interpretation tells us how it tastes.

Now it is relatively easy to make a cake if you have the recipe. It is somewhat trickier to start with the cake and from that figure out how it is made. But that is exactly what poetics tries to do. It samples many cakes in order to find their recipes. Poetics, then, is an inductive science that seeks to abstract the general principles of literature from many different manifestations of those principles as they occur in actual literary texts.30

30 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 15.

42

We will examine the elements of narrative and the general

principles as they are provided for us from the discipline of poetics. These

principles will be applied to the Elijah-Elisha stories, and from there the

interpretation of the stories will be derived. This is the most appropriate

means to study the Elijah-Elisha stories, for they are narrative. The

narrative encompasses several literary forms, such as reports, genealogies,

and stories. While all stories are narratives, not every narrative is a story.

The stories contained in Old Testament narratives have three basic

ingredients: setting, character and characterization, plot or action.31

There are four ways (called modes of narration) by which

storytellers can present these ingredients. In direct narrative, storytellers

simply report events, telling us in their own voice what happened. In

dramatic narrative, storytellers dramatize a scene as though it is in a play,

quoting dialogue of characters and noting the surrounding context. In

description, storytellers describe a character or give details of a setting. In

commentary, storytellers give us their explanations about details in the

story, background information, or the overall meaning of the story.32

31 Ryken, Words of Delight, 53. 32 Ibid., 43-44. Various scholars have used different terms to describe these

four modes of narration. For example, Licht describes them as: straight narrative,

43

Storytellers alternate these modes to achieve their purposes: Direct

narrative provides fluidity and keeps a story moving. Dramatized narrative

and description both slow the movement and focus the readers’ attention on

a dramatic “scene” (as though the readers were seeing it staged in a play).

Commentary allows storytellers to clarify anything that they think the

audience needs to know.33 Here is how the four modes appear in the story

of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21:1-4, 25-26 NIV):

[description of the setting for the event to follow] Some time later there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. [dramatic narrative] Ahab said to Naboth, “Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.” But Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.” [direct narrative] So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.” He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat. . . .[commentary] (There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before Israel.)

Scholars agree that the dramatic narrative was the preferred mode

scenic narrative, description, and comment. J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 29. This dissertation follows Ryken's terminology.

33 Ryken, Words of Delight, 43.

44

through which the biblical authors brought the stories to the readers.34

Unlike the commentary wherein the narrator's opinion is clearly defined for

us, the dramatic narrative presents various points of view as seen from the

perspectives of different characters in the story. A familiarity with the

modes of narration will enable the readers to discern the author’s emphasis

in the stories.

In the area of commentaries, there are two basic ways the narrator

can impose his interpretive point of view on the material. One is through

authorial assertion; the other is through normative spokesperson.35 When

the narrator enters the story and comments on characters and events in his

own voice, the commentary expressed in this way is called the authorial

assertion.36 For example, the narrator’s comment on Ahab in 1 Kgs 21:25-

26 is an authorial assertion.

A variation of the narrator’s directly commenting on the meaning

of an event consists of placing the right or normative interpretation in the

34 For example, Ryken calls this preferred mode of narration dramatic

narrative (Words of Delight, 44). Alter calls it direct speech (Art of Biblical Narrative, 66). Berlin follows Alter and calls it direct speech (Poetics and Interpretation, 64). Licht calls it scenic narrative (Storytelling in the Bible, 29-30). This predominant usage of dramatic narrative can be readily discerned by readers who spend time reading through any of the biblical narratives.

35 Ryken, Words of Delight, 84-85. 36 Ibid., 84.

45

mouth of a character in the story. Whenever a character in a story thus

interprets the meaning of the story, this character is a normative

spokesperson.37 For example, Joram was killed in the plot of Naboth’s

vineyard; Jehu’s interpretation of this event is given in 2 Kgs 9:25-26. Jehu

served as a normative spokesperson here. Jehu’s officer Bidkar who

received this interpretation served also as a witness to the prophecy of

judgment that both he and Jehu heard while they were riding behind Ahab.

Elements of Narrative

The stories of the Bible are made up of three basic elements—

setting, character and characterization, plot and plot structure. The most

helpful way to make sense of each individual story is to ask the following

narrative questions:

1. The question about the setting: where does the action occur? 2. The issue of character and characterization: who are the actors or

agents? How are they portrayed? 3. The issue of plot and plot outcome: what happens? What is the

result of the action?38

37 Ibid., 85. 38 Cf. Ryken, Words of Delight, 479.

46

Setting

Settings generally fall into three types—physical, temporal, and

cultural. The physical setting is the environment in which the characters

move and the action occurs. The temporal setting is the time in which the

action takes place, either the time of day or year or the historical era. The

cultural setting refers to the beliefs, attitudes, and customs that prevailed in

the world of the story.39

Physical Setting

The physical setting paints for the readers a vivid background of

the story and leads the readers to a deeper appreciation of the characters or

plots. Ryken sums it up well:

The physical settings of stories serve secondary functions as well. In keeping with the impulse of literature to show rather than merely tell, settings appeal to a reader’s imagination and make a story vivid. They sometimes build atmosphere. They frequently have symbolic overtones, without, of course, ceasing to be literal, physical settings. At the very least, settings often have a positive or negative moral or emotional meaning.40

In the stories of Elijah and Elisha, for example, Bethel was related

to religious apostasy, for it was one of the two places where Jeroboam set

39 Ibid., 54. 40 Ibid., 55.

47

up the worship of golden calves (1 Kgs 12:29). There were many

spiritual conflicts associated with this place. The first conflict was seen in

the encounter between the man of God from Judah and the old prophet who

resided in Bethel. It resulted in the death of the man of God from Judah (1

Kgs 13:24). The next conflict was in the encounter of Elisha with the

multitude of youth from Bethel, and it cost the lives of the forty-two youths

(2 Kgs 2:24).41 Another conflict was at the rebuilding of Jericho by Hiel, an

Israelite from Bethel, who disobeyed Yahweh’s command given through

Joshua not to rebuild Jericho (Josh 6:26). Hiel chose to violate Yahweh’s

command and suffered the death of his two sons Abiram and Segub (1 Kgs

16:34).

Physical settings help to describe the personalities of the

characters in a vivid way. For example, the settings that prepared the way

for the appearance of Elijah were always remote, unfamiliar, or places not

easily accessible. These physical settings tended to portray Elijah as a

solitary, rugged man, a man accustomed to the wilderness and clouded with

mystery. Elijah was first seen in the Kerith Ravine, east of the Jordan,

41 Both the old prophet and the youths were all in some way or at some time

in the past connected with Yahwistic worship. Their problem, therefore, was apostasy, and the nature of their conflicts against the men of God was different from the conflicts Elijah and Elisha had against Baal worship as championed by Jezebel and Ahab.

48drinking from the brook and being fed by the ravens (1 Kgs 17:3, 4).

Elijah was then seen in Zarephath of Sidon, a pagan land, being fed by a

Gentile widow (1 Kgs 17:9). Elijah was met by Obadiah during his search

for water in an unfamiliar land (1 Kgs 18:7). At Mount Carmel, Elijah

faced four hundred and fifty Baal prophets all alone (1 Kgs 18:22). After

the contest, Elijah was again alone at the top of Mount Carmel, praying for

rain (1 Kgs 18:42). Elijah ventured alone in the Judean desert close to

Beersheba (1 Kgs 19:4), then in a cave in Mount Horeb (1 Kgs 19:19).

Appearing from nowhere and at the right time, Elijah was sent by Yahweh

to confront Ahab in his newly possessed vineyard of Naboth (1 Kgs 19:18).

Later on, Elijah met the messengers of Ahaziah who were on their way to

Ekron (2 Kgs 1:3). In 2 Kgs 1:9 Elijah was seen sitting at the top of the hill

when facing the captains of the fifties. Elijah had often been perceived as

being taken up by the Spirit of Yahweh and being set down on some

unknown mountain or valley (1 Kgs 18:12; 2 Kgs 2:16). When Elijah was

taken up to heaven, he was all alone, except for Elisha, who, after repeated

refusals to leave, was allowed to accompany Elijah in his final journey on

earth (2 Kgs 2:12).

The physical settings for Elisha were radically different from

those for Elijah. These settings were always domestic places or places of

49

familiarity, often in the company of other persons. These settings

portrayed Elisha as a man of domestic living, a man of the crowd. In the

first setting, Elisha was introduced as he plowed a field with twelve yoke of

oxen (1 Kgs 19:19).42 After following Elijah, he slaughtered a yoke of oxen

and gave the meat to the people (1 Kgs 19:21). During their trip from

Gilgal to Jordan where the translation of Elijah took place, Elisha was the

one that communicated with the sons of the prophets in Bethel and in

Jericho (2 Kgs 2:3, 5). There was a sociable facet in the life of Elisha,

which we do not see very often in the life of Elijah. The setting for Elisha’s

healing of the water was among the people in the city of Jericho (2 Kgs

2:19). Elisha was seen as counseling three kings in the battle against the

Moabites (2 Kgs 3:17). The various physical settings also portrayed Elisha

as a domestic person. He lived in the house of the wealthy Shunammite

woman when he was in that vicinity (2 Kgs 4: 10). Elisha’s whereabouts

were always known to the people (2 Kgs 3:11; 4:22; 5:9; 6:13, 32; 8:7). His

ministry was among the multitude most of the time (2 Kgs 2:19; 3:12; 4:38,

43; 5:9; 6:1, 18, 32; 8:9).

Generally, the nature of a setting is consistent with the nature of

42 The field and the plowing are familiar settings. The only extraordinary

scene is the twelve yoke of oxen, which signifies the wealthy status of Elisha.

50

acts and characters.43 In interpretation, we should look for a

correspondence between the setting and the characters or between the

setting and the actions that operate within it. Whenever an exception to this

rule is encountered, it calls for special attention to the clash between scene

and agent or between scene and action because a special message always

accompanies such a clash.

Second Samuel 11:1-2 provides a good example of this kind of

exception. The temporal setting (to be discussed later) is in the springtime

when “kings went off to war” (2 Sam 11:1), yet the physical setting shows

that for some unstated reason David still remained in Jerusalem. David got

up from his bed and walked around on the roof one evening. Not only was

he where a king should not have been, neither was his heart on guard as that

of a king should have been. This conflict between the character and the

43 Kenneth Burke, a literary critic, says, “It is a principle of drama that the

nature of acts and agents should be consistent with the nature of the scene. . . . The scene is a fit “container” for the act, expressing in fixed properties the same quality that the action expresses in terms of development. . . . There is implicit in the quality of a scene the quality of the action that is to take place within it. This would be another way of saying that the act will be consistent with the scene. . . . The scene-act ratio either calls for acts in keeping with scenes or scenes in keeping with acts—and similarly with the scene-agent ratio. . . . Both act and agent require scenes that ‘contain’ them.” Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives (Cleveland, OH: Meridian, 1962), 3, 6-9, 15, quoted in Ryken, Words of Delight, 54.

51setting signifies some kind of trouble approaching this character and his

kingdom.

In the stories of Elijah and Elisha, we see that king Ahab was out

in the field looking for water for his livestock (1 Kgs 18:6) and later on at

the top of the city wall (2 Kgs 6:26). In both cases, neither setting was

normal for the presence of a king. Both settings communicate to the readers

a sense of urgency, a sense that something extraordinary had occurred.

Such desperate conditions reflect God’s judgment on Ahab’s disobedience.

Temporal Setting

A temporal setting provides a specific time frame within which

actions take place. It serves not only to give a historical marking point but

often reflects the condition of society during which time the actions take

place. For example, the rebuilding of Jericho was done in Ahab’s time (1

Kgs 16:34). This signifies that it was a time when Yahweh’s word was not

highly regarded.

The way in which time is expressed also helps readers to see how

the authors want the progress of the stories to be viewed. Bar-Efrat makes a

distinction between narration time and narrated time. Narration time is the

time required for the storyteller to tell the story. Narrated time is the time

52

required in the story for the action to take place.44 In 2 Kgs 6:13 after the

king of Aram had ordered his officers to find the whereabouts of Elisha, the

report came right back. It certainly took a while (the narrated time) for the

officers to find out that Elisha was in Dothan, but the narration time in this

story is almost non-existent, for how they discovered Elisha’s whereabouts

has only minimal importance in this story. When the narration time is

considerably shorter than the narrated time as in the case of 2 Kgs 6:13, this

shows that the author wants to pass quickly over the insignificant details

and to bring us to the next major action.

Cultural Setting

Knowing something about the cultural setting of a story is often

necessary for a correct interpretation of the passage. For example, to

appreciate fully the story of Elijah’s conflict with the prophets of Baal (1

Kings 17-18) one must read the story against the cultural background of

Baalism, which was at this time a state religion in the Northern Kingdom (1

Kgs 16:31-32). According to pagan mythology, during times of famine, the

god of death was victorious over the storm and fertility god Baal who was

supposedly entrapped in the underworld and unable to exercise his royal

44 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 143.

53

responsibility to care for widows. When Yahweh sent a famine upon the

land and cared for the need of the widow in Phoenicia, Baal’s backyard, it

demonstrated Yahweh’s royal authority over fertility and life/death. Right

after Baal’s prophets were unable to “resurrect” their god by their frantic

mourning rites, Yahweh sent down the storm (1 Kgs 18:45). It proved that

Yahweh really controlled the elements of the storm and possessed the

ability to bless Israel.45

In the battle of the three kings against Moab, the Moabite king

sacrificed his first born son on the city wall when all other hopes seemed to

have failed. An understanding of this practice in that contemporary world

will help the readers correctly to interpret the great fury that was to come

upon the army of Israel.46

Elemental Nature of the Settings

In most of the stories, the settings are unlocalized and elemental—

so general and universal that the readers can link the settings to their own

45 Robert Chisholm Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to

Using Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 152. 46 See discussion of this passage (2 Kgs 3:26-27) in chapter 5 of this

dissertation.

54

experience.47 Consider the following:

The captain went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, “Man of God, the king says, ‘Come down’” (2 Kgs 1:9 NIV)! Elisha said, “Go around and ask all your neighbors for empty jars. Don’t ask for just a few. Then go inside and shut the door behind you and your sons. Pour oil into all the jars, and as each is filled, put it to one side” (2 Kgs 4:3-4 NIV).

Both the hill and the house utensils are so general and universal

that most of us are familiar with them. The elemental nature of the setting

provides the general outline and activates readers to fill in the details on the

basis of their own memory and imagination. Ryken points out that such

description has a double effect: “One effect is concretion: we have a strong

impression of the physical reality in which the action occurs. . . . But along

with this concretion is a certain reticence—a refusal to fill in the detail and a

corresponding invitation for readers to imagine the specifics of the scene.”48

Such a presentation of the settings reinforces the elemental or

universal quality of the Bible and helps the readers to receive the Bible as a

timeless book, always up to date.

47 Ryken, Words of Delight, 55-56. 48 Ibid., 56.

55

Character

The second basic ingredient of a narrative is character and

characterization. We will first discuss character and then characterization.

Characters are generally classified along two axes. Along the horizontal

axis is the importance of the character to the plot. Along the vertical axis is

the extent to which the character is developed or described with reference to

his lifelikeness. The four quadrants then describe the various degree of

importance and development of the characters:

Round ⏐ Full-fledged ⏐ Supporting Character ⏐ Character ⏐ Major Character ——————⏐—————— Minor Character ⏐ ⏐ Type ⏐ Agent ⏐

Flat

Character Classification49

49 This is a modification of La Breche’s classification. See Pamela La

Breche, “A Methodology for the Analysis of Characterization in Old Testament Narrative” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992), 15.

56

Major Character / Minor Character

Based on the importance of the character to the plot, we label its

role in the plot as major character or minor character. There could be

more than one major character in a story, but the character who is of central

importance in a story, whether sympathetic or unsympathetic, is a

protagonist—the “first struggler” from whose viewpoint the action is seen.50

Elijah is a protagonist, a major character and a sympathetic one. The

character arrayed against the protagonist goes by the name antagonist.51

Ahab, clearly an antagonist, is also a major character though an

unsympathetic one, whose desire was to catch Elijah, the “troubler of

Israel” (1 Kgs 18:17).

Round Character

A round character has a multi-sided personality, with more than

two or three character traits coming into play, some of them possibly

contradictory.52 Round characters are “realistically portrayed; their

emotions and motivations are either made explicit or are left to be

50 Ryken, Words of Delight, 72. 51 Ibid. 52 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 4.

57

discovered by the reader from hints provided in the narrative. We feel

that we know them, understand them, and can, to a large extent, identify

with them.”53 A round character is always a dynamic character who goes

through development in the course of a narrative with respect to traits

already defined. Ahab is a round character, portrayed with many

personality traits. As a king of Israel, Ahab was rebellious before Yahweh

yet submissive to his wife and her wrong leadership. At first he seemed to

yield to Elijah’s advice, eating and drinking after the death of the prophets

of Baal, hitching up his chariot and going home (1 Kgs 18:41-42, 44). After

seeing his wife, however, Ahab seemed to revert to the old attitude again.

He seemed able to receive instruction from Yahweh at times (1 Kgs 20:14-

15) and even humbled himself before Yahweh in one instance (1 Kgs

21:28), yet at other times he was obstinate (1 Kgs 22:16, 18). In a word,

Ahab was consistently inconsistent.

Full-Fledged Character

In addition to what is already said concerning round characters,

Harvey’s definition of full-fledged character can be added:

. . . those characters whose motivation and history are most fully

53 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 31-32.

58

established, who conflict and change as the story progresses, who engage our responses more fully and steadily, in a way more complex though not necessarily more vivid than other characters. They are the vehicles by which all the most interesting questions are raised; they evoke our beliefs, sympathies, revulsions; they incarnate the moral vision of the world inherent in the total novel.54

Supporting Character

Supporting characters also tend to be round. They are

individualized and may be given much characterization, but they are

subordinate in the plot to the main characters, and their individual stories do

not necessarily receive closure. Supporting characters never remain a

center of attention for more than an episode or two.55 They sometimes

remain nameless through the entire plot.

Flat Character

A flat character is one who is characterized by only one or two

traits. Unlike the round character, the flat character is always static with no

development during the course of the narrative. Due to the lack of character

traits and lack of development, a flat character is easily recognized and

54 W. J. Harvey, Character and the Novel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press, 1965), 56, quoted in La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 15. 55 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 12.

59

remembered by the reader, requiring a minimum of interpretation.56

Obadiah is a flat character, portrayed as a devout believer by the narrator in

his commentary (1 Kgs 18:3). Obadiah was characterized by his

faithfulness to Yahweh as evidenced by his provision for the one hundred

prophets of Yahweh and his fear before Elijah (1 Kgs 18:4, 9-14).

Type

A special category of a flat character is the type. A type

represents a particular class with traits that are defined by that class. The

class may be psychological, moral or social, representing such groups as the

villain, the wise woman, the court official, the prophet, etc.57 Some

characters, such as Abigail or Nabal, could be considered types, Abigail

representing the class of the wise and Nabal the class of the foolish. The

degree to which a biblical character is portrayed as a type usually differs

among scholars. For example, while Berlin equates a type to a flat

56 Ibid., 8. 57 Ibid.

60

character,58 Sternberg cautions us not to generalize flat characters to the

point where they lose their individuality.59

Agent

An agent is a character “about whom nothing is known except

what is necessary for the plot . . . a function of the plot or part of the

setting.”60 Agents may remain members of a collective group, such as an

army, without ever being individualized. An agent is the center of attention

only as long as is necessary for the advancement of the plot.61

Though agents normally remain anonymous,62 it is not necessarily

so. For example, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11 is an agent, as described by Berlin,

58 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 23. 59 “. . . the Bible will not allow any ready-made law of association. The

scopes it operates with . . . are the universal and the individual to the exclusion of the typal. Not that the Bible’s characters are universals, for such personified characteristics, allegory fashion, would make the flattest types of all. Nor are their characteristics so individual as to exceed the bounds of human nature. Rather, each personality forms a unique combination of features, the parts common or recognizable enough to establish universality and the whole unusual enough to exclude typicality in favor of individuality. Many biblical characters share isolated attributes or drives; no two characters, except those patently stylized, are alike in overall makeup.” Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 347.

60 Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives,” JSOT 23 (1982): 78.

61 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 13-14. 62 Ibid., 14.

61

“The plot in 2 Sam 11 calls for adultery, and adultery requires a married

woman. Bathsheba fills that function. Nothing about her which does not

pertain to that function is allowed to intrude into the story.”63 The only

piece of information which we have about her is that she had cleansed

herself from uncleanness (2 Sam 11:4), and even that is plot information

and not character information. It tells the readers that the child that had

been conceived was David's.64 The demarcation between a supporting

character and an agent may not be readily discerned at times.

Function of Minor Characters

Though at times supporting characters or agents receive little

attention in the biblical narrative, still they are of much importance. There

are two functions that supporting characters or agents serve in biblical

stories: first, to further the plot; second, to lend the narrative greater

meaning and depth by illuminating the situation or the main character.65

In the episode which led to Ahab’s death (1 Kings 20-22), the

prophet Micaiah, son of Imlah, is a major character representing Yahweh to

63 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 27. 64 Ibid., 144, n. 8. 65 Uriel Simon, “Minor Characters in Biblical Narrative,” JSOT 46 (1990):

14-16. Minor characters include supporting characters and agents as discussed earlier.

62pronounce judgment upon Ahab. Zedekiah son of Kenaanah, the other

court prophets and the messenger sent to fetch Micaiah are minor characters

(1 Kgs 22:1-28). The court prophets all prophesied the success of Ahab’s

campaign (1 Kgs 22:11-12), and the messenger advised Micaiah to do

likewise (1 Kgs 22:13). All the predictions of success by the minor

characters and the pressures that they exerted upon Micaiah served only to

further the development of the plot. Micaiah, contrary to their expectation,

pronounced the disastrous result of Ahab’s campaign (1 Kgs 22:17, 23). In

protest, Zedekiah slapped Micaiah in the face. Zedekiah’s insult brought

out Michaiah’s even stronger affirmation of his prophecy (1 Kgs 22:25).

The final and strongest act of protest—Ahab’s putting Micaiah in prison—

served to bring out the ultimatum in Micaiah’s prophecy : “If you ever

return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me.” Micaiah then added,

“Mark my words, all you people!” (1 Kgs 22:28, NIV).

Minor characters serve also to lend the narrative greater meaning

and depth by illuminating the situation or the main character. When the

narrator uses a supporting character to shed more light on a main character,

the supporting character is called a foil character. A foil character is a

63

character who “sets off or heightens another character, usually by being a

contrast but occasionally by being a parallel.”66

In the translation of Elijah, the sons of the prophets are the agents;

they serve as foil characters. This insignificant group of people heightens

the alertness and the concentration of Elisha—Elijah’s successor. Twice the

sons of the prophets said to Elisha, “Do you know that Yahweh is going to

take your master up from you today?” Twice Elisha responded, “Yes, I

know. Keep quiet!” (2 Kgs 2:3, 5). Through the dialogue, the readers are

told not only that Elisha was aware of what was going to take place, but

more importantly, that Elisha was focusing his attention on following his

master’s earthly journey to the last moment. The sons of the prophets were

aware of the coming events, but Elisha went one step further; he

concentrated on what the coming events would mean to him personally.

When the sons of the prophets came before Elisha after the

translation of Elijah to gain permission to send out a search team for Elijah

(2 Kgs 2:16), they apparently did not comprehend the real meaning of what

had happened. Elisha refused their request at first, then yielded to their

66 Ryken, Words of Delight, 72.

64persistence. Their fruitless search only proved that Elisha was correct

and that he fully understood what Yahweh had been doing.

In each geographical location the sons of the prophets appeared to

mark the movement of the plot, and finally, they witnessed the successful

transferring of prophetic position (2 Kgs 2:15, 17). Not only did they

further the plot, but also, as foil characters, they illuminated the qualities of

Elisha’s personality.

Elliptical Quality in the Minor Character

In order to maintain focus on the main character or the plot

development, the biblical narrator often neglects the description of the fate

and character of the minor characters. The elliptical quality is especially

evident in the biblical narrator’s freedom to conjure up or to ignore minor

characters. For example, in the episode of 1 Kings 20-22, Micaiah was a

major character, the hero that represented Yahweh. In the overall plot of

the Elijah and Elisha stories, however, Micaiah was only a minor character.

After recounting the death of king Ahab, the narrator moved on to

something more important, rather than telling us whether or not Micaiah

was released from prison.

The categories that describe characters have considerable overlap;

65

they are not clear-cut definitions. It is better to see labels as points on a

spectrum rather than as discrete categories.

Characterization

The portrayal of character is called characterization. Characteri-

zation can be either direct through epithet or description, or indirect through

such techniques as speech or action. Direct characterization may provide an

early and complete understanding of a simple character. It may partially

reveal a complex character whose additional qualities will be developed

through indirect means. Or it may provide an external view which may or

may not be qualified by a later inner view.67

Direct Method of Characterization

Epithet

There is a variety of ways by which storytellers can portray a

character in a story. The first is the epithet. An epithet is a subtle yet most

effective way of characterization. It can be a proper name, or a term that

conveys familial relationship (the child’s mother), a gentilic designation

67 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 19-20.

66

(widow at Zarephath of Sidon), or a social role or office (king, comman-

der of the army, man of God).68

The Bible’s extensive use of proper names reflects its emphasis on

the individual. Sternberg observes that the Bible “boasts the largest

onomasticon in literary history.”69 Certain proper names cannot be defined

etymologically (such as David);70 others can be explained and are even

interpreted by the narrator himself (such as Esau and Jacob). Frequently the

names reflect more about the giver than the receiver (such as the names of

Leah’s children and Rachel’s children).71 A careful awareness of the

context will help the reader to interpret proper names. The name “Elijah”

(hY*l!a@; WhY*l!a@), meaning Yah(weh) is my God, signifies Elijah’s ministry

in struggling against Baal worship in Israel and trying to bring the heart of

Israel back toward Yahweh. “Elisha” ( uv*yl!a$), meaning God is salvation,

68 Ibid., 20. 69 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 329-30. 70 David dw]D`, the name is conjectured to come from doD “beloved” but the

etymology is uncertain. See Earl S. Kalland, #410, in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:184.

71 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 21.

67

signifies Elisha’s ministry in bringing salvation to Israel during its time

of need (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:17; 7:1).

An epithet is used to express a familial relationship. Shields

suggested that the son of Shunammite woman was the result of her being

raped by Elisha.72 The familial titles from the text do not support her

suggestion: The Shunammite woman was called “his/the child’s mother” (2

Kgs 4:19, 20, 30), and her husband was referred to as “his (the child’s)

father” (2 Kgs 4:18, 19). Elisha consistently referred to the boy by a neutral

term “your (the Shunammite woman’s) child” (v. 26), “the boy” (vv. 29, 32,

34, 35), or “your (the Shunammite woman’s) son” (v. 36).

An epithet also characterizes a person’s standing before Yahweh.

The term “man of God” refers not only to Elijah and Elisha but also to the

young prophet from Judah (1 Kgs 13:1; 2 Kgs 23:16-17), the one who

foretold Ahab’s victory (1 Kgs 20:28). In each case, the title “man of God”

referred to the person’s office as a representative of Yahweh. The old

prophet that brought the man of God home to eat and drink was never called

“man of God” himself. His residing in Bethel provides the reader with the

connection of old Yahwistic worship in that locality. His lie to the younger

72 Mary E. Shields, “Subverting a Man of God, Elevating a Woman: Role and

Power Reversals in 2 Kings 4,” JSOT 58 (1993): 62.

68

prophet reflects the apostasy that people in this town had gone through (1

Kgs 13:18).

Description

In describing a character, the Bible tends to give only enough

details for identification purposes and avoids any detailed physical

description. It is as if the prohibition on graven images has been extended

to literary images. There is no concrete corporeal representation of human

beings.73 Direct description may be given either by the narrator, by other

characters, or by the character himself.

In 2 Kings 5, the narrator gave us the description of Naaman.

Naaman was “commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great

man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the

Lord had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had

leprosy” (2 Kgs 5:1 NIV). This description includes the status, profession,

gentilic designation, military ability, and physical peculiarity of the

character. When a description is given by the omniscient narrator, the

readers need not question the validity of this description.

A description can also be given by other characters. Consider the

73 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 34-35.

69messengers’ description of Elijah to King Ahaziah, “He was a man with a

garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist” (2 Kgs 1:8, NIV).

That was the physical description of Elijah. When the description is given

by another character, we need to be aware that that character may not

perceive the truth, or his words may be influenced by personal motives. In

this physical description of Elijah we see no reason for doubting the

messengers’ accuracy, for Ahaziah readily recognized that it was Elijah the

Tishbite (2 Kgs 1:8).

A description can also be from the response that others have

toward the character. This type of characterization often has the moral

quality of that character in mind. When Jehoshaphat asked for a prophet of

Yahweh aside from those eager-to-please-their-benefactor prophets, Ahab

answered, “There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the

Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me,

but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah” (1 Kgs 22:8). In the king’s

response, we see Micaiah as an upright prophet, one who had access to

Yahweh, and who did not fear his earthly master but proved faithful in

bringing Yahweh’s message to the inquirer.

In addition to being characterized from the outside by the narrator

or other characters in the story, a character might be allowed self-

70

characterization. Elijah’s comment on himself gives us a rare glimpse of

his inner life: “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty. The

Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put

your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they

are trying to kill me too” (1 Kgs 19:14). Elijah considered himself a “lone

ranger.” Consistent with what the settings portrayed him to be, he believed

that he was alone in fighting the battle for Yahweh. Yahweh’s remedy for

him in this respect was for him to call Elisha alongside him. Later on

Elisha proved faithful in accompanying his master to the very end of his

earthly life.

In summary, direct description describes for the readers the

character’s status, profession, gentilic designation, distinctive physical

features, abilities, and moral or psychological qualities. It can also describe

the inner life of the character—the emotions, attitudes, motivations or

thoughts.74

Indirect Method of Characterization

While direct techniques yield the most certitude about

characterization, it is the indirect means that storytellers often use to tell

74 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 25, 28.

71

their stories. Speech and actions which “show” rather than “tell” the

reader what a character is like are the primary methods of characterization

in biblical narrative.75 La Breche summarizes the advantage that indirect

characterization has over direct characterization:

Indirect characterization leads to greater realism of presentation, as it is closer to how people come to know each other in real life. It also requires closer reading and greater effort on the part of the reader, since the gap between the character’s speech and actions and his or her personality or inner life must be bridged through inference. . . . Indirect presentation also lends itself to a dynamic rather than static development of a character, since the reader’s perceptions are allowed to evolve in the course of the narrative.76

Speech

As mentioned previously, dramatic narrative is the preferred mode

through which the biblical authors bring the stories to the readers. Speeches

uttered by various characters not only advance the plot but also characterize

the characters in the story.

Alter calls attention to the beginning speeches uttered by the

characters in any new story, for they are always revelatory in portraying

those characters.77 In the story of Naboth’s vineyard, the first (and the only)

75 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 38. 76 La Breche, “Analysis of Characterization,” 32-33. 77 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 74.

72speech (1 Kgs 21:3) that Naboth gave revealed his reverence toward his

inheritance, reverence which was based solely on the word of Yahweh. In

contrast, when Ahab related this incident to his wife, he deliberately omitted

this very reason, making Naboth’s refusal appear like a willful defiance to a

king.

Action

Character is portrayed indirectly not only through speech but also

through action. Often, action and speech are inseparable, working together

to give the readers a clear characterization of the characters. After Naboth

refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab, his speech to Jezebel and his action of

sulking in bed and refusing to eat revealed to the readers that Ahab was a

dishonest, immature king who lacked moral courage and integrity.

Jezebel’s killing of Naboth and omitting in her speech the details of

Naboth’s death portrayed her as a mother-like figure who was bent on

spoiling her child-like husband. This couple indulged their own appetites

and was not the leaders of principle and integrity for which Yahweh’s law

called.

In the story of Ahab’s war against Aram, Ahab did not want to

believe Micaiah’s prophecy. He challenged the prophet’s word by putting

73

the prophet in prison until Ahab’s safe return from the battlefield (1 Kgs

21:26-27). Yet in action, Ahab entered the battlefield in disguise, leaving

Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, alone in his royal robes (1 Kgs 22:30). Ahab’s

speech points to his disbelief of Yahweh’s sovereignty; his action points to

his fear that Yahweh’s word may finally come true. Here is a king who

consistently reveals his inconsistency and lack of moral courage.

Plot

The third basic ingredient of a story is the plot. The plot of a story

is the arrangement of events that are constructed with the principles of

unity, coherence, and emphasis. It is a sequence of related events woven

together by the author in order to convey to his readers the whole actions of

a story.78 Aristotle stated that a plot “should have for its subject a single

action, whole and complete, with a beginning, a middle, and an end.”79

Based on the treatise by Aristotle, the nature of plot is as follows:

First, a plot needs to be of a certain magnitude and needs to have a

beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does not have

78 Ibid., 62. 79 Aristotle Poetics 23, in Aristotle, On Man In the Universe: Metaphysics,

Parts of Animals, Ethics, Politics, Poetics, ed. Louis Ropes Loomis (New York: Walter J. Black Inc., 1943), 438.

74

to follow anything else, but after which something else naturally takes

place. An end is that which naturally follows something else, either by

necessity or as a general rule, but has nothing following. A middle is that

which follows something else and also has some other thing following it. A

well-constructed plot must neither begin nor end haphazardly.80 Second,

the parts of a plot are selective. A plot does not need to include all life

details of a character. Each part must be an organic part of the whole; if any

part is removed, the plot will be disjointed or disturbed.81 Third, good plots

will not be merely “episodic,” that is, episodes or acts succeeding one

another without probable or necessary sequence. Rather, plots come

together following the rule of cause and effect and are constructed on

certain principles.82 Fourth, plots are either simple or complex. In a simple

plot, an event simply happens after a previous action. In a complex plot, an

event is caused by a previous action. The cause is either by reversal of the

situation by which conditions in the plot are transformed into their opposite,

80 Aristotle Poetics 7, Ibid., 428. 81 Aristotle Poetics 8, Ibid., 429. 82 Aristotle Poetics 9, Ibid., 429-30.

75

or by recognition of the truth as a character moves from ignorance to

knowledge.83

Plot Unity

Plots come together following the rule of cause and effect and are

constructed on certain principles.84 To analyze a plot in a biblical story

effectively one should look into the organizational principles. The most

important principle is that of conflict. Ryken says,

The most customary pattern of organization in a plot is one or more conflicts, . . . The conflict can consist of physical conflict, character conflict, inner psychological conflict, or moral/spiritual conflict. A plot ordinarily consists of the progress of the conflict(s) toward a point of resolution. . . . it is a safe rule of interpretation always to look first for plot conflict(s).85

In the story of Elijah, conflicts were very evident organizational

principles. Conflict first started with Ahab’s introduction of Baalism into

Israel (1 Kgs 16:31-33), an open violation of God’s command (Deut 5:7-8).

God, in turn, punished the Israelites with drought. This conflict led to still

another conflict at the top of Mount Carmel, where Yahweh exerted a death

blow to an impotent Baal (1 Kgs 18:16-40). This Mount Carmel

83 Aristotle Poetics 10, Ibid., 430-31. 84 Aristotle Poetics 9, Ibid., 429-30. 85 Ryken, Words of Delight, 62.

76

experience ended with the killing of four hundred and fifty prophets of

Baal. The contest at Mount Carmel led to yet another conflict between

Jezebel and Elijah, leading Elijah to flee to Mount Horeb. Other conflicts

continued until Yahweh completely removed the house of Ahab.

Plot types

Plots can be categorized in a variety of ways. Ryken mentions

eight different plot types.86

1. Tragic plot: A protagonist who has great potential or

opportunity undergoes a catastrophic change of fortune caused by his or her

tragic, but very human, character flaw (Adam, Saul, Samson).

2. Punitive Plot: An unsympathetic or villainous character

undergoes an adverse change of fortune as a punishment for misdeeds

(Jezebel, Ahab, Absalom).

3. Pathetic Plot: A sympathetic character undergoes suffering or

adversity through no particular fault of his or her own (Joseph, Job, Jesus).

86 Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1984), 53-54.

774. Comic Plot: A sympathetic character undergoes a change

from misfortune or deprivation to happiness and fulfillment (Abraham,

Ruth, Esther).

5. Admiration Plot: A sympathetic hero successfully overcomes

one threat after another. These are the stories in which heroes always win

(Daniel, Deborah, Elisha).

6. Reform Plot: An initially unsympathetic or evil character

changes for the better (Jacob, Saul/Paul, the prodigal son).

7. Degeneration Plot: An initially good and sympathetic character

degenerates (Adam and Eve, Solomon, Hezekiah).

8. Revelation Plot: It focuses on the protagonist’s progress from

ignorance to knowledge (Abraham’s understanding of faith in his pursuit

for a son; Job’s understanding of God and himself through his suffering;

David in his adultery and murder learning that not even the king can sin

with impunity).

These types are flexible guidelines. Some combination of various

features are possible, such as in Joseph’s story, which is both a pathetic and

a comic plot. The plot types mentioned above are useful organizing tools;

they are not literary straitjackets into which we should force every story.

78

Plot Structure

A well-constructed story normally develops its plot along one or

more conflicts. The conflict can be physical conflict, character conflict,

inner psychological conflict, or moral/spiritual conflict.87 The plot structure

of this type of story often develops according to the following basic pattern:

Setting Action begins Conflict introduced Conflict intensifies A potential solution appears Conflict subsides/moves toward resolution Conflict is resolved Action ends Closure88

A good story usually maintains a degree of tension, even after the

plot reaches its climax. Plot twist is a good tool to maintain this kind of

tension; it is used not only to reflect real life but also to capture the readers’

continuing attention. In the plot development of the Book of Ruth,

Chisholm points out the plot twist:

Setting (1:1a) Action begins (1:1b-2) Conflict introduced (1:3-5) (Pause: Relief?) (1:6-7) Conflict intensifies (1:8-23)

87 Ryken, Words of Delight, 62. 88 Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition, 157-58.

79

A potential solution appears (chapter 2) Conflict moves toward resolution (3:1-11) Plot Twist (3:12): Potential wrong ending (the reader feels a tension headache coming on). Move toward resolution resumes (author offers a pain reliever) (3:13-18). Conflict resolved (but not before one more plot twist in 4:4) (4:1-12) Action ends (4:13-17) Closure (4:18-22)89

If a test or inner conflict is at the heart of the story, the plot

structure often follows the basic pattern:

Setting Test or challenge Protagonist’s response Divine counterresponse and consequences Closure90

A good example is Naaman’s quest for healing in 2 Kgs 5:1-19a,

in which the plot structure can be outlined as follows:

Setting (2 Kgs 5:1): The major character is a Gentile hero who had leprosy.

Test Introduced (2 Kgs 5:2-3): The test was brought to Naaman

through an Israelite slave girl. The hope of his cure is before Elisha in Samaria.

Major Character’s Response (2 Kgs 5:4-7): Naaman pursued healing

with an impressive powerful approach. Naaman’s approach, nevertheless, found him at a dead end.

89 Ibid., 158. 90 Ibid., 157.

80Divine Counterresponse (2 Kgs 5:8-10): Elisha’s offer to heal the

leprosy required Naaman’s complete humiliation. Plot Twist (2 Kgs 5:11-12): Would the major character give up his

pursuit of healing? Plot Twist Resolved (2 Kgs 5:13-14): The advice of Naaman’s lowly

servants changed his course of action. Naaman’s submission to the man of God brought him healing.

Consequence (2 Kgs 5:15-19a): The major character’s humility

before the man of God and his alarm toward worshipping in the temple of Rimmon evidenced his genuine conversion.

Inclusio

In searching for the unifying factor of a plot, we often need to set

the plot’s boundaries. We need to look for a relatively large block of

literature, trying not to examine the trees, thereby missing the whole forest.

There are many ways to set the boundaries of a plot. One of them is

“inclusio,” a pattern that starts and ends the plot with the same words.

First Kings 17 shows a clear example of inclusio. The chapter

starts with the word of Yahweh (vv. 1, 2), and ends with praise from the

widow of Zarephath, “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the

word of Yahweh from your mouth is the truth” (v. 24).

81

Poetic Justice

Poetic justice occurs when good characters are rewarded and bad

ones are punished.91 Ahab killed Naboth and robbed him of his vineyard (1

Kgs 21:16). Ahab, in turn, was killed because of his sin. In the same way

the dogs had licked up Naboth’s blood, the dogs also licked up Ahab’s

blood (1 Kgs 21:19; 22:38).

Some Other Literary Elements of Hebrew Narrative

Repetition

Much of the patterning in biblical narrative consists of repetition.

Repetition is used to emphasize a theme, to produce a concerted wholeness

in a story, or to bring the readers to the focal point of the story. There are at

least six types of repetition that biblical narrator used in the stories, from the

smallest and most unitary elements to the largest and most composite ones.

They are: repetition of word, Leitwort, motif, theme, sequence of actions,

and type-scene.92

91 Ryken, Words of Delight, 71. 92 Alter lists five types of repetition: Leitwort, motif, theme, sequence of

actions, and type-scene. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 95-96.

82Repetition of word

The narrator used word repetition: (1) to communicate that the

character eagerly desired to acquire something, or (2) to emphasize that the

character was in certain extreme conditions. Coming back from the hunt,

Esau was described by the narrator as saying, “Give me that red red

( <d)a*h* <d)a*h*) stuff” (Gen 25:30). It expressed Esau’s strong desire

toward Jacob’s stew. In order to cover up what he acquired from Naaman,

Gehazi answered Elisha’s inquiry of his whereabouts with the emphatic

expression, “Your servant has gone nowhere, nowhere ( hn`a*w` hn\a* . . .

al))” (2 Kgs 5: 25)! Having the Aramean soldiers encircled in his siege,

the king of Israel asked Elisha, “Shall I slay, I slay (hK#a^ hK#a^h^) them,

my father” (2 Kgs 6:21)? The repetition of words showed the readiness and

the eagerness on the king’s part to do so. Confronted with the death of the

king of Israel, the king of Judah, the queen-mother Jezebel, and the loss of

the city of Jezreel to Jehu all in one single day, the leaders of Samaria, when

challenged by Jehu to fight him militarily, were very very (da)m= da)m=)

terrified.

“Leitwort”

Hebrew words are composed mainly of triliteral roots. This

83

system makes transparent the etymological nucleus of both verbs and

nouns, however conjugated or declined. It allows a greater flexibility of

word repetition than is possible in Western languages.93 Martin Buber and

Franz Rosenzweig recognized this kind of purposeful repetition of words in

biblical prose. In the explanatory prefaces to their German translation of

the Bible they used Leitwortstil (literally, “leading-word style”) to describe

this literary convention, and coined Leitwort (literally, “leading-word”) for

the keyword used. Buber said:

A Leitwort is a word or a word-root that recurs significantly in a text, in a continuum of texts, or in a configuration of texts: by following these repetitions, one is able to decipher or grasp a meaning of the text, or at any rate, the meaning will be revealed more strikingly. The repetition, as we have said, need not be merely of the word itself but also of the word-root; in fact, the very difference of words can often intensify the dynamic action of the repetition. I call it “dynamic” because between combinations of sounds related to one another in this manner a kind of movement takes place: if one imagines the entire text deployed before him, one can sense waves moving back and forth between the words. The measured repetition that matches the inner rhythm of the text, or rather, that wells up from it, is one of the most powerful means for conveying meaning without expressing it.94

The story in 2 Kings 1 is a humorous episode centered on the

Leitwort dr~y` (“come down”; it appears in vv. 4, 6, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 12, 14,

93 Ibid., 92. 94 Ibid., 93.

84

15, 15, 16. NIV translates as leave (the bed), come down, fell). We may

capture the Leitwort flavor by paraphrasing these verses loosely:

Elijah said to Ahaziah, “Thus says the Lord, ‘You will not come down.’” The first captain said to Elijah, “The king said, ‘come down.’” Elijah said, “Let the fire come down!” The fire came down and consumed the captain and his men. The second captain said to Elijah, “Thus says the king, ‘come down.’” Elijah said, “Let the fire come down!” The fire came down and consumed the captain and his men. The third captain pleaded for his life, “Let not the fire come down.” Elijah came down with the third captain. Elijah came and said to Ahaziah, “Thus says the Lord, ‘You will not come down.’” And Ahaziah died. Motif

Motif is a concrete image, a sensory quality, an action, or an

object which recurs through a particular narrative. Motif has no meaning in

itself without the defining context of the narrative; it may be incipiently

symbolic or primarily a means of giving formal coherence to a narrative.95

Land is an important motif in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The

whole land of Israel belonged to Yahweh, and it was given to the Israelites

in Joshua’s time with Jericho placed under the ban ( <r\j@) as an

acknowledgment of Yahweh’s ownership. Israel denied Yahweh’s

ownership of the land by rebuilding the city of Jericho in Ahab’s time (1

95 Ibid., 95.

85

Kgs 16:34). Furthermore, Ahab introduced Baal worship into the nation

(1 Kgs 16:31, 32). Ahab also disregarded Naboth’s inheritance right to the

land which Yahweh had bestowed to his forefathers (1 Kgs 21:3-4). These

and other wicked actions eventually led to the removal of Israel from the

land of Canaan and her being carried into exile in Assyria (2 Kgs 17:23).

Theme

Theme is a recurring idea and forms part of the value-system of a

narrative. Theme may include moral, moral-psychological, legal, political,

historiosophical, or theological idea.96 The centrality of the word of

Yahweh in daily life is the theme in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The

word of Yahweh brought in deliverance to those who depended upon him

and brought in judgment to those who rebelled against him.

Sequence of Actions

This pattern occurs in the form of threefold repetitions, or three

plus one, with some intensification or increment from one occurrence to the

next, usually concluding either in a climax or a reversal.97 The three

captains with their fifty men commanded Elijah to come down; only the last

96 Ibid.

86

97 Ibid., 95-96. Also, Ryken, Words of Delight, 47.

87

one succeeded by a dramatic change of attitude—submission to the

prophet (2 Kings 1). In the translation of Elijah, there were three identical

exchanges between Elijah and Elisha, followed by a fourth incident in

which the transferring of prophetic office actually happened (2 Kgs 2:2, 4,

6, 9-10).

Type-scene

Type-scenes are repeated events or situations that recur

throughout the Bible; they are built around understood conventions about

what should be included and in what order items should appear.98 Alter

suggests that type-scenes often occur at crucial junctures in the lives of the

protagonists. He identifies the following type-scenes, “the annunciation . . .

of the birth of the hero to his barren mother; the encounter with the future

betrothed at a well; the epiphany in the field; the initiatory trial; danger in

the desert and the discovery of a well or other source of sustenance; the

testament of the dying hero.”99

98 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 96; also, Ryken, Words of Delight, 50-51. 99 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 51. For suggestions of other type-scenes

see Joel Rosenberg, “Biblical Narrative,” in Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, ed. Barry W. Holtz (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 49-50, and James G. Williams, “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-Scenes,” JSOT 17 (1980): 108-10.

88

The “promise to the barren wife” is identified by Williams as a

type-scene.100 In the Old Testament this type-scene occurs in Gen 18:1-15;

Judg 13:2-24; and 2 Kgs 4:8-17 with these conventions:

1. The wife is barren. 2. God appears. 3. God promises a son. 4. The event is confirmed in spite of human doubt. 5. The promised son is born and given a significant name.

In 2 Kgs 4:8-17 the prophet Elisha functions as God (convention

2); the son is born but the name is not given (convention 5). This is in

keeping with the author’s intention of placing Elisha as the representative of

Yahweh and maintaining the boy as an agent.

A type-scene as an established literary convention conveys a

coherent yet restrictive message. Alter points out that, as the literary

creation progresses, the mere repetition of the same literary convention

conveys a smaller information content. It is the variation of the type-scene

that the readers are to look for in regard to the information the biblical

author intends to convey.101

“The call of a prophet” is identified by Rosenberg as a type-

100 Williams, “The Beautiful and the Barren,” 110. 101 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 62.

89

scene.102 It appears in Exod 3:1-4:17; Judg 6:11-24; 1 Sam 3:1-20; Isa

6:1-10; Jer 1:1-10; Ezek 1:1-3:15; and Jonah 1:1-3; 3:1-3 with the following

basic features:

The prophet is often addressed in a time of historical crisis. He is visited unexpectedly by God or an emissary while going about his daily business. He is given a commission or task to perform. He hesitates and complains that he is unworthy of the charge, or otherwise unready. He is reassured by the divine voice, and finally he is given a sign that God is with him in his new endeavor.103

The anointing of Jehu as king of Israel (2 Kgs 9:1-13) fits this

type-scene with three exceptions: A young man from the company of the

prophets represented God in calling out Jehu; Jehu hesitated in responding

to this call by deprecating what the young prophet had said; the object of

anointing was a military commander instead of a prophet. The call of Jehu

instead of a prophet signified that the sword (1 Kgs 19:17) was the severe

method Yahweh intended to use on Israel’s leadership when it was

consistently rebellious against Yahweh.

The calling of Elijah is recorded nowhere in the entire Kings

narrative; this is in keeping with the lofty, mysterious status with which the

author intended to characterize Elijah. “The call of the prophet” does not

102 Rosenberg, “Biblical Narrative,” 50. 103 Ibid. Though the name of this type-scene is “the call of the prophet,”

Gideon was called as a civil leader and not as a prophet (Judg 6:11-24).

90

apply to Elisha (1 Kgs 19:19-21). Because he was treated as the

continuation of Elijah and not as just another prophet, this type-scene was

purposefully avoided.

Point of View

While biblical narrative is generally narrated in the third person by

a seemingly omniscient narrator, there are ways that the point of view of

others, other than that of the narrator, are presented.104 The author of Kings

used at least five ways to express a character’s point of view:

Naming

Most of the characters have proper names, but they are often

referred to by other names that express the relationship or perspective that

the speaker has toward them. From the way the speaker names the

character, we can discern, at times, the progression of the relationship

between these two persons. In the Shunammite story, while the narrator

consistently called Elisha “man of God” (2 Kgs 4:21, 25, 27), the

Shunammite called Elisha, “holy man of God” (2 Kgs 4:9), “my lord, man

of God” (v. 16), “man of God” (v. 22), “my lord” (v. 28), “you” (v. 30), and

104 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 43-44.

91finally she prostrated herself before him without calling him any name (v.

37). It is clearly a move from a distant formality into a closer familiarity.

The less words in the name also reflects the urgency that the woman felt as

she approached Elisha for help. Finally, only her actions, not her words,

could express her gratitude.

Naming can also reflect the character’s self-awareness. The proud

yet leprosy-inflicted Naaman called himself “your servant” (2 Kgs 5:15, 17,

17, 18, 18) before Elisha after he was miraculously cured of his leprosy.

This was the direct result of his recognizing that the God of Israel was the

only true God; therefore, he called himself a servant in front of God’s

representative.

Another interesting phenomenon is the lack of naming. Elijah had

been called “man of God” by the Zarephath widow (1 Kgs 17:24), “my

lord” by Obadiah (1 Kgs 18:7), “man of God” by the captains of the fifties

(2 Kgs 1:9, 11, 13). Ahab called Elijah “troubler of Israel” (1 Kgs 18:17)

and “my enemy” (1 Kgs 21:20) indicating his animosity toward Elijah.

Jezebel, nevertheless, in all her speech, did not call Elijah anything other

than “you” (1 Kgs 19:2). This indicated not only her animosity toward

Elijah but also her unwillingness to recognize Yahweh or his prophets.

92

Inner Life

Another way of showing a character’s point of view is by

informing the readers what that character thought, felt, feared, etc.—in other

words, by portraying the inner life of the character.105 When Jehu

proclaimed a great sacrifice for Baal, he was in reality planning in his heart

to terminate the prophets of Baal (2 Kgs 10:19). By giving us the inner life

of Jehu, the narrator told the readers Jehu’s real point of view.

When king Hezekiah was informed by the prophet Isaiah that the

Babylonians would come and take every possession from his dynasty and

carry them into exile, he responded, “The word of the Lord you have

spoken is good” (2 Kgs 20:19 NIV). The narrator gave us Hezekiah’s inner

life right away in the same verse, “For he thought, ‘Will there not be peace

and security in my lifetime’” (2 Kgs 20:19 NIV)? Realizing his own sin

and that he was unable to control the destiny of his dynasty, Hezekiah’s

point of view was that he should be content with the self preservation in his

lifetime.

The term hnh (hinneh)

hN}h! is traditionally translated as “behold” or “look.” When used

105 Ibid., 61.

93

with deictic force, this particle appears in many verbal and adverbial

clauses to add the force of immediacy to the account, making the reader

aware that the action is going on in the speaker’s mind, or that the object is

actually in sight.106

In the episode of the siege of Dothan, we see the points of view

from both sides as they are introduced three times by hN}h!w+. The first

scene occurred when the servant of Elisha got up in the morning. He went

out and his perceptional view point is noted following hN}h!w+, “behold, an

army with horses and chariots is surrounding the city” (2 Kgs 6:15). After

Elisha prayed for this young man, the second scene revealed the servant’s

changed point of view following hN}h!w+, “behold, the mountain is full of

horses and chariots of fire” (2 Kgs 6:17). After the Arameans were led

inside the city of Samaria and their eyes were opened, the third scene

introduced what the Arameans saw following hN}h!w+, “behold, they were in

the midst of Samaria” (2 Kgs 6:20). The first scene is from the eyes of the

servant looking at the material world; the second scene is from the same

point of view but looking at the spiritual world; and the third scene is from

the eyes of the Arameans.

106 Allen P. Ross, Biblical Hebrew Handbook (Dallas, privately printed,

1986), 209. See also the discussion in Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 62, 149 n. 37.

94Dramatic Narrative

Dramatic narrative is the preferred mode which biblical authors

used to present the story. In dramatic narrative, it is as if we are viewing

things from the characters’ perspective, seeing how they perceive things.

For example, before the battle of Ramoth Gilead, many prophets prophesied

in the name of Yahweh regarding the outcome of the battle (1 Kgs 22:6, 11,

12, 17, 19-23, 24, 25, 28). Everyone except Micaiah prophesied in favor of

king Ahab. As Zedekiah went to great length to prove that he truly had a

prophecy from Yahweh, it is not until a few verses later that his point of

view was proven wrong (1 Kgs 22:38).

The Zarephath widow fed Elijah, and one day her son died. She

said to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come

to remind me of my sin and kill my son” (1 Kgs 17:18 NIV)? Her

perspective was that her sin had caused the death of her son. While we do

not know if this is the case, nevertheless, from her point of view, the

storyteller informs the readers indirectly that Elijah’s godly life must have

made this widow very much aware of her own sin. Her final comment,

“Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the Lord from

your mouth is the truth” (1 Kgs 17:24 NIV), indicated her true conviction.

The dramatic narrative as uttered by the Israelites on Mount

95Carmel represented their changing points of view as the story progressed.

First, when Elijah asked them to choose Yahweh or Baal, the people said

nothing (1 Kgs 18:21). It was not clear to them who was the true God.

When Elijah proposed the contest to reveal the true God, they agreed,

“What you say is good.” As Yahweh revealed himself by burning up the

sacrifice, the people prostrated themselves and cried out, “Yahweh—He is

God, Yahweh—He is God” (1 Kgs 18:39). The three stages of Israelites’

perspectives, from indecision to being open for inquiry to ultimate

discovery, were clearly portrayed.

Direct Narrative

Sometimes for the purpose of expressing a quick response to a

certain happening, biblical authors may use direct narrative to express a

point of view. Second Kings 3:26-27 shows two such points of view. The

first action by the king of Moab was to break through the siege and to arrive

at the side of the king of Edom with the point of view that he might induce

Edom to turn against Israel and Judah. When the first action failed, the king

of Moab took the second action by sacrificing his firstborn son on the city

wall as a desperate plea to his god Chemosh. The king’s point of view was

that he might invoke the wrath of Chemosh upon the Israelites. This second

96

point of view succeeded in becoming the point of view of the Israelites,

for they responded with a quick withdrawal and returned to their own

land.107 Both the King of Moab’s first point of view and his second point of

view (eventually the Israelites’ point of view) were not fact-based; they

seemed to reflect the confusion in the desperate situation found on the

battlefield.

Reported Speech

Reported speech occurs when a character reports what another has

said. It is a means that the narrator uses for characterization. Berlin,

building on the work of Savran, divides the reported speech into verifiable

and non-verifiable categories.108 Within the first category we sometimes

see exact repetition of a recorded original speech, but at other times the

report is significantly altered.

For example, Naboth’s refusal to sell or swap his vineyard to

Ahab (1 Kgs 21:3) was repeated by the narrator (1 Kgs 21:4) and by Ahab

(1 Kgs 21:6). The narrator’s report confirmed that Naboth’s refusal was

107 This was the point of view of the Israelites, for no real punishment was

described as a result of that great fury. See chapter 5 of this dissertation for a detailed discussion.

108 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 97.

97

based upon his concern of the inheritance of the fathers. But Ahab

omitted this very reason when he repeated Naboth’s refusal to Jezebel. This

dishonest repetition paints Naboth’s refusal as harsh and unreasonable.

Gaps in the Narrative

The biblical narrator also selects and rejects, lengthens and

abbreviates, illuminates and obscures his material in order to focus on his

expressed purpose and to maintain his literary connections with his

audience. The narrator has a tendency, therefore, to skip a stage in the plot

and to let the reader fill in the gap. For example, in 2 Kgs 5:3 the Israelite

maiden suggested that Naaman’s wife appeal to Elisha, and in the next

verse Naaman was already telling this to the king. The narrator saw no

need to relate the intermediate phase during which the wife of Naaman told

her husband about the maid’s suggestion. In the story of the miracle of the

oil (2 Kgs 4:1-7), Elisha directed the widow to borrow vessels from all her

neighbors and to shut herself up in her house. Immediately, the next verse

says, “She left him and afterward shut the door behind her and her sons” (2

Kgs 4:5). The readers must supply the stage at which she actually borrowed

the vessels.109 The gap-filling also requires the readers to be actively

109 Simon, “Minor Characters in Biblical Narrative,” 13, 19, n. 5.

98

involved in the reading of the narrative. Sternberg says,

From the viewpoint of what is directly given in the language, the literary work consists of bits and fragments to be linked and pieced together in the process of reading: it establishes a system of gaps that must be filled in. This gap-filling ranges from simple linkages of elements, which the reader performs automatically, to intricate networks that are figured out consciously, laboriously, hesitantly, and with constant modifications in the light of additional information disclosed in later stages of the reading.110

Synchroneity and Simultaneity

There are times that two simultaneous episodes have to be

presented in the same narrative. Talmon observes:

The biblical author, not unlike any other author, found himself in a predicament when he faced the logistic problem of how to present intelligibly two episodes which occurred synchronously under different circumstances and in different geographical settings, but nonetheless were intimately bound up with each other with regard to the historical or dramatic events portrayed in them. Recording such episodes one after the other would result in the impression that they came about in a chronological sequence and not simultaneously. Such an arrangement would thus distort the “historical truth.”111

In the book of Kings the author applied at least two techniques to

110 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 186. 111 Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity

in Biblical Narrative,” in Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1993), 112.

99solve this predicament: one was cross-references of chronology, the other

was resumptive repetition.

Cross-references of Chronology

By applying cross-references to the chronologies between the

northern kingdom and the southern kingdom, the author of Kings tied the

events of both kingdoms together. For example, 2 Kgs 3:1, “Joram son of

Ahab became king of Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of

Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned twelve years.” This technique

works well when a well-defined chronological system already exists.

Resumptive Repetition

A biblical author sometimes has to sidestep from the main story in

order to bring a certain episode to a logical conclusion. He then employs a

literary element called resumptive repetition to bring the readers back to the

main story. Talmon describes this technique:

The author safeguarded the linear continuity of the narration and at the same time permitted the listener or the reader to become aware of the synchroneity of the events related by cutting the thread of a story at a convenient (or even not quite so convenient) juncture. He would then splice in other matters of a different narrative character and

100

resume the first account by means of repeating the verse, phrase, or even the word, at which the cutoff had occurred.112

For example, though the narrator said in 2 Kgs 1:1 “Moab rebelled

against Israel after the death of Ahab,” he proceeded to put the “rebellion”

subject aside, and this subject was not picked up again until the sentence in

2 Kgs 3:5, “After the death of Ahab, king of Moab rebelled against the king

of Israel.” In between these two verses, the author had to take care of the

important issues of kingship succession in Israel and prophetic succession

from Elijah to Elisha. The kingship passed from Ahab to his son Ahaziah

(1 Kgs 22:51). Ahaziah’s death from falling caused his kingship to pass to

Joram, another son of Ahab, inasmuch as Ahaziah had no son (2 Kgs 1:17).

After the death of Ahaziah, the succession of prophetic office from Elijah to

Elisha also took place (2 Kings 2). After king Joram and the prophet Elisha

were introduced to the scene, the author then took the readers back to the

conflict resulting from Moab’s rebellion.

Placement and Sequence in Old Testament Narrative

The placement of a smaller narrative within a larger narrative can

have strategic importance. Chisholm mentioned:

112 Ibid., 121.

101

To understand fully the significance of a narrative one must examine its placement within the larger whole of which it is a part. Just as one cannot assess the significance of a scene in a movie apart from the film’s overall plot and message, so one must attempt to understand how each individual narrative in a biblical book or complex of books (e.g., Joshua-Kings) contributes to and is impacted by its larger context.113

For example, the narrator placed Hiel’s brief story (1 Kgs 16:34)

right after the introduction of Ahab to warn of the coming of sure judgment

upon Ahab. Hiel violated Yahweh’s word and his two sons died. Similarly,

Ahab violated Yahweh’s command by introducing Baal worship into Israel,

his two sons were also to die of an untimely death. First Kings 16:34,

therefore, served as a foreshadowing for the many following episodes about

Ahab that Yahweh’s judgment was sure for anyone who dared to challenge

his authority.

Summary

From the discussions above, it is clear that rhetorical criticism,

which was first mentioned by Muilenberg and then developed by Alter,

Berlin, Bar-Efrat, Ryken, Sternberg and others, is the most appropriate tool

for the analysis of the Elijah-Elisha stories. The rhetorical approach

respects the integrity of the text. It teaches readers to appreciate fully the

113 Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition, 168.

102biblical message by learning to be sensitive to the literary devices that

the biblical authors so masterfully displayed in their stories. With the

introduction of poetics and the literary elements in this chapter, this

dissertation starts the analysis of Elijah and Elisha stories in chapters 4 and

5.

102

CHAPTER 3

SURVEY OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Scholars have recognized in recent years the unity of the Former

Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and their consistent reflection

of the perspective of the book of Deuteronomy.1 This recognition has

largely come as a result of Noth’s argument on the Deuteronomist and his

Deuterono-mistic history.2 But to recognize the unity of the Former

Prophets and the existence of an exilic Deuteronomist, possibly an

individual or a school of writers, who was responsible for the final form of

the Former Prophets does not necessitate one to accept Noth’s concept of

1 For example: Robert L. Cate, An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its

Study (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), 201-205. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 231. James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Story and Faith (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 105, 107-108. William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic Wm. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 135-36. Peter C. Craigie, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1986), 131, 133, 136, 139-143. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 110, 114-16, 122, 136, 145-46, 153-55, 160-65.

2 The sources will be given in the unfolding of the chapter.

103

late date of the book of Deuteronomy.3 This present writer’s focus is on

the Deuteronomistic History—the history and theology as conveyed through

the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. A summary and then a

survey of the Deutero-nomistic History is presented as following.

The issue of the Deuteronomistic History was started by Martin

Noth with his argument for a single exilic author who composed the entire

work from Joshua to Kings. Noth’s generally negative approach to the

Deuteronomistic History was countered by Gerhard von Rad and Hans

Walter Wolff. Von Rad argued that positive hope still resided with the

house of David, while Wolff argued that positive hope was dependent upon

Israel’s possible return to the covenant of their forefathers.

The issue of the Deuteronomistic authorship also led to the

development of two redaction schools. The Cross school argued that there

were two redactors, one pre-exilic and the other exilic, through whose

combined effort the Deuteronomistic History took shape. The Smend school

argued that three exilic redactors gave the final shape to the Deuteronomistic

3 The date of Deuteronomy is essentially Mosaic. See discussions by Peter C.

Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976), 24-29. Kenneth Anderson Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), 96-102, 128. Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King; the Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1963), 28, et al.

104

History. Recently, a return to a single authorship of the Deuteronomistic

History has been offered by Hans-Detlef Hoffman, B. Peckham, J. Van

Seters and Steven McKenzie. These various positions are discussed below.

Noth's Deuteronomisitc History

In Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Martin Noth established

for himself a monumental place in studies of the historical books. He argued

that a single author wrote the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and

Kings) around the middle of the sixth century B.C. during the early part of

the exile.4 This anonymous author apparently witnessed the historical

catastrophic exile. Questioning the meaning of what had happened, he

researched and answered this question in a comprehensive and self-

contained historical account, using those historical traditions to which he had

access.5 Noth named this anonymous man the Deuteronomistic Author and

the history that he wrote the Deuteronomistic History. Noth referred to this

4 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Max

Niemeyer Verlag, 1957). This work contains two parts, the first dealing with the "Deuteronomistic History" comprising the corpus of literature in the Hebrew Bible from Deuteronomy to the end of 2 Kings, the second with the work of the Chronicler (1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), and an appendix dealing with the Priestly document and the redaction of the Pentateuch. The first part was translated by Jane Doull and others and published as The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup no. 15 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981), 12.

5 Ibid., 99.

105

author and also to his work by the abbreviation Dtr.6 To avoid

confusion, this dissertation uses Noth’s abbreviation of Dtr to refer only to

the Deuteronomistic Author, and DtrH to refer to the Deuteronomistic

History.

Noth based his argument on the resemblance of the Deuterono-

mistic language and way of thinking in the DtrH to the language and way of

thinking found in the Deuteronomic Law. He pointed out that at every

important point in the course of history, Dtr brought forward the leading

personages with speeches which look both forward and backward in an

attempt to interpret the course of events. Through these speeches, Dtr drew

relevant practical conclusions about what people should do.7 These

speeches or commentaries as found in Joshua 1, 23, 1 Samuel 12, 1 Kgs

8:14-61, and 2 Kgs 17:7-23 clearly revealed Dtr’s interpretation of history

from Joshua to Kings. This practice of inserting general retrospective and

anticipatory reflections at certain important points in the history has no exact

parallel in the Old Testament outside the DtrH. This characteristic,

6 Ibid., 4.

7 Ibid., 5.

106

according to Noth, strongly supports the thesis that DtrH was conceived

as a unified and self-contained whole.8

Whether Deut 1:1-4:43 was Dtr’s insertion to form an introduction

for the entire DtrH, as argued by Noth,9 is still a debate,10 but it is clear that

Joshua through Kings does show a consistent theological and historical slant

toward the perspective of Deuteronomy.

Noth’s Deuteronomistic theology is generally a negative one. Dtr

discovered that God was at work in history, continuously meeting the

accelerating moral decline with warnings and punishments and, finally,

when these proved fruitless, with total annihilation.11

Gerhard von Rad

Gerhard von Rad was one of the first to question Noth's negative

perception of the Deuteronomistic History.12 He pointed out that the

8 Ibid., 6.

9 Ibid., 14, 35.

10 Cf. Meredith Kline, Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1963). Kline compared the entire Book of Deuteronomy to the Hittite treaty of the 2nd millennium B.C.

11 Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 89.

12 Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy. Studies in Biblical Theology (SBT) no. 9 (London: SCM, 1953, German original 1948), 74-91.

107

positive treatment of the Davidic dynasty needed to be accounted for.

Yahweh promised an enduring Davidic dynasty through Nathan's prophecy

in 2 Samuel 7. This promise had remained central in Yahweh's gracious

dealings with the kings of Judah where Yahweh had preserved them “for

David my servant's sake.”13 David was portrayed in post-Davidic history as

a man perfect before Yahweh, therefore, a measuring standard for the kings

after him.14

In von Rad's perception, on the one hand, the northern kingdom

transgressed Yahweh's commandments and brought on herself the judgment

due as is reflected in the epilogue in 2 Kgs 17:7-23. On the other hand,

Nathan's prophecy played a major role in the history of the southern

kingdom. The last four verses of Kings implied that God's promise to David

still remained: Jehoiachin was released from prison, received special favor

from the king of Babylon, and ate at the king's table for the rest of his life (2

Kgs 25:27-30). This is a strong indication that the line of David had not yet

come to an irrevocable end. Yahweh could start using the line of David

again, if He chose to do so.

13 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:20, 25; 9:5; 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19, 20.

14 1 Kgs 3:3; 5:7; 8:17; 9:4; 11:4, 6, 33, 38; 14:8; 15:3, 5, 11; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 21:7; 22:2.

108

For Dtr, the functioning of the divine word in history was the

most important thing: "With your mouth you have promised and with your

hand you have fulfilled it" (1 Kgs 8:24). This word of Yahweh, which

announced judgment and which also preserved the house of David, united

the varied strands of history into a unified whole. In von Rad's own words,

"The Deuteronomist shows with exemplary validity what saving history is in

the Old Testament: that is, a process of history which is formed by the word

of Yahweh continually intervening in judgment and salvation and directed

towards a fulfillment."15

Von Rad had difficulty in attributing the Book of Judges and the Book

of Kings to the same author because of their different styles. The Book of

Judges is characterized by cyclical repetition of apostasy, enemy oppression,

repentance, and deliverance. The responsibility for not observing Yahweh's

commandments is attributed to the people. The Book of Kings characterizes

itself by more linear structure; the responsibility for not obeying Yahweh’s

commandments is charged to the kings.16

15 Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 91.

16 Von Rad, "The Deuteronomist's Theology of History (The Books of Kings)," Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962; German original 1957), 1:346-47.

109

Hans Walter Wolff

Similar to von Rad, Wolff is not satisfied with the negative

explanation of Noth's Deuteronomistic theology.17 In Wolff’s opinion it

took too much effort for Dtr to compose such a gigantic historical work,

unparalleled by the surrounding world, just to explain the end of Israel's

history.18 However, Wolff disagrees with von Rad as to the hope that is

given to the Davidic house. He feels that the Mosaic covenant as recorded

in Deuteronomy overrides Nathan’s oracle. When the Davidic rulers

abandon the covenant word, Nathan’s oracle is no longer in force.19

Wolff sees the DtrH as a downward spiral repeated by the apostasy

of the Israelites, their punishment by Yahweh, their crying to Yahweh for

help, and Yahweh's deliverance and a new enactment in Israel's salvation

history. This pattern is seen in all four major phases of Israel's history.

17 Wolff states, "One cannot be satisfied with Noth's interpretation that DtrH,

'because of his own peculiar conscientiousness and reverence for the actual course of events, . . . simply reported as such this last fact known to him on the subject of the history of the Judean kings.' That interpretation simply does not comport with the idea that DtrH—as Noth himself insists—used the greatest of care in selecting and organizing his materials." See Hans Walter Wolff, "The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work," The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, 2nd edition, ed. Bruggemann and Wolff, trans. Frederick C. Prussner (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 85. German original in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 171-86.

18 Wolff, "Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work," 83-85.

19 Ibid., 86.

110

(1) During the time of Joshua

In Joshua's time, "the people served Yahweh as long as Joshua

lived" (Judg 2:7). This close relationship with Yahweh at the beginning

lasted only for a short time.

(2) During the time of the judges

Only a generation after Joshua's death, all of Israel "did what was

evil in the sight of Yahweh and served the Baals" (Judg 2:11). The anger of

Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and He sold them into the hands of their

enemies (Judg 2:12, 14). When the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh

raised up judges to deliver them from the hand of those plunderers (Judg

2:16, 18).20 Apostasy always brought consequences, however. Yahweh’s

original promise was for Israel to take over the whole land, but then it

changed: "I will not drive out before them any of the people which Joshua

had left at his death, in order to test Israel by them whether they will walk in

the ways of Yahweh (Judg 2:21, 22).” This symbiosis with Canaan appears

to Dtr to be a new enactment by Yahweh in history, coming at the end of a

long phase of disobedience (cf. Judg 3:4).

20 Ibid., 87.

111

(3) During the time of the kings

The people’s rebellion in demanding a king is seen in 1 Samuel 12

as a major defiance against Yahweh's very sovereignty.21 In his grace,

Yahweh condescends to heed his people: He chooses David as his king and

Jerusalem as the place where the name of Yahweh will find a dwelling (1

Kgs 8:16). Both of these enactments are completely new elements in

history. God's judgment for Israel's rebellion comes in the form of thunder

(1 Sam 12:19). Israel's entreating through Samuel (v. 19) brings in

Yahweh's assurance of salvation (vv. 20, 22).

(4) During the time of the exile

King Manasseh's apostasy irrevocably sealed the fate of the

southern kingdom. Judah lost her national existence, as did the northern

kingdom. Yahweh rejected his people, his chosen city (Jerusalem), and the

house where his name dwelled. Though the people were in exile at the end

of DtrH, according to the pattern, Yahweh could still bring in a new

21 Wolff sees the people’s demand of a king a major rebellion that makes even

the apostasy under the judges seems trifling. Ibid., 88.

112

enactment in the salvation history of Israel, if the people would only

repent and cry to Yahweh again.22

To substantiate his claim that Yahweh is ready and willing to grant

the Israelites deliverance even in their state of exile, Wolff points out that

the key word "return,” bWv, is embedded in the major speeches of Dtr.23 In

addition, Wolff argues that Deut 30:1-10 and 4:29-31, which both contain

the key word of “return,” were added by a second hand, a contemporary of

Dtr, as a frame to the discourse of Moses in order to emphasize the positive

outcome of the people's return to Yahweh. All that remained for Israel to do

was to return to the covenant of the fathers, which Yahweh still had not

forgotten. Israel’s return to the covenant in her time of affliction offered the

only possibility for her salvation. This is the kerygma that Dtr had for his

audience.

Von Rad and Wolff both pointed out the positive aspects of DtrH.

They challenged Noth's conception of DtrH as being entirely too negative.

Contrasting with Noth's argument for single authorship, they also raised the

question of multiple redactors behind this entire work.

22 Ibid., 89-90.

23 The word bWv, is detected by Wolff in 1 Sam 7:3; 1 Kgs 8:33, 35, 47, 48; 2 Kgs 17:13; 23:25. Ibid., 90-93.

113

The Redaction Schools

The study of DtrH subsequent to von Rad and Wolff took up the

question of later redaction and its significance.24 Two distinct schools of

thought emerged: one based on the work of Frank Moore Cross,25 the other

on that of Rudolf Smend.26

The Cross School

According to the Cross school, DtrH was compiled by a redactor

(Dtr1) during the reign of Josiah and ended at 2 Kgs 23:25. 2 Kings 23:26-

25:30 shows the expansion by another exilic editor (Dtr2) around 550 BC to

include the disaster of the exile. Dtr2 also revised the first edition27 in order

24 Mark A. O'Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment

(Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1989), 7.

25 Frank M. Cross, "The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History," Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1973), 274-89. This article was first published as "The Structure of the Deuteronomic History," Perspectives in Jewish Learning, Annual of the College of Jewish Studies, 3 (Chicago, 1968), 9-24.

26 Rudolf Smend, "Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte," Probleme Biblischer Theologie, ed. H.W. Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 494-509.

27 Cross identified this revision in Deut 4:27-31; 28:36-37, 63-68; 29:27; Josh 23:11-13, 15-16; 1 Sam 12:25; 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:11-13; 8:25b, 46-53; 9:4-9; 2 Kgs 17:19; 20:17-18; 21:2-15. Other passages are suspect: Deut 30:11-20, and 1 Kgs 3:14. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 285-87.

114

to address the exiles and to call for their repentance, so that a restoration

to their land might become possible.

Cross accepts Noth's framework of the Deuteronomistic History

but favors the positive themes of the Davidic covenant as articulated by von

Rad and the subdued hope of repentance and return as articulated by Wolff.

Cross’s theory of two redactors tries to account for the arguments by Noth,

von Rad, and Wolff.

Cross points out that the oracle of Nathan and the prayer of David

in 2 Sam 7:1-16 and 7:18-29 were ignored by Noth and should be included

as part of the Deuteronomistic speeches.28 When it comes to the

Deuteronomistic theology (in Dtr1), Cross is in favor of von Rad's perception

of the motifs of lawsuit and judgment on one hand, and the perception of the

theme of grace on the other hand.29 The sin of Jeroboam and the faithfulness

of David and Josiah are contrasted throughout the Deuteronomistic Book of

Kings. These two themes reflect two theological stances, one stemming

from the old Deuteronomic covenant theology which regards destruction of

28 Ibid., 275.

29 Ibid., 276.

115

the dynasty and people as necessarily tied to the apostasy, the other

drawing from the royal ideology in Judah, the eternal promise to David.30

The appearance of Manasseh and his evil deeds, however, are

difficult issues for Dtr1. Cross finds no hint prior to the pericope on

Manasseh that hope in the Davidic house and the ultimate national salvation

can be futile. In other words, Dtr1 did not expect that Manasseh would bring

in the downfall of the southern kingdom.31 Therefore the exilic editor (Dtr2),

in Cross’s opinion, reworked the pericope of Manasseh to recognize the

significant sins of syncretism and idolatry in 2 Kgs 21:2-15. He modeled his

account for the fall of Jerusalem almost exactly after the section treating the

fall of Samaria.32 Dtr2 wrote, as Wolff has described it, with a subdued hope

of repentance from the Israelites, and therefore, with a hope of return to the

land.33

Thus, for Cross, Dtr1 wrote in Josiah's era to promote Josiah’s

reforms and the revival of the Davidic state. The interacting themes of

30 Ibid., 284.

31 The element of supernatural prophecy has generally not found acceptance in scholarly discussions.

32 Ibid., 285.

33 Ibid., 288.

116

judgment and hope provide powerful persuasion both for the return to

the jealous God of old Israel and for the reunion of the alienated half-

kingdoms of Israel and Judah under the aegis of Josiah.34 Dtr2, who wrote

about 550 B.C., updated the history by adding the chronicle of events

subsequent to Josiah's reign. He also reworked various passages of the

Deuteronomistic History in order to transform it into a sermon for the

Judean exiles in hope that their repentance would bring about a possible

return to the land.

Richard D. Nelson

Nelson expands on Cross's chapter-long essay and provides

support for the argument of the double redaction theory.35 He finds support

from four main areas: (1) the judgment formulas for the last four kings of

Judah, (2) the literary critical analysis on certain passages,36 (3) the promise

34 Ibid., 287.

35 Richard Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup no. 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press , 1981).

36 There are five passages, Judg 2:1-5; 6:7-10; 2 Kgs 17:13-14, 35-40; 21:8-9, containing the phrase “they did not listen” as an accusation against God’s people and as a defense of his judgment upon them. Form critically, according to Nelson, they belong to the reworking of the exilic editor (Dtr2), Ibid., 43.

117

to the Davidic dynasty, and (4) the attempt to bring harmony to the

theology of judgment to the north and the theology of grace to the south.37

The Smend School

The Smend school is based on the work of Rudolf Smend38 and

subsequent contributions from Walter Dietrich39 and Timo Veijola.40 In

order to take into account the positive aspect of the Deuteronomistic

theology, the Smend school proposes three exilic Deuteronomistic redactors

in place of Noth’s one exilic author. The basic history was compiled by a

historian (DtrG, for Grundschrift) during the early exile. It was later

reworked by a prophetic redactor (DtrP), and then by a nomistic redactor

37 Nelson devotes chapters 2 to 5, one chapter each to each of the four main

areas.

38 Smend’s seminal study was “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” Probleme Biblischer Theologie, ed. H. W. Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 494-509. See also, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978) 69-81, 110-39.

39 Walter Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (FRLANT), no. 108 (Göttingen: Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1972).

40 Timo Veijola, Die Ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B 193 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), also Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie, Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B 198 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977).

118

(DtrN). DtrG provided the groundwork. DtrP added prophetic

comments to DtrG and also a substantial number of the traditional prophetic

narratives in the books of Kings.41 DtrN’s contribution is marked with

interest in the Law.42 DtrG was not anti-monarchical; the anti-monarchical

strain in the Deuteronomistic History was the result of a reworking by DtrP.

DtrN effected additional compromise; DtrN was critical of the monarchy in

the spirit of DtrP, but nevertheless he maintained DtrH’s positive attitude by

expressing hope in a Davidic dynasty which would endure if, like David, it

was obedient to the Law.43

The weakness of the Smend school is that the extent of the three

redactors’ work has not been clearly defined.44 For example, the passage in

2 Samuel 7 includes two key elements in the Deuteronomistic theology: the

promise of an everlasting dynasty for David, and the promise of a temple for

41 Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte, 133-34.

42 Smend suggested that Deuteronomy 4-30 was inserted into DtrG by this nomistic redactor. Smend, Die Enstehung des Alten Testaments, 73.

43 Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 127-42; idem, Das Königtum, 115-22.

44 For a discussion of the weakness of the Smend school see O’Brien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, 7-10.

119

Yahweh’s name. This passage is not properly discussed and has not

been definitely classified as the work of which redactor.45

A Single Composer

Some scholars recently have favored a single composer theory in

regard to the DtrH. This trend thus appears to have come full circle to

Noth’s original thesis. The single composer theory provides revisions

regarding the tension within Noth’s idea of Dtr as author and editor. In

Noth’s opinion, “Dtr was not merely an editor but the author of a history

which brought together material from highly varied traditions and arranged

it according to a carefully conceived plan.”46 Hoffmann seeks to see Dtr as a

creative author,47 Peckham seeks to see Dtr as an editor,48 and Van Seters

45 Ibid., 8.

46 Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 10.

47 Hans-Detlef Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments (ATANT) no. 66. (Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980).

48 B. Peckham, “The Composition of Deuteronomy 5-11.” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 217-40. Also, idem, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, Harvard Semitic Monographs (HSM), no. 35 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985).

120

seeks to resolve the dichotomy between Dtr as author and Dtr as editor.49

Hoffmann

Hoffmann sees DtrH as a fictional history of Israel’s cult by an

exilic or post-exilic author who had very few actual sources. Hoffmann’s

view is based largely on his treatment of the book of Kings. He argues for

the literary unity of several passages where previous scholars found

evidence of different hands. Hoffmann tries to show that Dtr linked the

accounts of individual kings in a contrasting pattern of good “reforming”

kings with evil “reforming” kings and climaxed the story in Josiah’s reform

in 2 Kings 22-23. The linking of texts by means of different techniques

demonstrates the unity of Dtr’s work. According to Hoffmann, Dtr was not

an editor at all but an inventive author.50

Peckham

Peckham combines the source theory (J, P, and E) with the double

redactor theory (Dtr1and Dtr2) of the Cross school to form his own theory.

49 J. Van Seters, “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The

Israelites,” Orientalia (Or) 50 (1981): 137-85. Also, idem, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983).

50 Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen, 315-22.

121

He suggests that the DtrH was formed by a series of editors. The first

editor was J, who wrote a complete and continuous narrative history of

Israel.51 The second editor was Dtr1, who expounded on J. The third editor

was P, who rewrote J to balance and to correct the history of Dtr1 and the

interpretation of J. The fourth editor was E, who added variants and

supplements to J, Dtr1, and P. The last and principal editor and historian was

Dtr2, who rewrote these sources into the history of Israel from creation to the

fall of Jerusalem.52 The work of Dtr2 is editorial in nature, and its extent is

thorough, according to Peckham:

The Dtr2 history is a comprehensive and systematic revision of the sources. It continues the process of interpretation initiated by Dtr1 and developed by P and E. But it is neither a source nor a separate and continuous work. It is rather a running commentary on the sources, distinguished from them by its language, style, organization and interests.53

Peckham’s theory is idiosyncratic and finds little support from

other critical scholars.54

51 Peckham, Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, 3.

52 Ibid., 1.

53 Ibid., 21.

54 For example, McKenzie raised questions on Peckham’s theory. See Steven McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, VTSup vol. 42 (New York: E. J. Brill, 1991), 16.

122

Van Seters

Van Seters is in close agreement with Noth’s DtrH. The support of

van Seters’s argument comes from his comparison of Hebrew history with

the historiography of the ancient Near Eastern world. He believes that early

Greek historiography, especially Herodotus’s Histories, provided the best

analogy to Dtr’s method of composition.55 The way in which the

Babylonians, during the Chaldean renaissance, used the regular Babylonian

Chronicle Series to create their history provided the best parallel for the

official sources cited in the DtrH.56 Van Seters argues that Dtr used the

court chronicles, the annalistic records, and a body of folk tradition as his

historical framework, which he then arranged and wrote into history in order

to present his own didactic and theological concerns. The traditions in

Samuel and Kings had not been combined into a history until the time of

Dtr. There were minimal amounts of traditional material that Dtr used to

write his own narration in speeches, prophecies, hymns, prayers, and to

reconstruct events.57 The Court History of David (2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings

55 Van Seters, In Search of History, 8-54.

56 Ibid., 357.

57 Van Seters, Histories and Historians, 184.

123

1-2), however, was a later addition after Dtr.58 To Van Seters, Dtr was

not only an editor who used some traditional material, but more properly, an

author who presented his own framework and brought unity to the material.

McKenzie

McKenzie examines the passages that the Cross school assigned to

the second author Dtr2 and finds significant differences in theme and tone.

He maintains that Noth’s single Dtr thesis is on the right track. In his

opinion, many secondary additions found throughout the DtrH may not be

the organized work of one redactor. Because the DtrH is so lengthy and

because it has been passed on for so many generations, it is hardly surprising

to find so many different secondary additions.59

Summary

Regarding the authorship of DtrH, from the brief history of the

Deuteronomistic debate stated above, scholarly opinion shows a trend from

one author/redactor to many redactors and then back to one author/redactor.

It is generally recognized that the major part of the work is from the hand of

58 Ibid., 140, 184.

59 McKenzie, Trouble with Kings, 144-45.

124

one single author; Noth’s influence has been monumental in this

recognition. This present writer employs the scholarly nomenclature of Dtr

and DtrH to refer to the person(s) responsible for the final form of the

Former Prophets and the history/theology as conveyed by the Former

Prophets respectively. Using this nomenclature does not necessitate one to

accept the late date of Deuteronomy as suggested by the critical scholars.

Noth’s Deuteronomistic theology sees God at work in history,

continuously meeting the accelerating moral decline with warnings and

punishments, and, finally, when these have proved fruitless, with total

annihilation.60 Many have criticized Noth’s Deuteronomistic theology as

entirely too negative. Von Rad brought the promise to the house of David to

the front. Wolff emphasized God’s desire to see Israel’s return. This

dissertation studies the stories of Elijah and Elisha in chapters 4-6 and then

interacts with DtrH in chapter 7.

60 Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 89.

125

CHAPTER 4

THE STORIES OF ELIJAH

The stories of Elijah and Elisha are divided into two parts: this

chapter handles the stories of Elijah and the next chapter the stories of

Elisha. Within each chapter, the material is first divided into episodes with

each episode containing the largest dividable literary block in an effort to

avoid analyzing small details to the extent of neglecting the overall flow of

the story. Within each episode, there are discussions in the areas of setting,

character and characterization, plot and plot structure. Under the heading of

character and characterization, the characters are analyzed in the order of

their appearance.

Under the heading of plot and plot structure, the following sigla are

used to indicate the different levels of plot structure:

• The first level of plot structure

† The second level of plot structure

‡ The third level of plot structure

The brief explanation following each level of plot structure is written in

126single space. When expanded explanations or exegetical notes become

necessary, they are written in double space with full margin.

Other literary devices peculiar to each episode are discussed under

setting, character and characterization, or plot and plot structure; no other

separate headings are provided so as to reduce possible repetition.

Who Is God? Baal or Yahweh? 1 Kgs 16:29-19:21

First Kings 16:29 to 19:21 is a tightly woven plot and is best

treated as one episode. With the introduction of Baal worship into his

country, Ahab brought Israel into a fierce struggle between Yahwism and

Baalism. On the surface, the struggle involved a series of conflicts between

Ahab and Elijah, yet each step really signified a deeper theological conflict

between Yahweh and Baal. Throughout the conflicts, Israel was to learn

whether Baal or Yahweh was the true God. Elijah, the sole representative of

Yahweh, also had a major lesson awaiting him when he eventually came into

close confrontation with Jezebel. Chisholm summarizes well the conflicts in

1 Kings 17-18:

Following King Ahab’s decision to promote Baal worship in the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 16:31-33), Yahweh sent a drought on Israel and Phoenicia (the homeland of Ahab’s queen, Jezebel). This form of judgment was appropriate because the fertility god Baal promised his worshipers agricultural prosperity. Through the Prophet Elijah, Yahweh supernaturally provided the staples of life for a

127

Phoenician widow (17:14) and raised her son from the dead (v. 17), thereby demonstrating His superiority to Baal, who was thought to be subject to Mot, the god of death, during times of prolonged drought. The story culminates with Elijah’s challenge to the prophets of Baal at Carmel. Before the eyes of all Israel, Yahweh proved that He, not Baal, controls the elements of the storm. After Baal’s prophets unsuccessfully went through their frantic mourning rites in an effort to rouse their god to action (18:26-29), Yahweh, in response to Elijah’s prayer, sent fire to consume the sacrifice and then caused it to rain (vv. 36-38, 45). By exhibiting His sovereignty over Baal’s traditional spheres of authority, Yahweh established His right to Israel’s undivided loyalty. Israel must look to Yahweh, the one true God (18:24, 37, 39), for the necessities of life. Baalism was not an option.1

Setting

Physical Setting

Around Elijah

The narrator first introduced Elijah with a very brief description,

“Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead” (1 Kgs 17:1). Tishbe was

a little-known place located in the remote land of Gilead east of Jordan.2

1 Robert Chisholm Jr., “The Polemic against Baalism in Israel’s Early History

and Literature,” Bibliotheca Sacra (BSac) 150 (1994): 267-68.

2 Many explanations have been offered, some with emendation, for this phrase from Tishbe ( ybvTm, LXX rendering). Suggestions include: du*l=g! yb@v*T)m!, “of the sojourners of Gilead” (MT rendering, see S. Cohen, “Tishbe,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Authur Buttrick [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962] 4:653-54.); dulg vbym , “(Elijah the Jebeshite [ yvby]) of Jabesh-gilead” (Nelson Glueck, Explorations in Eastern Palestine IV, Part I: Text, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vols. 25-28 [New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951], 218, 225-27). But in view of the many other references to Elijah as the

128

The introduction also does not give the name of Elijah’s father or tribe.

The scanty information of his birthplace coupled with no information about

his genealogy impresses the reader with Elijah’s appearance as mysterious

and sudden. After Elijah’s introduction, he came and went solely at

Yahweh’s command and at times even with Yahweh’s divine assistance (1

Kgs 18:1-2, 10-12; 19:8-9). Elijah’s whereabouts was totally unpredictable

to all those around him.

During the drought, Elijah was to drink from Kerith Ravine and to

be fed first by the ravens (1 Kgs 17:5), then later on by the poor widow in

Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:9). These field settings present Elijah as one

accustomed to the lonely and rough ways of living. On top of Mount

Carmel, Elijah stood all alone as he faced the 450 prophets of Baal (1 Kgs

18:22). Between Mount Carmel and Jezreel, this prophet girded up his cloak

and outran Ahab’s chariot (1 Kgs 18:46). The aloofness of his position and

the strenuous distance that he covered present Elijah as a courageous and

Tishbite (cf. 1 Kgs 21:17, 28; 2 Kgs 1:3, 8; 9:36), the most natural reading is not to emend the text and to take the word ybvTm as “from Tishbe” as LXX and most of the English Bibles have translated it. One of the reasons that so many suggestions are offered for the term dulg ybvTm is due to the scanty information that we have regarding the place Tishbe. This is very much in keeping with the author’s intent to portray Elijah as a person of mystery.

129almost superhuman character, an ideal representative of Yahweh in a

time of Israelite apostasy.

Around Ahab

The physical setting in which King Ahab appears is not a normal

one. Contrary to being seen in his palace, King Ahab is seen out in the

pastures accompanied by his servant Obadiah, looking for grass to feed his

animals. This setting communicates to the readers the severity of the

drought. Ahab’s words to Obadiah, “Go through the land to all the springs

and valleys. Maybe we can find some grass to keep the horses and mules

alive so we will not have to kill any of our animals” (v. 5), further describes

the damage brought by the drought. Evidently the grass was difficult to find

even in places where it had usually been abundant, and as a result, many

animals had to be killed for lack of fodder.

Zarephath

Elijah was told to go to Zarephath of Sidon (1 Kgs 17:9), into the

land where Jezebel was from (1 Kgs 16:31). Zarephath was a coastal town

located between Tyre and Sidon in the territory ruled by Jezebel’s father

Ethbaal. Thus Elijah moved into the very heart of the land from which Baal

130

worship had been brought into Israel. There Yahweh commanded (hwx) a

widow to feed Elijah (1 Kgs 17:9). Yahweh was demonstrating that he was

in control even in the heartland of Baal.

Cultural Setting

Baalism

Throughout Israel’s early history in the land of Canaan, this nation

had shown great vulnerability to Baalism, the Canaanite fertility cult which

promised agricultural prosperity to its worshippers (cf. Judg 2:11, 13; 3:7;

6:25-32; 8:33; 10:6, 10; 1 Sam 7:4; 12:10). Yahweh, through his mighty

acts and the words of his servants, more than once asserted that it was he,

not Baal, who exercised sovereignty over kings and forces of nature.

Yahweh alone controls the elements of the storm and possesses the authority

over the forces of nature and death.3

Findings from the ancient city Ugarit (now Ras Shamra in northern

Syria) provided valuable information about this deity called “Baal.”4 The

3 For a survey of the polemic literature against Baalism from the days of

Moses till Judges and the early monarchical periods see Chisholm, “Polemic against Baalism,” 267-83.

4 These Ugaritic texts predate the destruction of Ugarit in 1200 B.C. Also, Ugarit was located north of Canaan. The time gap (of using 2nd millennium Ugaritic material to illuminate the 1st millennium biblical texts) and the geographical gap

131

name “Baal” was an appellative and meant “lord.” In this connotation

the word could serve as an epithet for a number of different gods, but before

the Ugaritic poems had ever been written, the word had become the fixed

designation of a particular deity5 whom the Ugaritic myths called, “son of

Dagon,” “Hadad” (CTA 2 i 19, 46; CML, 41, 43).6 Baal, along with many of

his brothers, were sons of the high god El. Baal’s two brothers, prince Yam,

the god of the sea, who was called the darling of El (CTA 1 iv 20; CML, 39),

and prince Mot, the god of death, who was called the beloved of El (CTA 4

viii 32; CML, 67), in the beginning enjoyed greater prestige than their

brother Baal. In the primeval struggles against the sea and death, however,

Baal gained the upper hand. He first destroyed Yam with the help of

Kothar-wa-Khasis, the god of craftsmanship. Baal was later slain in his

(between Syria and Palestine) require some caution when one tries to draw an analogy from the Ugaritic Baal record and then to use it for a biblical text. Nevertheless, the parallels between the Ugaritic myths and certain biblical passages indicate that the Canaanite Baal did, to a great degree, correspond to his Ugaritic counterpart and that many biblical writers were aware of the beliefs of Baalism and the mythological motifs associated with Baal. Ibid., 269-70, n.7.

5 Umberto Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, trans. by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1971), 59.

6 The mythological texts identified are according to the sigla employed by Andrée Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963), abbreviated CTA. Translations of the texts are from J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978), abbreviated CML.

132

subsequent struggle with Mot and descended to the netherworld. The

goddess Anat mourned for Baal. After a fruitless search for Baal, Anat

seized Mot, cut him in half with a sword, shook him as with a riddle, burned

him with fire, crushed him as with mill-stones, and then threw his remains

into the open field for the birds to eat. Sometime later Baal came back to

life and ruled his kingdom with full vigor. Seven years later Mot reappeared

and once again engaged in a violent struggle with Baal. This time Baal

emerged victorious and eventually became the most influential god in the

Ugaritic pantheon.

Ugaritic myths consider Baal as a mighty warrior-king who

controls the elements of the storm. Many of his names and epithets reflect

his position and roles, such as aliyn b‘l, “mightiest Baal,” aliy qrdm,

“mightiest warrior,” hd d‘nn, “Haddu, lord of the storm cloud,” and rkb ‘rpt,

“rider of the clouds.”7 Ugaritic myths speak of Baal appointing “a time for

his rain, a time for (his) barque (to appear) in the snow, and for the sounding

of his voice in the clouds, for him to release (his) lightning on the earth”

(CTA 4 v 69-71; CML, 60-61).8 As the storm god, Baal was considered the

7 Chisholm, “Polemic against Baalism,” 270.

8 Ibid.

133

source of life, sustenance and fertility for everyone and everything alive

in the world—of vegetation, of animal life, of human beings and of the

gods.9 According to the story of Keret, Baal provided rain for the field, thus

enabling the farmers to bring forth the grain:

A source (of blessing) to the earth was the rain of Baal and to the field(s) the rain of the Most High; a delight to the earth was the rain of Baal and to the field(s) the rain of the Most High, a delight to the wheat in the furrow, (to) the spelt in the tilth, . . . The ploughmen did lift up (their) head(s), they that prepared the corn (did lift up their heads) on high (CTA 16 iii 4-13; CML, 98).

After Baal had his palace built and also had a window opened in

his palace, he boasted, “I alone am he that is king over the gods, (that)

indeed fattens gods and men, that satisfies the multitudes of the earth” (CTA

4 vii 50-52; CML, 66). When Baal was facing the death swallow of Mot, the

Ugaritic myths mentioned:

[A lip to the] earth, a lip to the heavens, [ ] a tongue to the stars! Baal must enter his innards (and) go down into his mouth. Because he has scorched the olive(s), the produce of the earth and the fruit of the trees, mightiest Baal is afraid of him, the rider on the clouds is in dread of him (CTA 5 ii 2-7; CML, 69).

The thriving existence of vegetation (in this case olives and fruit of

9 Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, 60.

134the trees) depended upon the survival of Baal. When Baal was about to

die, he was to take the wind, the thunder, the rains, the mist (called Pidray)

and the dew (called Tallay) with him:

I will put him in a hole of the earth-gods. And as for you, take your clouds, your winds, your thunder-bolts (and) your rains, (take) with you your seven pages (and) your eight “boars” (take) with you Pidray daughter of mist, (take) with you Tallay daughter of showers (CTA 5 v 5-11; CML, 72).

Elijah, however, said it was in the name of Yahweh that “there will

be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word” (1 Kgs

17:1). When Baal was slain by Mot and descended to the netherworld, “the

furrows in the fields are cracked” (CTA 6 iv 25-26; CML, 78); and only

when Baal came to life again did “the heavens rain oil and the ravines run

with honey” (CTA 6 iii 12-13; CML, 77).

When Daniel, the chieftain who had no son, prayed to the gods that

he should be granted a son, Baal took his prayer before El and pleaded for its

acceptance. Consequently, El granted Daniel a son (CTA 17 i & ii, CML,

103-106). In summary, Baal was considered the god of life and the

embodiment of the forces that gave, preserved and renewed life.

Elijah’s taunt, “he (Baal) is on a journey, or he is asleep and must

be awakened” (1 Kgs 18:27), reflects the Baal myth. Baal was depicted as a

135

busy god who was preoccupied with his own needs. Baal and his sister-

consort Anat journeyed far away to the dwelling place of the goddess

Athirat. They presented Athirat, the wife of El, a great gift and persuaded

her to convince El that a house needed to be built for Baal (CTA 4 ii 12-28;

CML, 56-57). The high god El was mentioned as going to sleep and

dreaming a vision which signified Baal’s coming back to life (CTA 6 iii;

CML, 77-78). Presumably, then, Baal also needed sleep for he would be

subject to fatigue, just as he was subject to death.10

The self-laceration of the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:28) found its

parallels in the frenzied activities of the Ugaritic gods.11 The high god El

mutilated himself when he learned that Baal was dead:

Thereupon Latipan kindly god did come down from (his) throne (and) did sit on the footstool, [and] (he did come down) from the footstool (and) did sit on the ground. He poured straw of mourning on his head, dust of wallowing on his crown; for clothing he covered himself with sackcloth; he scraped (his) skin with a stone, with a flint for a razor he shaved (his) side-whiskers and beard; he harrowed his collar-bone,

10 George E. Saint-Laurent, “Light From Ras Shamra on Elijah’s Ordeal upon

Mount Carmel,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on Comparative Method, ed. Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 133.

11 Ibid., 133-34.

136

he ploughed (his) chest like a garden, he harrowed (his waist) like a valley. He lifted up his voice and cried: “Baal is dead!” (CTA 5 v 11-23; CML, 73)

Also, Anat, after her desperate search in which she found out that

Baal was dead, gave herself to the same bloody expression:

She scraped (her) skin with a stone, with a flint [for a razor] she shaved (her) side-whiskers and beard; [she harrowed] her collar-bone, she ploughed (her) chest like a garden, she harrowed (her) waist like a valley, (saying): “Baal is dead!” (CTA 6 i 2-6; CML, 74).

Asherah

Asherah is the other deity mentioned in 1 Kgs 16:33.12 According

to the Ugaritic texts, she was one of the wives of El,13 the father of the gods.

12 While Gibson tried to distinguish “Athirat” of the Ugaritic texts from

“Asherah” of the biblical texts (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 4, n. 1), recent scholarly studies generally accept “Ashirat,” “Ashratu,” and “Asherah” as the same goddess who was delineated in the various texts from different cultures in the ancient Near East. See Steve A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millenia B.C.E., Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 235 (Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1993), 1. Also, Richard J. Pettey, Asherah: Goddess of Israel, American University Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion, vol. 74 (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 6.

13 Even though Asherah and Baal appear together in the Old Testament text (e.g. 1 Kgs 16:32-33), it cannot be assumed that the Old Testament views Asherah and Baal as consorts. See discussions by Wiggins, Reassessment of ‘Asherah,’ 93. Also, Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, JSOTSup no. 232 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 91-92.

137

Therefore, Asherah was considered the mother of the gods (CTA 1 iv 14-

15; CML, 39). She was a wonderful ally when one wanted to obtain a favor

from El, such as permission to build a house. This allied relationship could

be gained by the use of bribe and flattery (CTA 4 i 18-29; CML, 57). At

times, she seemed to be able to make decisions regarding kingship (CTA 6 i

45-58; CML, 75).14 In the Epic of Keret she is designated ’atrt srm and ’ilt

sdynm (CTA 14 198-99; CML, 87) signifying the “Asherah of the Tyrians”

and “the goddess of the Sidonians”—an indication that she was particularly

worshipped in Tyre and Sidon.15 Jezebel, in marrying Ahab king of Israel,

became the ideal person to bring the worship of Baal and Asherah into the

land of Israel.

Care for the Widow and the Fatherless

The protection of the widow, the orphan, and the poor was

common policy in the ancient Near East. This protection was seen as a

virtue of gods, kings, and judges. There are ample examples of this virtue

seen in the history of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and also in Hebrew

14 See summary of Asherah in Ugaritic texts by Binger, Asherah, 82-83. Also,

Wiggins, Reassessment of ‘Asherah,’ 71-72.

15 Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, 58. Pettey, Asherah, 16.

138

scripture.16 Though no explicit legal code has been discovered in

Ugaritic literature, implicit understanding of this virtue is found in the epic

of Aqhat. Twice the righteous chieftain Daniel is mentioned as sitting at the

entrance of the city gate judging the cause of the widow and the orphan:

thereupon Daniel, man of Rapiu, thereat the hero, man of He-of-Harnam, raised himself up (and) sat at the entrance of the gate beneath the trees which were by the threshing-floor; he judged the cause of the widow, tried the case of the orphan (CTA 17 v 4-8; 19 19-25; CML, 107, 114).

In observing the text, Fensham emphasized “the judgment in favor

of widow and orphan is idealized. Important is the fact that the stem tPf is

used to connote the exercising of justice.”17 In 1 Kgs 17:8-16, however, the

Hebrew scripture shows that it is Yahweh, not Baal, who cares for the

widow and the needy in the land of Baal in the time of drought.

Character and Characterization

Elijah

Elijah is a full-fledged character and serves in this episode as a

16 F. Charles Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near

Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies (JNES) 21 (1962): 129-39. This same article is also printed in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. James L. Crenshaw (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1976), 161-71.

17 Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor,” 134.

139protagonist. In addition to the physical settings that describe Elijah as a

rugged and lonely personality clouded in mystery, he is further identified as

a “man of God” (1 Kgs 17:18, 24). In his pronouncement of the drought (1

Kgs 17:1), his miraculous supply of flour and oil for the Zarephath widow (1

Kgs 17:14), and his reviving the boy from death (1 Kgs 17:21), Elijah spoke

in the name of Yahweh, and his words were all fulfilled. This characteriza-

tion pointed to Elijah as the protagonist who represented Yahweh in his

dealing with the idolatrous Israel.

Elijah had a very strong and colorful personality. When his actions

are compared to the commands that he received from Yahweh, the readers

learn that this prophet allowed his strong feelings to sway his actions. After

experiencing personally how Yahweh had defeated Baal in Baal’s heartland

at Zarephath, Elijah was all elated with his faith solidly in Yahweh. The

prophet challenged the 450 prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel before he

declared Yahweh’s word regarding the coming rain (1 Kgs 18:1, 18-19, 41).

Yet after being surprised by Jezebel’s threat and having to run for his life,

Elijah’s depleted faith kept him from carrying out Yahweh’s command to

anoint Hazael, Jehu and Elisha (1 Kgs 19:15-16) in sequence. Instead, this

prophet anointed only Elisha as if indirectly saying that it is now up to

140Elisha; Elijah himself would have nothing more to do with the struggle

against Baalism (1 Kgs 19:19).

The Zarephath Woman

The Zarephath woman is a minor character. She experienced the

miraculous provision and witnessed the resurrection power of Yahweh. With

the limited characterization that she was given, she shed greater light on

Elijah the main character. In her change from what originally was a refusal

to feed Elijah to her later obedience in providing Elijah’s daily needs (1 Kgs

17:12, 15), the Zarephath woman proved that the prophet’s words were true.

From her mentioning her sin (1 Kgs 17:18), the Zarephath woman reflected

the righteous living that Elijah must have demonstrated before her.

The Revived Boy

The anonymous boy contributes no action in the plot. He is merely

an agent. He represents the fatherless, a needy category of people for which

Yahweh has special compassion. This boy’s death and resuscitation are plot

information to demonstrate that it is Yahweh, not Baal, who has control over

life and death.

141

Obadiah

Obadiah is a minor flat character. The narrator commented on him

as a devout Yahwistic believer (1 Kgs 18:3). By risking his life to save the

hundred prophets of Yahweh, Obadiah served as a type for the faithful

remnant in Israel. Obadiah was the officer in charge of Ahab’s palace; his

reverence before the man of God also served as a foil to contrast Ahab’s

godless attitude (cf. 1 Kgs 18:7 and 17).

The Israelites atop Mount Carmel

Collectively they are agents. In this episode, they are attributed

with only two lines of words (1 Kgs 18:24b, 39b). Though they remained

silent most of the time, the Israelites were the ones whom Elijah tried to win

over. Witnessing the power of Yahweh, they moved from their syncretistic

indecision to a commitment to Yahweh and thus deserted Baal by slaughter-

ing his 450 prophets as they acted on Elijah’s command.

Prophets of Baal

Though the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal who danced

and shouted so hard and even slashed themselves with swords and spears (1

Kgs 18:26-29) were the primary actors on Mount Carmel, they were mere

142

agents in the plot. From morning until evening their hard work only

served to demonstrate the impotence of Baal. Similarly, their being

slaughtered by Elijah (1 Kgs 17:40) served to show the defeat of Baal in the

contest atop Mount Carmel.

The prophets of Baal together with their god suffered ridicule in

the way they were characterized. After the prophets of Baal fruitlessly

pleaded to their god the whole morning, Elijah taunted them, “Shout louder!

Surely he is a god; either he is excreting,18 or he is on a journey, or he is

asleep and must be awakened” (1 Kgs 18:27). In their frantic attempt to

arouse Baal’s attention, the prophets of Baal even shouted more loudly

according to Elijah’s urging. Adding to their own insult, they cut them-

selves so much that they were bathing in their own blood. The next logical

step, then, would be for Elijah to finish them off as he eventually did in the

Kishon Valley (1 Kgs 18:40).

Ahab

Ahab is a full-fledged character and serves in this episode as an

18 Rendburg points out that “urinate” and “defecate” are better translations

etymologically for j~yc! and gyc! and fit the context of Elijah’s mocking the Canaanite god Baal. These two words form a hendiadys and refer to “excreting.” See Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Mock on Baal in 1 Kings 18:27,” CBQ 50 (1988): 414-16.

143antagonist. His negative role is reflected in his rebellion against Yahweh

by setting up Baal and Asherah worship and by following Jeroboam’s

golden calf worship (1 Kgs 16:31-33). When Ahab was confronted, his

animosity toward Yahweh drove him, not to repentance, but instead, to seek

after Elijah’s life far and near in many nations and kingdoms (1 Kgs 18:10).

Ahab’s rebellious attitude is further illuminated when implicitly

contrasted against nature and the pagans. The heavens obeyed the word of

Yahweh by giving no rain for three years (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:1). The ravens

obeyed the word of Yahweh by providing food for Elijah (1 Kgs 17:4, 6).

Even the Zarephath woman, a pagan, obeyed Yahweh by providing for his

prophet (1 Kgs 17:15). But Ahab, an Israelite king who was required to

practice the word of Yahweh (Deut 17:18-20), did not obey him.

Ahab’s character is further ridiculed when in his role as a king he

is described as acting upon the queen’s decision. After the Mount Carmel

experience, Ahab “told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had

killed all the prophets with the sword” (1 Kgs 19:1). Jezebel’s threat to kill

Elijah then became the royal response to all that had happened earlier. What

Ahab had witnessed personally—Yahweh’s theophany, the Israelites’

repentance on Mount Carmel, and the returning of the rain—all seemed to

have no effect on him. The king acted only after the queen had decided

144

what to do. Ahab’s poor spiritual condition was reflected in the role

reversal between him and his wife.

Jezebel

Jezebel is a major character, the more powerful antagonist in this

episode. Compared to Ahab, Jezebel was the actual “power behind the

throne.” Under the setting of drought, the progress of the plot classifies

Elijah’s encounter with political figures in three stages: Elijah initially faced

Obadiah (1 Kgs 18:7), then Ahab (1 Kgs 18:16), and finally Jezebel (1 Kgs

19:1-2). These were moves from the outside to the center of political power.

When Elijah challenged Ahab to summon the 450 prophets of Baal and the

400 prophets of Asherah to Mount Carmel, Ahab was able to bring only the

former ones (1 Kgs 18:19; cf. 18:22). Jezebel possibly had a stronger

control on these prophets than Ahab did.19

Coming from Sidon, Jezebel was portrayed as a Baal loyalist with

her undivided commitment to the religion of Baal worship. Baalism came to

Israel when she became queen of the land; Baalism would not be totally

removed until Jezebel was also removed from the scene.

19 Meyer’s explanation was that the queen overruled the king’s summoning of

these 400 prophets of Asherah. See F. B. Meyer, Elijah and the Secret of his Power (reprint, Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1972), 67.

145Plot and Plot Structure

The entire plot revolves around conflict. On the highest level, it

was the conflict between Yahweh and Baal, but the conflict was seen and

carried out between Ahab and Elijah. The conflict started in private with

Elijah in Zarephath and moved into public with Elijah on Mount Carmel

facing the 450 prophets of Baal. The public conflict was seemingly resolved

when the 450 prophets of Baal were killed, and it was then that Elijah was

brought to Jezebel, the real power behind Baal worship, and then she put the

prophet to flight.

• Setting (1 Kgs 16:29): Ahab reigned over Israel for 22 years. He is the

most recorded king in the northern kingdom. • Conflict Introduced (1 Kgs 16:30-33): Ahab introduced Baalism into

Israel. This was a direct challenge to Yahweh. From the theological perspective, it was Baal that had invaded Yahweh’s territory.

• Foreshadowing (1 Kgs 16:34): Hiel’s direct challenge to Joshua’s

command paralleled what Ahab was doing. As Hiel’s descendants were judged according to the word of Yahweh, similarly, Ahab’s descendants would also be judged according to the word of Yahweh.

• Conflict Intensifies (1 Kgs 17:1-24): Yahweh pronounced judgment upon

the nation of Israel and then invaded Baal’s territory. Baal was supposedly a fertility god capable of providing for the needy and raising the dead to life. But in this polemic narrative, it was Yahweh, not Baal, who provided for the sojourner, the widow, and the fatherless. It was also Yahweh, not Baal, who raised the dead to life.

146

An inclusio clearly marks the boundary for this block of

literary material. It starts with the pronouncement of drought according to

my word (yr]b*d+ yp!l=, 1 Kgs 17:1) and ends with the confession of the

Zarephath woman that Yahweh’s word on your (Elijah’s) mouth

( ;yp!B= hwhy-rb^d+W, 1 Kgs 17:24) is true.

† Introduction of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:1): Elijah is introduced. Through

Elijah as his representative, Yahweh pronounced judgment upon the nation of Israel.20

† <Subplot> Yahweh was the one that provided for the sojourner, the

widow, and the fatherless (1 Kgs 17:2-16).

‡ Drought Introduced (1 Kgs 17:2-6): Yahweh made provision for Elijah through nature.21

‡ Drought Intensifies (1 Kgs 17:7-11): As the drought

worsened, Elijah was told to go to Zarephath of Sidon, the heartland of Baal worship, to be provided for by a pagan woman.

‡ Plot Twist (1 Kgs 17:12): Could this woman who was at her

20 Yahweh sent drought on the Israelites according to the Deuteronomistic

curse (Deut 28:23). When Elijah said, “there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word,” the point was clear: Rain and dew were under the control of Yahweh and not under the control of Baal or of Pidray and Tallay, Baal’s daughters (CTA 5 v 10-11, CML,72).

21 Elijah was provided for by ravens twice daily (17:6). Ravens were unclean (am@f*, Lev 11:15) birds; it was forbidden for Israelites to eat or even to contact ravens’ carcasses. Though Elijah was contacted only by living ravens, nevertheless, in being served by these detestable birds, and also being sustained in the home of a Gentile later on (1 Kgs 17:9), he was being prepared for the ministry of healing that would require him to touch a human corpse (1 Kgs 17:21).

147last meal really provide for the man of God?

‡ Plot Twist Resolved (1 Kgs 17:13-16): Her faith in the word

of Yahweh enabled the Zarephath woman to experience the miracle from Yahweh. Her jar of flour was not used up and her jug of oil did not run dry throughout the remaining days of the drought.

Yahweh often describes himself as the protector of the fatherless,

the widow, and the sojourner (rG@; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:19-22;

26:12-13; 27:19). In the prayer of 1 Kgs 17:20 Elijah mentioned that he was

sojourning (rr}oGt=m!, a hithpael participle form of the Hebrew word rWg from

which the word rG@, “sojourner,” comes) with the Zarephath widow and her

fatherless son. This miraculous provision demonstrates, therefore, that

Yahweh, not Baal, takes care of the needy as the word of Yahweh has

promised.

† <Subplot> Yahweh, not Baal, is the one that raised the dead boy to

life (1 Kgs 17:17-24).

‡ Crisis Introduced (1 Kgs 17:17-18): The boy became ill and died. This crisis was brought to the representative of Yahweh for solution.

‡ A Potential Solution Appears (1 Kgs 17:19-21): Elijah

approached the life-giving God for the solution.

In order to heal the child, Elijah took dramatic steps. First he

148

placed the dead child on his own bed and then stretched himself over the

corpse three times.22 Contact with a corpse was forbidden by the Mosaic

law (Lev 21:1-3; Num 6:6-8; Deut 21:22-23). By doing so, Elijah had

defiled himself and thus made himself unacceptable before God. Elijah’s

gesture might have implied that he was deliberately making himself

anathema to Yahweh, so that if Yahweh would not revive the dead child,

Elijah would become unclean and thus become as dead before Yahweh.

Kiuchi offers this explanation:

The Law strictly forbids holy persons touching the dead (Lev 21,1-3; Num 6,6-8 cf. Deut 21,22-23) and prescribes a rite of cleansing for anyone who comes in contact with the dead (Num 19). Yet here in the context of prayer, when a man should be most pure because he is approaching God, Elijah deliberately pollutes himself by lying on top of the corpse. How can this apparent flouting of the purity laws be understood? How can God’s positive answer to Elijah’s prayer be explained in the face of his disregard for central principles of Israelite cultic law?

We suggest that Elijah’s willingness, like Moses, to make himself anathema for the one for whom he prays may provide the key to the paradox. If Elijah regarded himself as making himself a sort of sacrifice for the boy, the supposed discrepancy disappears. Just as a dead sacrificial animal (which in other settings would pollute those who touch it) makes atonement or purification for the worshipper when offered on the altar, so here Elijah functions as an atoning or

22 Many explanations have been put forth for this gesture: to warm up the

child’s body; an attempt at artificial respiration; to bring down the divine power for the enhancement of the efficacy of Elijah’s prayer; or a kind of sympathetic rite of power- transference. See the summary offered by Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, “Elijah’s Self-Offering: 1 Kings 17:21,” Biblica 75 (1994): 74-75.

149

purifying agent for the dead child. Within the framework of sacrifi-cial thinking, Elijah is not viewed as violating the uncleanness laws. These regulate conscious or unconscious contact with death in normal circumstances, not in the sacrificial domain where holy men (priests) regularly deal with dead animals. Nor do the uncleanness laws envisage the possibility of a man being a sacrifice in a spiritual sense. To put it another way, the principle of giving life over to death, which constitutes the essence of atonement in animal sacrifice (Lev 17, 11), can also be seen in a spiritual dimension such as intercession.23

With this desperate gesture, Elijah prayed, “O Yahweh my God, let

this boy’s life return to him” (v. 21)! God honored Elijah’s prayer, and life

returned to the dead child.

‡ Crisis Resolved (1 Kgs 17:22-23): Yahweh heard Elijah’s

prayer, and the boy was raised from dead. ‡ Closure (1 Kgs 17:24): The Zarephath woman recognized

Yahweh’s superiority. Elijah’s faith was tremendously strengthened as the next chapter reveals.

As the conflict intensified, the solution slowly appeared. It was

Yahweh, not Baal, who controlled fertility and life. The conflict had been

private, and the solution was becoming clearer for Elijah and for the readers.

However, would the Israelites respond similarly to this truth? Would they

also recognize that Yahweh alone is God?

23 Ibid., 78.

150

• Relief (1 Kgs 18:1-15): Elijah was not alone. There were still prophets of Yahweh in the land, and Obadiah protected them. Obadiah foreshadowed the possibility that many Yahwistic loyalists might still be hiding in the land. There was good potential that Elijah might win the people of Israel over.

• Conflict Continues/Conflict Becomes Public (1 Kgs 18:16-38): The lesson

that Elijah learned in these years of drought had greatly strengthened his faith. He challenged Ahab and his prophets of Baal to a public contest in front of the Israelite people to demonstrate whether Yahweh or Baal was the true God.

On Mount Carmel, the contest was between Elijah, the

representative of Yahweh, and the 450 prophets of Baal. Ahab and the

people of Israel, though bystanders in the scene, were Elijah’s primary

targets whose heart he desired to turn back to Yahweh.

The Israelites’ reaction to Elijah’s challenge moved in three clear

stages: (1) their indecisiveness made them strangely quiet when Elijah first

asked them to choose between Yahweh and Baal (1 Kgs 18:21), and (2) they

liked it when Elijah proposed a contest of fire between two deities. All the

people said, “Your word is good” (1 Kgs 18:24)! (3) All the people cried

out with their choice, “Yahweh—He is the God, Yahweh—He is the God”

(1 Kgs 18:39)! They were convinced when Yahweh had answered the

prayer of Elijah by sending down fire and causing it to consume the

sacrifice, the wood, the stones, the soil, and even the water in the trench.

151To move the hearts of Israelites from indecision to decision,

Elijah had to propose something that would help them to see the matter

clearly. Baal, the storm god according to Ugaritic myths, was capable of

rendering lightning. On the other hand, Yahweh also sent down fire from

heaven and consumed the burnt offering when Moses was installing Aaron

as the high priest (Lev 9:24). This contest over fire appealed to the

Israelites, and the result convinced them of Yahweh’s superiority.

• Public Conflict Resolved (1 Kgs 18:39-40): The people recognized that

Yahweh alone was God. In carrying out their convictions, they followed Elijah’s instruction by killing all four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal at Kishon Valley.

• Larger Conflict Moves Toward Resolution (1 Kgs 18:41-46): With the

people of Israel having confessed that Yahweh alone was God, with the prophets of Baal killed, and with the rain impending, there was great potential that the larger conflict between Baalism and Yahwism as championed by Ahab and Elijah respectively could be resolved. The rain was a great hint that the covenantal blessing from Yahweh might be restored. The courageous prophet was now all energized; he outran Ahab’s chariot all the way to Jezreel. In his exciting run to Jezreel, there must have been a great expectation inside this prophet to see Israel return to the faith of Yahweh.

• Plot Twist (1 Kgs 19:1-4): Jezebel was not convinced. From the way

Ahab related the whole series of events to his wife, it became evident that Jezebel was the real power center on the side of Baal. From her perspective, the conflict was not over yet; she threatened to kill Elijah; she kept the conflict going. This outcome must have shocked Elijah. The representative of Yahweh now ran for his life; the apparent victor now appeared utterly defeated. Once the pagan poison was there, it was not easy to remove. It would take more time and more people to

152

finish the job. The next question was—Would Elijah remain faithful?

Instead of sending someone to kill Elijah, Jezebel sent a messenger

to threaten him (1 Kgs 19:2). Her hesitation to kill Elijah might indicate: 1)

her fear of the prophet who single-handedly had killed 450 prophets of Baal;

2) her uncertainty regarding the resistance that might arise from the

Yahwistic loyalists (cf. 1 Kgs 19:18).

On the other side, Elijah had run all the way from Mount Carmel to

Jezreel. He must have expected the newly started momentum of spiritual

reform to continue in Jezreel. The prophet spoke kind words to Ahab (1 Kgs

18:41, 44b) after the contest. This rare expression of great care to the king

might indicate that Elijah had misperceived the king as having a changed

attitude as had the rest of the Israelites on Mount Carmel.24 The threat of

Jezebel made it all clear—the king who had been conspicuously quiet

throughout the contest was not changed. Not only would Ahab not help in

bringing any kind of spiritual reform, but by running to Jezreel the prophet

24 Elijah rarely spoke kind words. Elijah’s conversations with Ahab before

and after this incident were all fierce and judgmental (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:8; 21:20-24). Later on the prophet’s conversation with king Ahaziah was harsh (2 Kgs 1:16). Even Elijah’s first conversation with Elisha was marked with roughness and remoteness (1 Kgs 19:20). However, here Elijah told Ahab to take care of his hunger and then told Ahab to keep himself from getting wet. Elijah’s words revealed the prophet’s good gesture toward the monarch.

153

had placed himself in the hands of his enemies. This self-realization

must have shocked him; Elijah needed to run quickly for his life.25

• Plot Twist Resolved (1 Kgs 19:5-18): In a sequence of steps, Yahweh let

the prophet know that he intended for the conflict to come to a final conclusion. In his instructions, Yahweh prepared reinforcement to enable Elijah to resolve the conflict. † Yahweh, through an Angel, Provided Elijah Food to Sustain his

Physical Needs (1 Kgs 19:5-8). † Yahweh, through His Theophany, Provided Elijah with Spiritual

Encouragement (1 Kgs 19:9-18).

In 1 Kgs 19:1-4, Jezebel fought back and put the prophet to flight.

In response, Yahweh strengthened the despondent prophet both physically

and spiritually, then spelled out for Elijah his further instructions that would

lead to the ultimate destruction of Baalism in Israel.

On Mount Horeb, Yahweh’s rhetorical question, “What are you

doing here, Elijah?” (1 Kgs 19:9) was designed to help Elijah see how he

had been reacting to the happenings around him. Elijah’s response “I have

been very zealous for Yahweh God of Hosts” (1 Kgs 19:10a) revealed his

25 Therefore, in 1 Kgs 19:3 the reading of ar}y`, “fear,” as supported by a few

Hebrew manuscripts, LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate is preferred; not ha*r` , “see,” as in MT. This fear comes from the prophet’s realization of his danger inside Jezreel where the palace of Ahab was located.

154concept and ideal that the spiritual battle must be fought with such strong

zeal that actions were an inseparable part of it.26 In each accusation that

Elijah made against the Israelites, he counteracted it with something on

behalf of Yahweh:

Elijah’s Accusation (1 Kgs 19:10b)

Israel’s Apostasy Elijah’s Actions

The Israelites have forsaken (bzu) your covenant,

Ahab and his father’s family forsook (bzu) Yahweh’s commandment (1 Kgs 18:18). When the Israelites were asked to make a choice between Yahweh or Baal, they remained silent (1 Kgs 18:21). Their hesitation indicated that they had not kept their undivided loyalty to Yahweh.

Elijah defeated the prophets of Baal in the contest. The Israelites prostrated themselves and cried, “Yahweh—He is God. Yahweh—He is God” (1 Kgs 18:39).

26 The verb anq, translated “be jealous of” or “be zealous for,” in its Piel form

expresses a very strong emotion whereby often (1) some quality or possession of the object is desired by the subject, or (2) some hostile or disruptive passions are demonstrated. See Leonard J. Coppes, “anq,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:2035. When Elijah said “I have been very zealous” (yt!aN}q! aN{q^ , the Piel infinitive absolute before the Piel perfect of anq), he was emphasizing his military-like action accompanied with his strong passion for Yahweh. This can be supported by (1) Elijah’s calling Yahweh “God of Hosts,” a military title. (2) Elijah never considered the 100 prophets that were hiding in the caves as being some of his comrades (cf. 1 Kgs 18:13 and 18:22).

155 . . . thrown down your altars,

The altar of Yahweh was in ruin (1 Kgs 18:30).

With 12 stones representing 12 tribes of Israel, Elijah built an altar for Yahweh (1 Kgs 18:31-32).

. . . killed your prophets with the sword.

Jezebel and Ahab were in hot pursuit to kill the prophets of Yahweh (1 Kgs 18:4, 10, 13).

Elijah killed in return the 450 prophets of Baal in the Kishon Valley (1 Kgs 18:40).

I, even I only, am left. And they are seeking my life to take it away.

Jezebel vowed to kill Elijah (1 Kgs 19:2).

The zealous prophet who had been waiting patiently for three years

probably had expected a complete and decisive victory for Yahweh when he

came out of hiding to public view. The event in Jezreel was not what he

would have expected. The response to Jezebel’s threat could only come

from Yahweh. Why did Yahweh not strike Jezebel dead before Elijah and

quickly complete this reformation?

With the prophet’s impatient attitude exposed, Yahweh now

responded to him through theophany. The response came in the literary

device called three plus one repetition. Four panels are displayed with the

real significance coming in the last panel: There were a violent whirlwind,

156

an earthquake, and fire passing through, but Yahweh was not in any of

the three. Instead, Yahweh was found in the gentle whisper27 that came

afterwards. Yahweh repeated his question, “What are you doing here,

Elijah” (1 Kgs 19:13b cf. 19:9b)? Elijah answered in exactly the same

words (1 Kgs 19:14 cf. 19:10).28 These repetitions are no doubt emphatic.

Yahweh was persistent in his questioning, and Elijah was pertinacious in his

complaint.29 Apparently, the prophet had not fully understood or agreed

27 J. Lust followed the suggestion of P. A. H. DeBoer and offered an

alternative translation for the Hebrew phrase, hQ*d~ hm*m*D+ loq. Instead of translating it as “a gentle whispering sound” as is traditionally done, Lust translates it as “a roaring and thunderous voice.” See J. Lust, “A Gentle Breeze or a Roaring Thunderous Sound? Elijah at Horeb: 1 Kings 19:12” Vetus Testamentum (VT) 25 (1975): 110-15. Jeffrey Niehaus took up this position in his book God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 248. This dissertation takes the traditional translation for the following reasons: First, etymologically, though Lust’s translation is possible, the traditional translation is a more natural one. Second, the literary device of three plus one repetition will yield most naturally in the last action something that is drastically different from the previous three actions. This is a surprise factor to catch the audience’s attention. “The gentle whispering sound” will serve the best in this literary device. Third, if this is a roaring and thunderous voice of the same terrifying action as in the previous three actions, it is difficult to explain why Elijah would venture out to the mouth of the cave at this time but not earlier.

28 Niehaus, God at Sinai, 248-49.

29 The same literary device of repetition is found in Jonah 4:4, 9. Both Jonah and Elijah were stubborn in their own opinions, thus unable to grasp the heart of Yahweh. Some scholars emend the text to explain the repetition. For example, Smend deletes verses 9b-10 as a gloss and then retains the theophany scene. (See Rudolf Smend, “Das Wort Jahwes An Elia, Erwägungen zur Komposition von 1 Reg. 17-19,” VT 25 (1975): 531.) Würthwein looks at the theophany of verses 11-13a as a later interpolation; therefore, verses 13b-14 are necessary to resume the conversation in verses 9b-10. So he proposes the original kernel as is found in verses 9-10, and 15-18. By so doing, he deletes the theophany and the repetition (vv. 11-14) altogether. (See Ernst Würthwein,

157

with Yahweh. Through theophany Yahweh pointed out for Elijah that

God did not always work in phenomenal ways like the whirlwind, the

earthquake, or the fire. Just like the 7,000 men that Yahweh had preserved

in quietness, all of whom had never worshipped Baal, Yahweh was content

to work in a quiet, unnoticed way.30 This struggle to win the hearts of

people away from Baalism took the word of God to work in a longer

duration, and it needed other reinforcement. Despite Elijah’s strong opinion,

nevertheless, Yahweh went ahead and gave the prophet further instruction.

Elijah was to anoint in sequence Hazel as king over Aram, Jehu as king over

Israel, and Elisha as his successor (1 Kgs 19:15-16). Through the

combination of a foreign power, a coup inside Israel, and prophetic

influence, Yahweh would purge Baal worship from the land of Israel.

• Plot Twist (1 Kgs 19:19-21): The servant of Yahweh did not follow his

instruction. Instead of going to Damascus, Elijah went to Abel Meholah; he bypassed Hazael and Jehu and anointed Elisha directly.

“Elijah at Horeb: Reflections on 1 Kings 19:9-18,” Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davis, ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1970), 152-66). These emendations miss the meaning of the literary device.

30 Many have argued that the theophany implied that God was not willing to judge the Israelites with whirlwind, earthquake, or fire, but to treat Israel in a gentle compassionate way (e.g. NIV Study Bible, footnote 1 Kgs 19:12 [Zondervan, 1985]). This argument cannot be supported by the following instruction that Yahweh gave Elijah, “Jehu will put to death any who escape the sword of Hazael, and Elisha will put to death any who escape the sword of Jehu” (1 Kgs 19:17).

158There is no closure in this episode; it is left hanging until 2 Kings 2.

The Death of Ahab; 1 Kgs 20:1-22:50

Even though Elijah did not anoint Hazael, the Arameans were the

instrument that Yahweh used to bring Ahab to his death. The mentioning of

Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:41-50 provides connection with the southern

kingdom. It prepares the stage for the future royal intermarriage between the

northern and the southern kingdoms, thus allowing the invasion of Baalism

into the leadership of the southern kingdom.

Setting

Physical Setting

Samaria

Samaria was the place where the army of Israel and the army of

Aram first clashed (in this episode). The hilly topography might have

hindered the Arameans’ use of their horses and chariots; therefore, they were

not ready to admit defeat in their first military campaign (1 Kgs 20:1, 23).

They planned another campaign in the plain of Aphek with replenished

soldiers and a stronger organization (1 Kgs 20:24-25).

159

Aphek

The Hebrew word “Aphek” means “a stream of water,” and so

might be applied to several localities. It might have been in the hills of

Ephraim (1 Sam 4:1), in the Plain of Jezreel (1 Sam 29:1), in the Plain of

Akka (Josh 19:30; Judg 1:31),31 or in the coastal plain of Philistines (Josh

13:4). Many atlases, however, identify this Aphek as being on the eastern

shore of Lake Galilee.32 The Aramean second military campaign happened

in the plain next to the city Aphek.

Ramoth Gilead

This was the place where the third military clash (within this

episode) between Israel and Aram happened. It was also the place where

Yahweh judged Ahab through the hand of the Arameans (1 Kgs 22:35).

Ramoth Gilead had been part of the Israelite territory since the days of

Moses (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 1 Kgs 4:13). The treaty that Ahab granted

Ben-Hadad three years earlier also entitled Israel to Ramoth Gilead (1 Kgs

31 Clyde M. Miller, First and Second Kings, Living Word Commentary on the

Old Testament, vol. 7 (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1991), 288.

32 See, for example, Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), map 56. Thomas C. Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998), map 59. Yohanan Aharoni, M. Avi-Yonah, A. F. Rainey, and Z. Safrai, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1993), map 126.

16020:34). Apparently the Arameans had not honored the treaty, and Ahab

ended up paying with his own life for his presumptuous decision to let Ben-

Hadad go.

Cultural Setting

Yahweh had decided to put Ben-Hadad to the ban ( <r\j@, 1 Kgs

20:42), yet Ahab had set Ben-Hadad free. Therefore, Ahab was to be

destroyed in his place. An object under the ban was a thing or a person

“dedicated to destruction”33 as an irrevocable offering to Yahweh. It was

also mentioned in the conquest of Jericho (Josh 6:17-19). There are striking

parallels in the fall of Jericho and the fall of Aphek:

Jericho Aphek

Yahweh delivered the victory. Josh 6:2 1 Kgs 20:28

Israel faced the enemy for seven days before battle was engaged.

Josh 6:3-4 1 Kgs 20:29

The wall collapsed. Josh 6:20 1 Kgs 20:30

The concept of ban ( <r\j@), therefore, was not new for Ahab. Like

Achan, who had dishonored the ban and was punished with death (Josh

33 Cf. Francis A. Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and

161

7:25), so, Ahab was sentenced to die (1 Kgs 20:42).

Character and Characterization

Ben-Hadad

Ben-Hadad is a major character in this episode. He is a type of the

arrogant, powerful gentile king who suffers defeats despite the immense

army he musters against the nation of Israel. Both the defeats in the hill and

in the plain (1 Kgs 20:21, 23, 29) helped Ben-Hadad to learn that Yahweh,

the God of Israel, not only was God of the hills but also God of the plains.

Nevertheless, the main lesson from Ben-Hadad’s defeats, was not for the

Gentile king, but for Ahab, the Israelite king, to learn that “I am Yahweh” (1

Kgs 20:13, 28). The role of Ben-Hadad was therefore secondary to that of

Ahab.

Through Ahab’s statement, “One who puts on his armor should not

boast like one who takes it off”34 (1 Kgs 20:11), the narrator characterized

Ben-Hadad as a foolish king eager to claim victory even before he worked

for it. After he commanded his men, “Prepare to attack,” he himself quickly

English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB), 1979 reprint ed., s.v. “<r\j@,” 356.

34 It is like saying, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.” See NIV Study Bible, 1 Kgs 20:11 footnote.

162engaged in a drinking party, celebrating a seemingly sure victory (1 Kgs

20:12).

Ben-Hadad’s foolishness is also described through his

overconfidence over the numbers in his army, which led him to a drunken

stupor right before the battle. When the report was brought to Ben-Hadad

that the Israelites were advancing from Samaria, Ben-Hadad’s answer in 1

Kgs 20:18 was literally, “If they come out for peace, capture them alive

( <yYj^ <Wcp=T!); if they come out for war, alive capture them ( <Wcp=T! <yYj^).” The

two protases grammatically would expect two different apodoses. What

Ben-Hadad said, “capture them alive,” and “alive capture them,” made a

difference in word sequence, but no difference in meaning. Apparently the

alcohol must have had a grave effect on him.

The statements that Ben-Hadad made in each of the three battles

against the Israelites clearly marked his attitude-change from arrogance (1

Kgs 20:3, 5-6, 10, 18), to humility (1 Kgs 20:32, 34), then to seriousness (1

Kgs 22:31). His personal name was not even mentioned in the last military

campaign against Israel; this indicates that he was merely an instrument of

Yahweh to bring judgment upon Ahab.

163

Thirty-two Kings

The thirty-two kings who accompanied Ben-Hadad in the

Aramean’s first attack upon Israel are agents. They represented the superior

military numbers that the Arameans exhibited in the battle. The description

of their having a happy time with Ben-Hadad before the battle signifies this

alliance as a loose conglomerate that needed much improvement (1 Kgs

20:24).

Ahab

Ahab is the antagonist who caused the conflict against Yahweh by

introducing Baalism into Israel. Ahab was noted for his animosity toward

Yahweh. He called Elijah my enemy (1 Kgs 21:20), and affirmed that he

hated Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:8) for the very reason that these prophets had

always brought Yahweh’s judgments down upon him.

In the previous episode Ahab had shown no understanding that

Yahweh was God (cf. 1 Kgs 18:39). In this episode Yahweh continued to

teach Ahab that “I am Yahweh” (1 Kgs 20:13, 28), but sadly Ahab never

learned! By his presumptuous release of Ben-Hadad, Ahab clearly gave

164Yahweh no credit for the victories, causing divine judgment to be

pronounced upon himself (1 Kgs 20:42).

When one of the sons of the prophets pronounced Yahweh’s

judgment on Ahab, Ahab’s response was unrepentant. The narrator

described it as “Sullen and angry, the king of Israel went to his palace in

Samaria” (1 Kgs 20:43). Ahab showed no repentance but sullenness and

anger. Here the narrator was painting for us a spoiled, child-like character,

who was more angry at being caught than feeling sorry for his sins.

Even with all these failures by Ahab, Yahweh did not take action

until one more event happened—Ahab’s theft of the vineyard of Naboth.

Ahab’s murder and theft of the vineyard revealed again that he did not honor

the inheritance right regarding the land as having come from Yahweh.

Ahab’s persistence in showing no respect for Yahweh characterized him as a

stubborn, rebellious, and wicked king. When Yahweh’s judgment

eventually came, even Ahab’s self-humiliation (1 Kgs 21:27) could not alter

his death.

The narrator also ridiculed Ahab. With his proposal having been

refused by Naboth, Ahab went home sullen and angry, lay on his bed

sulking, and refused to eat (1 Kgs 21:4). Ahab’s gestures were strictly for

Jezebel’s sympathy. The narrator here paints a picture of a child coming to

165

his mom and pouting for something that he could not attain for himself.

Ahab’s mixture of arrogance and yet suspicion is vividly portrayed

during and after his court council which led to the campaign at Ramoth

Gilead. Ahab’s self-will (1 Kgs 22:3-4) was so corroborated by the

deceiving message of the prophetic majority that even when faced with the

truth from Micaiah, he insisted on charging into battle.35 Yet in the battle,

Ahab disguised himself and asked Jehoshaphat to be the only one to wear

royal robes for fear that Micaiah’s prophecy might come true. His

inconsistent personality is most amusing.

Messengers of Ben-Hadad

The messengers are mere agents whose role is to express the

arrogance of their master (1 Kgs 20:2, 5, 10).

The Elders of Israel

The besieging Aramean king had made two demands from Ahab.

The first demand was to take away Ahab’s gold, silver, wives, and children,

a demand Ahab accepted (1 Kgs 20:3-4). The Aramean king then followed

with his second demand: he would send officials to search Ahab’s palace

35 Robert B. Chisholm Jr. “Does God Deceive?” BSac 155 (1998):16-17.

166and the houses of his officials to take away everything the Israelites

valued (1 Kgs 20:5-6). It was at this juncture that Ahab called the elders of

the land (who were in Samaria) to council.

The elders are agents. They revealed the craftiness of the Israelite

leaders. Ahab said, “. . . When he sent for my wives and my children, my

silver and my gold, I did not refuse him” (1 Kgs 20:7). The statement

referred to the first demand and emphasized that Ahab was not concerned

about his own belongings, and implied that Ahab’s concern was the

belongings of his officials (and, of course, the elders and the people). The

elders and the people all answered, “Don’t heed or consent to his demands”

(1 Kgs 20:8). This negative advice referred to the first Aramean demand

that Ahab had just repeated to them. It appeared that the elders were

concerned the most for the well-being of the king. This cunning

communication characterized the heart of the king as well as the hearts of

the elders as shrewd and calculating.

The Anonymous Prophet

The anonymous prophet is an agent, bringing the words of Yahweh

three times to Ahab (1 Kgs 20:13-14, 22, 28).

167Two Hundred Thirty-two Young Officers of the Provincial Commanders, the Seven Thousand Soldiers

They are agents, the instruments that Yahweh used to bring victory

to Israel.

The Officials of the King of Aram

The officials are agents, whose statements and reasoning express

the inner life of the king of Aram (1 Kgs 20:23-25) or pave the way for

action by the king of Aram (1 Kgs 20:31-32). In two ways their observant

hearts also serve as a contrast to the insensitivity of Ahab. First, the officials

knew that it was the power of the Israelite God that enabled Ahab to win the

victory (1 Kgs 20:23), but Ahab did not. Second, when they pleaded before

the king of Israel for the life of Ben-Hadad, they judged correctly that

Ahab’s calling Ben-Hadad “my brother” was a good sign (vj^n`, omen, a

divine sign, 1 Kgs 20:33) and quickly picked up Ahab’s word, “yes, your

brother Ben-Hadad.” In contrast, Ahab had never related his two victories

as having been a sign of divine help; consequently, he had never inquired of

Yahweh how he should have handled the victory.

One of the Sons of the Prophets, His companion 1, and His companion 2

They are all agents. The mini-plot between one of the sons of the

168

prophets and his first companion foreshadows the punishment Yahweh

was to bring upon the disobedient Ahab (1 Kgs 20:35-36).

Naboth

Naboth is a type representing the godly Israelites who respected

their land inheritance as a gift from Yahweh. Naboth’s refusal of Ahab’s

land purchasing or swapping proposal was mentioned three times in the text.

The first statement was by Naboth (1 Kgs 21:3), the second by the narrator

(1 Kgs 21:4), and the third by Ahab (1 Kgs 21:6).36

Naboth’s refusal in every respect was in accordance with

Yahweh’s ownership of the land, “Yahweh forbid that I should give the

inheritance of my fathers to you.” Naboth made it unmistakably clear that

the vineyard was a piece of land that his fathers had inherited from Yahweh.

It was to be jealously guarded as the family’s permanent inheritance in the

promised land. The issue from Naboth’s perspective as well as from the

narrator’s perspective was that the inheritance of the fathers was at stake.

Ahab, however, in relating this incident to Jezebel, purposely omitted this

very reason and quoted Naboth as saying, “I will not give you my vineyard.”

36 This literary device is called reported speech, see Chapter 2 for discussion.

169From Ahab’s perspective, it was simply a piece of real estate having no

connection with any inheritance from Yahweh.

Jezebel

Jezebel, a major character, continues to be an antagonist. She is

also typical of those dedicated followers of Baal. The narrator juxtaposes

Ahab with Jezebel to characterize her as an achiever, a woman of

determination. She allowed no opposition of any kind in achieving a goal.

After she said to Ahab, “I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite,”

she wasted no time and spared no cruelty in achieving her goal (1 Kgs 21:7-

13). After Naboth was murdered, she told her husband, “Arise, take

possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give

to you for silver. He is not alive, but dead” (1 Kgs 21:15)! Her vengeful

statement made it clear that Naboth was to be blamed for his own death

because he refused the offer of silver for his land. Her statement also

omitted the details of how Naboth was killed. She was a goal achiever. The

means to achievement was not important, whether ethical or not.

Jezebel is portrayed, as in the previous episode, as the real power

behind the throne. Her letter instructing the elders and nobles of Jezreel to

kill Naboth was written in the name of Ahab and with Ahab’s seal placed on

170

it, yet the elders and nobles of Jezreel reported directly to Jezebel when

they had completed the instruction (1 Kgs 21:8, 14). They knew where the

real royal authority resided.

The wickedness of Jezebel and Ahab was characterized by their

swiftness in doing evil. The narrator in his direct narrative37 used the term,

“as soon as . . . heard” ( u ~m)v=K! yh!y+w+), in 1 Kgs 21:15 and 16 to describe the

actions of Jezebel and Ahab. Jezebel wasted no time in informing Ahab, and

Ahab wasted no time in taking possession of the vineyard. There was no

trace of remorse or any hesitation in their actions.

The Elders and Nobles in Jezreel

They are agents. They served as instruments of evil to carry out

Jezebel’s murderous plot against Naboth. Their position as elders and

nobles in the city of Jezreel also spoke about the moral decay in the society.

Two literary devices characterize the elders and nobles as wicked.

The first is irony: the elders proclaimed the fast not for repentance before

Yahweh, but to plot a murder. The second is the use of verbs in rapid

succession: in the second half of 1 Kgs 21:13, “they took him outside the

37 See chapter 2 of this dissertation for definition.

171

city, stoned him with the stones, and he died.” The narrator heaped the

verbs together to portray the leadership’s quickness and efficiency in

carrying out the murder.

Elijah

Elijah continues to be a protagonist representing Yahweh to

pronounce the final judgment upon Ahab (1 Kgs 21:17-24). In 1 Kings 21,

the narrator presented the dialogues in a chiastic symmetry:

I. Ahab and Naboth VI. Elijah and Ahab (vv. 2-4) (vv. 17-20) II. Ahab and Jezebel V. Jezebel and Ahab (vv. 5-7) (vv. 15-16) III. Jezebel to the elders IV. The elders and nobles and nobles to Jezebel (vv. 8-10) (vv. 11-14)

In this chiastic arrangement the prominence was given to Elijah the

prophet, who appeared suddenly in the vineyard of Naboth, taking the place

of the victim at the very moment that Ahab was taking possession of the

property. Elijah denounced the crime and announced Ahab’s punishment.38

In this careful arrangement, the narrator characterized, as he did before, a

mysterious Elijah, whose appearance was sudden and unexpected.

38 Alexander Rofé, “The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the

Story,” VT 38 (1988): 94.

172

Jehoshaphat

Jehoshaphat is an agent, whose function here is to provide a bridge

for the future marriages between the house of David and the house of Omri,

thus enabling Baalism to make an inroad into the kingdom of Judah (1 Kgs

22:2; 2 Kgs 8:18, 26). As a good king from the house of David, Jehoshaphat

also serves as a foil character to contrast with Ahab whose desire to find out

the will of Yahweh was insincere (1 Kgs 22:7).

Zedekiah Son of Kenaanah and the Four Hundred Court Prophets

They are the agents through whose mouths Yahweh deceived Ahab

to his own demise (1 Kgs 22:22).39 The reason that they became Yahweh’s

instrument of deception may have had something to do with their eagerness

to speak favorably regarding the requests of their master (cf. 1 Kgs 22: 13).

Zedekiah son Kenaanah and the 400 court prophets served also as foil

characters to contrast the faithfulness of Micaiah, who stood all alone in the

royal court.

39 For the concept of divine deception see Chisholm, “Does God Deceive?”

11-28. Also, Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God,” CBQ 56 (1994): 649-63.

173

Micaiah son of Imlah

Micaiah is a protagonist in 1 Kings 22, for it is through his

viewpoint that the readers go through Ahab’s court council. But in the

overall Elijah and Elisha stories, Micaiah is only a minor character for the

narrator did not even bother to tell the readers whether Micaiah was released

or not after the death of Ahab. Micaiah is typical of the faithful prophets

that desired to please only Yahweh and not their human masters (1 Kgs

22:14). In great contrast to Zedekiah son of Kenaanah and the four hundred

court prophets, Micaiah apparently lacked the desire to please Ahab;

therefore, his relationship with the king had always been a strained one.

Micaiah’s being invited back by the king might have been based upon the

indisputable accuracy of his previous prophecies (cf. 1 Kgs 22:8).

Micaiah apparently disliked the king and was even brave enough to

make fun of the king. For the gesture and tone of Micaiah’s beginning

prophecy must have been so filled with sarcasm that the king demanded him

to speak only the truth from Yahweh (1 Kgs 22:15b-16).40 Micaiah then

40 Chisholm argues that Micaiah’s first prophecy (1 Kgs 22:15b) was

deceptive, even though Micaiah vowed that he would declare only Yahweh’s word (1Kgs 22:14). Micaiah’s action was entirely consistent with the deceptive program that Yahweh instigated by commissioning a spirit to be a “lying spirit in the mouths of all Ahab’s court prophets (1 Kgs 22:22).” This message was too good to be true for Ahab,

174

revealed the scene of Yahweh’s heavenly council before the whole

audience. Ahab’s self-will (1 Kgs 22:3-4) was so corroborated by the

deceiving message of the prophetic majority that he put Micaiah in prison

and insisted on charging into battle. Ahab’s final pressure upon Micaiah

brought out the ultimatum of the faithful prophet, “If you ever return safely,

Yahweh has not spoken through me.” Then Micaiah added, “Mark my

words, all you people” (1 Kgs 22:28)!

Plot and Plot Structure

This episode is a punitive plot, which describes how Ahab, an

unsympathetic character, fell from his kingship to his demise. Through the

process, Yahweh continued to offer him opportunities to repent, but Ahab

failed them all. Ahab’s only act of self-humiliation came too late (1 Kgs

22:27). He was sealed for destruction.

especially when it came from the prophet who had consistently spoken only evil of him (1 Kgs 22:8, 18). Therefore, Ahab adjured Micaiah to speak only the truth (1 Kgs 22:16). See Chisholm, “Does God Deceive?” 14. Ahab’s response to Micaiah’s favorable prophecy, “How many times must I . . .,” was apparently with anger and strong reaction (1 Kgs 22:16). Ahab’s statement most likely came from the reaction not to Micaiah’s word but to Micaiah’s gesture and tone, especially when Micaiah’s first prophecy was found identical with that of Ahab’s court prophets, “for Yahweh will give it into the king’s hand” (1Kgs 22:6, 15). Micaiah could have mimicked the court prophets, but his tone and body language may have so much countered his positive message that the king adjured him to say only the truth (tm#a$) in the name of Yahweh.

175

• Conflict between Yahweh and Ahab Resumed (1 Kgs 20:1-43): On the surface level, this was a conflict between Aram and Israel, but on the higher level, it was a conflict between Yahweh and Ahab. Through the Arameans, Yahweh wanted to teach Ahab that “I am Yahweh” (1 Kgs 20:13, 28). Ahab failed in this lesson.

† Conflict Introduced (1 Kgs 20:1-9): The Arameans invaded Israel

and made demands. Ahab tried to avoid the conflict but was not successful.

Ben-Hadad laid siege to Samaria and initially demanded the wealth

and household of Ahab. Ahab’s prompt acceptance of this demand made

Ben-Hadad suspicious of Ahab, “Can such prompt response be real? Can it

be that this is simply a ploy to cover the fact that, at this very moment, Ahab

is busily concealing the most desirable of his possessions from me?”

Thereupon, Ben-Hadad issued a second demand: “About this time tomor-

row, I am going to send my servants to search your palace and the houses of

your servants. They will lay their hands on everything you value and take it

away.”41 Ahab’s council held within Samaria rejected this second demand.

41 This interpretation is offered by Begg, who compares this exchange

between Ben-Hadad and Ahab with the Victory Stela of King Piye, which recorded a similar tribute that Prince Pediese of Athribis paid to the Nubian King Piye in ca. 734 B.C. Under a deceptive oath, Pediese hid the most valuable things from Piye his overlord. Begg further points out that the piel form of the word search, cpj , is used in other places in reference to looking for either concealed, stolen property or for fugitives hiding from justice: For example, Laban searches for his stolen household gods (Gen 31:35); Joseph’s steward searches for his master’s divining cup (Gen 44:12); Saul will search out the renegade David who is hiding in Ziph (1 Sam 23:23); God will search out sinful Israelites even if they conceal themselves on the top of Carmel (Amos 9:3); Yahweh will search

176

† Conflict Intensifies (1 Kgs 20:10-12): All possibilities of making a

treaty having failed, both sides prepared for battle. † Potential Solution of Conflict Appears (1 Kgs 20:13-14): Yahweh

foretold Ahab’s victory over Aram, so that “Ahab may know that I am Yahweh.”

As both sides prepared for war, the word behold (yn]n+h!) in 1 Kgs

20:13 brings the readers to a higher point of view, that of Yahweh, “Do you

see this vast army? I will give it into your hand today.” Yahweh not only

predicted the outcome of the war; he even gave instruction regarding how to

start the attack. The purpose for all of this was that Ahab might know “I am

Yahweh.”

† On the Surface Conflict Resolved (1 Kgs 20:15-21): The Israelites

won victory just as the prophet of Yahweh had prophesied. The conflict between Aram and Israel was resolved. But had Ahab learned that “I am Yahweh”?

† Conflict Introduced Again (1 Kgs 20:22-27): The Arameans were

not convinced that Yahweh could win the battle as before if they moved the battle ground to the plains. Again, the Arameans introduced the conflict.

Jerusalem for sinners (Zeph 1:12). Begg argues, therefore, that the use of the piel of cpj on the lips of Ben-Hadad in 1 Kgs 20:6 means, “they will search for what, I suspect, you are concealing from me.” Christopher Begg, “This Thing I Cannot Do (1 Kgs 20:9),” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (SJOT) 2 (1989): 26-27.

177

† Potential Solution of Renewed Conflict Appears (1 Kgs 20:28): Yahweh foretold the victory to Ahab so that “Ahab may know that I am Yahweh.” The lesson for this battle was two-fold: first, that the Arameans might know that “Yahweh is God;” second, and more importantly, that Ahab might know that “Yahweh is God.”

† Conflict Takes A Major Step toward Resolution (1 Kgs 20:29-30a):

The Arameans suffered a major defeat. † Plot Twist (1 Kgs 20:30b-34): The victory wasn’t carried to

completion because Ahab made a parity treaty with Ben-Hadad. In appropriating the victory on his own without consulting Yahweh, Ahab did not give Yahweh any credit. Ahab had not learned that Yahweh was God.

The Arameans recognized their defeat. They came out to Ahab

and pleaded, “Your servant Ben-Hadad says: ‘Please let me live.’” They

were begging for surrender, yet Ahab presumptuously called Ben-Hadad

“my brother,” quickly granted a parity treaty with the king of Aram and let

him go free.42 Ahab had never recognized that Yahweh was the one who

brought about both of the victories!

† Plot Twist Resolved (1 Kgs 20:35-43): God sent a prophet to entrap

Ahab. Through Ahab’s own word Yahweh pronounced judgment on Ahab. Ahab now took the place of Ben-Hadad and came under God’s judgment.

42 The Hebrew sentence uses four verbs in rapid succession: he (Ahab) said,

“Go and bring him,” Ben-Hadad came to him (Ahab), and he lifted him up into his chariot (1 Kgs 20:33). These action verbs put together signify Ahab’s quick action in granting the parity treaty to Ben-Hadad.

178

This section of text presents two scenarios to bring out the same

message. The first scenario involved one of the sons of the prophets and his

first companion, depicting death as the punishment for disobeying Yahweh

(1 Kgs 20:35-36). The second scenario is specifically designed for Ahab (1

Kgs 20:37-42). In order to bring a convincing case against Ahab, a

judgment with which even Ahab would agree, Yahweh prepared one of the

sons of the prophets for this painful and difficult task. This prophet had his

companion inflict wounds on him. With this wound he resembled someone

who had been disabled on the battlefield, thus a good candidate to watch

over enemy captives. The prophet then called out before Ahab, “Your

servant went into the thick of the battle, and someone came to me with a

captive and said, ‘Guard this man. If he is missing, it will be your life for

his life, or you must pay a talent of silver.’ While your servant was busy

here and there, the man disappeared” (1 Kgs 20:39-40).

Since few soldiers could afford a big sum like a talent of silver, it

appeared to Ahab that this man’s life was at stake. Ahab quickly passed

judgment, “That is your sentence. You have pronounced it on yourself” (1

Kgs 20:40). The greatest irony was that Ahab, in thinking that such

judgment applied only to the wounded man by the roadside, was actually

179

passing judgment on himself. It was as if Yahweh were speaking against

Ahab through Ahab’s own lips!43 Yahweh had brought Ben-Hadad, a man

whom Yahweh had devoted to destruction ( <rj), into Ahab’s custody, but

Ahab had released the captive by his own presumptuous decision.

Therefore, it was “Ahab’s life for Ben-Hadad’s life, the people of Israel for

the people of Aram” (1 Kgs 20:42).

• Conflict between Yahweh and Ahab Continues (1 Kgs 21:1-16): On the

surface level, this was a conflict between Ahab and Naboth over the annexation of Naboth’s land to be used for Ahab’s vegetable garden. On the higher level, it was a conflict between Ahab and Yahweh over respect for the ownership of the land.

† Setting (1 Kgs 21:1): Naboth’s vineyard in Jezreel was next to

Ahab’s palace. † Action Begins (1 Kgs 21:2): Ahab proposed to buy Naboth’s

vineyard or to exchange it for other land. † Conflict Introduced (1 Kgs 21:3-6): Naboth refused the proposal,

but Ahab would not forego his desire. † Conflict Intensifies (1 Kgs 21:7-10): Jezebel stepped in and devised

an evil plan to get Naboth’s vineyard. † Conflict Resolved in a Wicked Way (1 Kgs 21:11-16): Naboth was

killed; evil seemed to have won the conflict. Ahab went on his way to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard.

43 The same technique was used by the prophet Nathan against king David (2

Sam 12:1-6). Yet the responses of David and Ahab were quite different.

180• Conflict between Yahweh and Ahab Intensifies (1 Kgs 21:17-24):

Through Elijah God pronounced the death sentence upon Ahab, upon his male descendants, and upon Jezebel.

• Narrator’s Commentary (1 Kgs 21:25-26): The narrator’s commentary

finalized Yahweh’s judgment on Ahab.

“There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in

the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. He behaved in the vilest

manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before

Israel” (1 Kgs 21:25-26, NIV). This narrator’s commentary sealed Ahab’s

destination. Even Ahab’s self-humiliation in the next verse could not alter

his death; it only postponed judgment upon his household.

• Plot Twist/Conflict between Yahweh and Ahab Lessened (1 Kgs 21:27-29):

Ahab humiliated himself; Yahweh reduced the severity of his judgment; the destruction of Ahab’s household was postponed one generation.

• Conflict between Yahweh and Ahab Moves toward Resolution (1 Kgs 22:1-

28): By enticing Ahab to war against the Arameans, Yahweh was to execute the death judgment upon Ahab.

Here the narrator presents an ironic contrast of two court councils:

Ahab’s earthly court with all prophets but one (Micaiah) prophesying

deceived messages, and Yahweh’s heavenly court with all truthful but one

181deceiving spirit. Both councils bring out the exact judgment that God

had prophesied through his servants.

• Plot Twist (1 Kgs 22:29-32a): Ahab disguised himself and went into

battle. The Arameans mistook Jehoshaphat for the King of Israel. Would Ahab escape God’s judgment?

• Plot Twist Resolved/Conflict between Yahweh and Ahab Resolved (1 Kgs

22:32b-36): God directed a randomly shot arrow between the sections of Ahab’s armor and Ahab died.

• Action Ends (1 Kgs 22:37-38): Ahab’s death fulfilled Yahweh’s prophecy. • Closure (1 Kgs 22:39-40): This brought Ahab’s story to a close. • Pause (1 Kgs 22:41-50): The mentioning of Jehoshaphat and his peaceful

relationship with the king of Israel provides a connection between the northern and the southern kingdoms.

Yahweh’s War against Ahaziah, the Descendant of Ahab;

1 Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 1:18

Yahweh’s desire to destroy the descendants of Ahab was hinted at

in his command to anoint Jehu (1 Kgs 19:16) and was clearly spelled out in

his announcement of judgment after the Naboth incident (1 Kgs 21:21-22).

With Ahab gone from the scene, Yahweh now would deal with Ahaziah, a

descendant of Ahab.

182

Setting

Temporal Setting

2 Kings 1:1 mentions that “Moab rebelled against Israel after the

death of Ahab.” This issue of Moab’s rebellion was put aside by the

narrator; it did not resume until 2 Kgs 3:5, “After the death of Ahab, the king

of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.”44 In between these two

passages the narrator wanted to take care of the important issue of kingship

succession in Israel and prophetic succession from Elijah to Elisha.

Therefore, the temporal setting for this episode (1 Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 1:18) is

the short duration right after the death of Ahab. This time period covers

Ahaziah’s short reign of about one year (1 Kgs 22:51 cf. 2 Kgs 3:1). After

this episode, Joram, the younger brother of Ahaziah, would take up the

kingship and also handle the issue of Moab’s rebellion.

Physical Setting

Elijah’s appearance here was again sudden and unexpected. He

intercepted the messengers of Ahaziah and sent them back to the king.

44 This literary device is called resumptive repetition.

183

Ahaziah’s question, “Why have you come back?” (2 Kgs 1:5) indicated

that the messengers had not gone very far at all.

Later on in this episode, Elijah’s physical position also implied the

higher authority that he was representing. Elijah was sitting on the top of a

hill (2 Kgs 1:9). The captains of the fifties “went up (hl*u*)” to Elijah (2

Kgs 1:9, 13), and asked Elijah to “come down (dr~y`)” (2 Kgs 1:9, 11).45

When Elijah eventually came down, Yahweh’s judgment also came down

upon Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:15, 17).

Character and Characterization

Ahaziah

Ahaziah is an antagonist in this episode. Being Ahab’s son,

Ahaziah not only inherited the kingship but also the beliefs of his parents.

He worshipped Baal and also followed the ways of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 22:52-

53). Without any repentance from the ways of his father, Ahaziah continued

to be under the judgment that Yahweh had pronounced through Elijah (1

Kgs 21:21-22).

45 The narrator omitted the use of went up in the description of the second

captain as if to describe him as the most arrogant of the three. The narrator also omitted the use of come down in the statement of the third captain, which characterized the third captain as the one who had the best understanding among the three regarding where the real authority rested.

184

One specific sin committed by Ahaziah in this episode was his

sending messengers to Baal-Zebub,46 the god of Ekron, to inquire about his

getting well. The angel of the Lord pointed out that by so doing Ahaziah

had blatantly disregarded the presence of Yahweh in the land of Israel (2

Kgs 1:3).

Ahaziah’s animosity toward Yahweh was evidenced in his three

times sending captains of the fifties along with their fifty men to catch

Elijah. Ahaziah’s attitude toward Yahweh was like that of his father.

Instead of being repentant, Ahab became angry when Yahweh caught him in

his wrongdoing (1 Kgs 20:43); similarly, when Elijah intercepted his

messengers, Ahaziah showed no remorse but sent his soldiers to catch

Elijah.

Messengers of Ahaziah

They are agents, sent to carry out their master’s bidding.

The Angel of the Lord

He is an agent who conveyed the message of Yahweh.

46 The word Baal-Zebub means “lord of flies.” He was a local deity of Ekron.

See discussion by Arvid Tånberg, “A Note on Ba‘al Zêbub in 2 Kgs 1:2.3.6.16,” SJOT 6 (1992): 293-96.

185

Elijah

Elijah is a protagonist who represented Yahweh in bringing down

judgment upon Ahaziah. The messengers’ description of Elijah continued

the narrator’s characterization of this prophet as rugged and distinctive (2

Kgs 1:8).

Captains of the Fifties

The captains of fifty are agents, sent by their king to catch Elijah.

They duly represented the royal authority. When the first one failed to bring

Elijah down, the second one came with sterner and more authoritative

words, “Thus says the king,47 come down quickly” (2 Kgs 1:11)! Yet he

failed as well.

The third captain of fifty is a foil to the king, for he had better

common sense and was more observant. He had learned from the outcome

of his previous comrades that he was facing an authority that was higher

than the one that had sent him. Therefore, he knelt and pleaded for Elijah to

come down. In this way, the third captain of fifty succeeded in his mission.

47 The captain of the fifties’ statement, “Thus says the king”

( El#M#h^ rm^a*-hK)) parallels the prophetic utterance, “Thus says the Lord” (hw+hy+ rm^a*-hK); 2 Kgs 1:6). The narrator demonstrated in this episode that the authorities behind these two parallel statements were dramatically different.

186His success also affirmed his view of Yahweh’s higher authority as

having been correct.

Plot and Plot Structure

This episode is a punitive plot. It shows how Ahaziah, who

continued in the sins of his father, fell from his kingship to his demise. This

punishment came as a result of the judgment on Ahab as well as the

judgment on Ahaziah himself.

• Setting (1 Kgs 22:51): It was during Ahaziah’s kingship. • Conflict between Yahweh and Ahaziah, Ahab’s Descendant Introduced (1

Kgs 22:52-53): Ahaziah walked in the ways of Ahab, his father, Jezebel, his mother, and Jeroboam son of Nebat. He served Baal and provoked Yahweh to anger.

• Conflict between Yahweh and Ahaziah Intensifies (2 Kgs 1:1-14): There

were four rounds of conflict exchange between Ahaziah and Yahweh. 1) Moab rebelled, and Ahaziah fell from his palace upper room in Samaria (2 Kgs 1:1-2a). Even though Yahweh was not mentioned as the cause of these incidents in verses 1 and 2a, the waw consecutive verbal forms of verses 1 and 2a seem to imply that these two events were consequences following Yahweh’s anger toward Ahaziah’s offense mentioned in 1 Kgs 22:52-53. 2) Ahaziah sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zebub, not of Yahweh, regarding his recovery (2 Kgs 1:2b). 3) Yahweh sent Elijah to intercept Ahaziah’s messengers and pronounced Ahaziah’s death (2 Kgs 1:3-8). 4) Ahaziah demanded the capture of Elijah as the three-panel repetition reveals (2 Kgs 1:9-14). In the last round of conflict exchange, there was a struggle as to who had the higher authority, the king or the prophet.

187• Conflict between Yahweh and Ahaziah Resolved (2 Kgs 1:15-17a):

Elijah came down with the third captain and pronounced the death of Ahaziah as the word of Yahweh had said.

The most prominent literary device in this episode is Leitwort. The

Hebrew word dr~y` recurs in many verses. It is variously translated as leave

(the bed, vv. 4, 6, 16), come down (from the hill, vv. 9, 11, 15a), come down

(from heaven, vv. 10a, 12a), falls (from heaven, vv. 10b, 12b, 14), and go

down (from the hill, v. 15b) in NIV. Another Hebrew word hl*u* occurs less

frequently, being opposite to dr~y` in meaning, and is translated as go up (vv.

4, 6, 9, 13).

Ahaziah was forced to go up to his bed (vv. 4, 6) due to his injury.

His desire was to come down from his bed and become healthy again, but

Yahweh would not grant him his desire because of his disregard for the God

of Israel (v. 4, 6). In frustration and anger Ahaziah sent three “captains of

the fifties” to catch Elijah, but even the king’s authority could not make the

prophet of Yahweh come down from the hilltop (vv. 9, 11). Instead, what

really came down was judgment from Yahweh. Fire came down from

heaven consuming the first and the second “captain of fifty” along with their

fifty men (vv. 10, 12). When Elijah eventually came down with the third

188“captain of fifty” (v. 15), Yahweh’s judgment reached Ahaziah; he died

and never came down from his sick bed (v. 16).

• Closure (2 Kgs 1:17b-18): This brought an end to the reign of Ahaziah

and provided a transition to the reign of Joram later on (2 Kgs 3:1).

Summary

With the death of Ahaziah recorded, the narrator concluded the

ministry of Elijah. In the initial stage of the conflict against Baalism,

Yahweh used this prophet to bring judgment upon Ahab and Ahaziah.

Regarding Ahab’s other descendents and Jezebel, Yahweh was going to use

Elisha, Hazael and Jehu (cf. 1 Kgs 19:17) to bring judgment. The next

chapter focuses upon the second stage of Yahweh’s conflict against Baalism

primarily through the ministry of Elisha.

189

CHAPTER 5

THE STORIES OF ELISHA

This chapter deals with the second stage of Yahweh’s conflict

against Baalism primarily through the ministry of Elisha. Like the previous

chapter, the material is first divided into episodes with each episode

containing the largest divisible literary block in an effort to avoid analyzing

small details to the extent of neglecting the overall flow of the story. Within

each episode, there are discussions in the areas of setting, character and

characterization, plot and plot structure. Under the heading of character and

characterization, the characters are analyzed in the order of their appearance.

Under the heading of plot and plot structure, the following sigla are

used to indicate the different levels of plot structure:

• The first level of plot structure

† The second level of plot structure

‡ The third level of plot structure

The brief explanation following each level of plot structure is written in

single space. When expanded explanations or exegetical notes become

190necessary, they are written in double space with full margin.

Other literary devices peculiar to each episode are discussed under

setting, character and characterization, or plot and plot structure; no other

separate headings are provided so as to reduce possible repetition.

The Succession Story/Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (I);

2 Kings 2

Setting

Temporal Setting

As discussed under the temporal setting of the last episode in

chapter 4, the temporal setting for this episode is the short duration right

after the death of Ahab. This period covers Ahaziah’s short reign of about

one year (1 Kgs 22:51; cf. 2 Kgs 3:1).

Physical Setting

The last journey on earth that Elijah and Elisha took together was

from Gilgal to Bethel to Jericho, and then across the Jordan River; east of

the Jordan River, Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind. Gilgal is at

the eastern border of the plain of Jericho, which is right next to the Jordan

River (Josh 4:19; 5:10). Elijah made this detour under Yahweh’s command;

191its purpose might have been to have the last meetings with the sons of

the prophets at Gilgal (2 Kgs 4:38), Bethel (2 Kgs 2:3), and Jericho (2 Kgs

2:5).

This detour also helped to have the places mentioned in this

episode to converge at Trans-jordan, before which time Elijah was the

leading prophet and after which time Elisha was the only remaining prophet.

v. 1 Elijah and Elisha at Gilgal v. 2 Elijah and Elisha at Bethel v. 4 Elijah and Elisha at Jericho v. 8 Elijah and Elisha crossed the Jordan v. 9-13 The transition at Trans-jordan v. 14 Elisha crossed the Jordan v. 18 Elisha at Jericho v. 23 Elisha at Bethel v. 25 Elisha at Mount Carmel Elisha returned to Samaria

Character and Characterization

Elijah

Elijah is a protagonist, but his importance faded out as he

transferred his position to Elisha.

Elisha

Elisha is also a protagonist. As the episode develops, the focus of

192the text shifts from Elijah to Elisha. Elisha becomes Yahweh’s prophet

par excellence by the end of this episode.

The sons of the prophets

The sons of the prophets are agents who serve as foil characters to

heighten the spiritual qualifications of Elisha. Like Elisha, they apparently

all received a somewhat similar revelation from Yahweh regarding Elijah’s

coming translation (2 Kgs 2:3, 5). Unlike Elisha, however, they insisted on

searching up in the mountains and down in the valleys for Elijah. They

thought Elijah would be placed somewhere nearby after the translation.

They did not understand that there was no more need for Elijah after that

day, because Yahweh was putting a new representative in his place (2 Kgs

2:16-18).

Men of Jericho

The men of Jericho are agents, the stereotypical Israelites who

would come to Yahweh and ask for help.

Youths of Bethel

The youths of Bethel are agents, typical of those who would

challenge the authority of Yahweh’s servant.

193Bears

The bears are agents. Animals can also be Yahweh’s instruments

to bring judgment upon those who challenge him.

Plot and Plot Structure

• Plot Twist Resolved/Establishment of Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (2 Kings 2): The presentation of Elisha in this chapter provides resolution to the plot twist that was left hanging in 1 Kgs 19:19-21. Elijah had not followed Yahweh’s instruction to anoint Hazael and Jehu. In his anointing Elisha, Elijah was in effect saying by his action that he would have nothing to do with installing the political heads of Aram and Israel. Here Yahweh was to remove Elijah from the earth and to install Elisha as his successor.

† Setting (2 Kgs 2:1a): Yahweh was about to remove Elijah from the

earth. † Action Begins (2 Kgs 2:1b): Elijah and Elisha started their journey

from Gilgal. † Tension Introduced and Intensifies (2 Kgs 2:2-6): Three times at

Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho (vv. 2, 4, 6), Elijah asked Elisha to let him go alone. Each time Elisha refused. Following each of the first two dialogues between Elijah and Elisha, there was a pause inserted in which the sons of the prophets questioned Elisha regarding his awareness of what was to happen to his master. The dialogues between Elijah and Elisha and the dialogues between Elisha and the sons of the prophets served to build up the tension for the transition from one prophet to the other. Would Elisha be able to recognize the significance of the trip, and would Elisha actually succeed Elijah as the representative of Yahweh?

† Tension Resolved (2 Kgs 2:7-15): The prophetic office was

transferred successfully east of the River Jordan.

194

2 Kings 2:2-15 is clearly arranged in a three-panel repetition.

Each panel is composed of a physical setting (Bethel, Jericho, and Trans-

jordan respectively) sandwiched between two dialogues. The third panel is

the most important because it is in the physical setting of this panel that the

transferring of prophetic office took place. The panel structure is diagramed

as follows:

Dialogue between Elijah

and Elisha Dialogue between Elisha and the sons of the prophets

v. 2a Elijah said to Elisha: “Return

from here, for Yahweh has sent me to Bethel.” Elisha said to Elijah: “As Yahweh lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.”

v. 2b And they went down to Bethel. v. 3

The sons of the prophets at Bethel said to Elisha: “Do you know that Yahweh is going to take your master up from you today?” Elisha said to the sons of the prophets: “Yes, I know; be silent!”

195 v. 4a

Elijah said to Elisha: “Return from here, for Yahweh has sent me to Jericho.” Elisha said to Elijah: “As Yahweh lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.”

v. 4b

And they came to Jericho.

v. 5

The sons of the prophets at Jericho said to Elisha: “Do you know that Yahweh is going to take your master up from you today?” Elisha said to the sons of the prophets: “Yes, I know; be silent!”

v. 6 Elijah said to Elisha: “Return

from here, for Yahweh has sent me to the Jordan.” Elisha said to Elijah: “As Yahweh lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.”

vv. 7-15a

The transfer of prophetic office happened at Trans-jordan.

v. 15b-16

The sons of the prophets at Jericho prostrated themselves before Elisha and said, “Let our fifty strong men go and look for your master; probably the Spirit of Yahweh has picked him up and set him down on some

196mountain or in some valley.” Elisha said, “No, do not send them!”

The transfer of prophetic office that happened at Trans-jordan is

further elaborated by a chiastic sentence arrangement:

v. 7 Fifty sons of the prophets from Jericho followed at a distance and

watched . . . v. 8 Elijah struck the water with his mantle, the water divided,

and two of them crossed over on dry ground. vv. 9-13 The succession of prophetic office took place on

the east side of Jordan River. v. 14 Elisha struck the water with Elijah’s mantle; the water

divided. Elisha crossed back over Jordan River. v. 15a Fifty sons of the prophets were watching, they said, “The spirit of

Elijah is resting on Elisha.”

The chiastic arrangement, therefore, hinges on verses 9-13, the

turning point at which Yahweh’s representative in Israel changed from

Elijah to Elisha. Here Elijah frankly revealed his coming departure to Elisha

and encouraged him to ask one thing from his master. Elisha incisively

asked for the inheritance of Elijah’s prophetic office (v. 9).1 Elijah told him

1 Elisha requested a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Deuteronomy 21:17 uses

197

this was a difficult request that would be granted only if Elisha saw

Elijah when he was taken up (v. 10). Suddenly, a chariot of fire and horses

of fire appeared and separated the two men, and Elijah went up to heaven in

a whirlwind. Elisha saw and cried out, “My father! My father! The chariots

and horsemen of Israel” (v. 12)!

This small block of literature (vv. 9-13) is the climax of the

episode; it is full of scenes and sounds of heavenly grandeur. In the

atmosphere of intensive suspense, which had been steadily building up

starting from Elijah’s persuasion (vv. 2, 4, 6) and the sons of the prophets’

warning and further reinforced by Elijah’s conditional statement (v. 10), the

transfer of prophetic office successfully took place. Elisha tore apart his

own cloak and picked up the cloak of Elijah which had fallen from him (v.

13). In only an instant, Elijah was no more; Elisha was now Yahweh’s new

prophet par excellence!

† Closure (2 Kgs 2: 16-25): Elisha had now replaced Elijah as the

representative of Yahweh. ‡ <No trace of Elijah was ever found> (2 Kgs 2:16-18): The

futility of the search for Elijah by the sons of the prophets

this term, double portion ( <y]n~v=-yP!), to denote the first-born as the rightful heir of the father. Here Elisha is requesting and expressing his desire to become the heir of Elijah’s prophetic office.

198

confirmed Elisha’s advice and further proved the completion of the prophetic succession.

‡ <Subplot> Elisha had authority over life (2 Kgs 2:19-22).

Jericho had been rebuilt by Hiel in Ahab’s time (1 Kgs 16:34).

The actual construction of this city came under Yahweh’s covenant curse;

anyone who dwelled in these premises also came under Yahweh’s covenant

curse. The inhabitants of this city came to Elisha for help, saying “the water

is bad and the land is unfruitful (tl#K*v^m=)”2 (v. 19). Elisha took a new

bowl with salt in it, threw the salt into the spring, and in the name of

Yahweh pronounced the water healed. “Never again shall death or

unfruitfulness come from this water” (vv. 20-21). With this announcement,

a new era began;3 the water would no longer bring death but life. Elisha

2 Unfruitful, tl#K*v^m=, comes from the word lk^v*, “be bereaved,” indicating

a barrenness as a result of a miscarrying womb of a female (Exod 23:26), a miscarrying womb of an animal (Gen 31:38), or a premature dropping of fruit (Mal 3:11, cf. BDB, 1013). The men of Jericho apparently were experiencing the covenant curse as depicted in Deut 28:18.

3 There have been various explanations for the use of salt in this episode. Honeyman argued that salt was used in an apotropaic function to ward off evil or mischief as in the case of Abimelech’s scattering salt over the ruins of Shechem (Judg 9:45; A. M. Honeyman, “The Salting of Shechem,” VT 3 (1953): 195). Robinson proposed that adding salt into water was a symbol of bringing life to this community (J. Robinson, The Second Book of Kings, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 28). Wiseman proposed that the new bowl symbolized purity and salt symbolized preservation, together pointing to the cleansing effect and the faithfulness of God’s covenant (Donald J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, Tyndale

199

demonstrated in this episode that as a new prophet he had the authority

to bring life.

‡ <Subplot> Elisha had authority over death (2 Kgs 2:23-25).

Bethel was one of the two cities where Jeroboam set up the golden

calf worship (1 Kgs 12:29). As Elisha was climbing along the road, the

youths4 from Bethel came out and jeered at him, “Go on up, you baldhead!

Go on up, you baldhead!” 5 Elisha’s curse demonstrated that as a new

Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman [Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993],197). Gray argued that salt was used in a rite of separation as in the case of rubbing salt on a new-born child to signify the division between the former “unclean” state of the child and his normal status as a member of the society (Ezek 16:4; Gray, I & II Kings, 478). If we take the rite that Elisha performed as a removal of Yahweh’s covenant curse, then Gray is probably right in looking at Elisha’s act as a separation of current Jericho from its previous curse. Elisha’s use of a new bowl, never used in the old era, supports this argument.

4 “The youths” translates the Hebrew phrase, <yN]f^q= <yr]u*n+ . The Hebrew word run can refer to an infant (Exod 2:6), a boy not weaned (1 Sam 1:22), a boy just weaned (1 Sam 1:24), a youth (Gen 21:12, Ishmael was in his late teens at this time; Gen 37:2, Joseph was 17 years old), or a grown man (Gen 41:12, Joseph was 30 years old). The Hebrew word run can also refer to the status of a servant irrespective of his age (Num 22:22; 2 Kgs 4:12, 25). The adjective <yN]f^q=, “small,” refers to their young age as is confirmed by the narrator’s use of the word <yd]l*y+ (“child, son, boy, youth,” BDB, 409) in describing the youth (v. 24). “Youth” is probably the most proper translation of this term because these young people had already reached an age where they were capable of deriding an adult prophet who was passing by.

5 Lindblom argues that the baldhead indicates that the Israelite prophets wore tonsures on their heads as were common among priests, monks, and holy men of other religions in Tyrian Melkart, Buddhism, and Roman Catholicism (J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962], 68). This interpretation is doubtful, for the Nazirite vow which consecrated a man or woman for Yahweh’s use required that

200

prophet he had Yahweh’s authority to bring death.

The Moabite Battle/Yahweh’s First Test of Joram’s Reign; 2 Kings 3

Setting

Temporal Setting

Through the literary device called resumptive repetition, the

narrator in 2 Kgs 3:5 picked up the issue of the Moabite rebellion which had

been left aside in 2 Kgs 1:1. Joram, right after he became king of Israel,

intended to recover the now lost vassal state.

Cultural Setting

During the siege “the king of Moab took his firstborn son, who

was to succeed him as a king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall”

(2 Kgs 3:27, NIV). Margalit connects this incident to a tablet found in the

Syrian city of Ugarit in 1978 and suggests that this was a standard practice

of Canaanite “holy war.”6 As this kind of practice had happened elsewhere,

no razor be put on the hair (Num 6:2; Judg 13:5). It was therefore highly improbable that Elisha, who was separated for Yahweh’s use, would have worn a tonsure as the pagan priests did. It was most likely, however, that Elisha did have some degree of baldness.

6 Baruch Margalit, “Why King Mesha of Moab Sacrificed His Oldest Son,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 12/6 (November 1986): 62. This Ugaritic tablet was dated about 1250-1200 B.C. The full text was translated as follows:

201

Margalit suggests that the king of Moab did it as a conditioned reflex,

resulting in the creation of a mass hysteria among the soldiers of Israel. The

words “great wrath” ( lodG`-[x#q#) in verse 27, Margalit suggests, denote the

psychological breakdown or trauma that affected the Israelite forces when

they beheld the sign of human sacrifice atop the walls of Kir-Hareseth.7

Therefore, the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land.

Margalit’s suppositions have met resistance. Heider questions the

certainty of the alleged human sacrifice depicted in this Ugaritic tablet.8

Introduction If an enemy force attacks your [city-]gates, An aggressor, your walls; You shall lift up your eyes to Baal [and pray]:

Prayer ‘O Baal: Drive away the [enemy] force from our gates, The aggressor from our walls. We shall sacrifice a bull [to thee], O Baal, A votive-pledge we shall fulfill [viz.]: A first born, Baal, we shall sacrifice, A child we shall fulfill [as votive-pledge]. A “tenth” [of all our wealth] we shall tithe [thee], To the temple of Baal we shall go up, In the footpaths of the House-of –Baal we shall walk.’

Conclusion Then shall Baal hearken to your prayers, He shall drive the [enemy] force from your gates, The aggressor from your walls.

7 Ibid., 63.

8 G. S. Heider, “The Cult of Molek,” JSOT 43 (1985): 146.

202

Burns rightly points out that Chemosh, not Baal, was the god of Moab,

as is evidenced from the Moabite Stone, 1 Kgs 11:33, Num 21:27-30, 46,

Judg 11:24, and Jer 48:7, 13.9 Even though Margalit’s connecting the

Ugaritic tablet to Mesha’s practice is not one hundred percent transferable, it

does provide an excellent starting point in two key areas of this story: (1) the

power of a tutelary deity over the city, and (2) the “great wrath”

(lodG`-[x#q#). To whose wrath does this term refer?

Regarding the tutelary deity, Burns points out that in ancient

sieges, the citizens on the wall of the besieged town were often seen

invoking divine aid with upraised hands and offering incense. Occasionally,

child sacrifice was done as a last despairing appeal to the tutelary deity.10 In

a similar religious action, Mesha sacrificed his son as he pled protection

from Chemosh. When the siege reached a crisis, the city wall, which alone

afforded protection, became the focal point for the besieged and besiegers

alike. It was natural, therefore, to perform sacrifice on the wall to summon

9 John B. Burns, “Why Did the Besieging Army Withdraw? (2 Kgs 3:27),”

ZAW 102 (1990): 192. For the translation of the Moabite Stone, see W. F. Albright, “The Moabite Stone,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), ed. James B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 320-21.

10 Burns, “Besieging Army,” 190.

203

the god of that nation to save and to protect.11

Regarding the “great wrath” (lodG`-[x#q#), interpretations mainly

fall into one of two camps: one attributes it to a deity,12 the other attributes it

to that of the Israelites.13 Burns points out that the word [x#q# in its noun

form refers to the wrath of deity in 25 out of the 27 occurrences (not

counting 2 Kgs 3:27). Only two occurrences refer to the wrath of man, and

both are used in post-exilic literature.14 Yet in a search of this word in

various stems of the verbal form, 13 of the 35 occurrences refer to the wrath

of human beings,15 while the rest refer to deity,16 primarily to Yahweh.

11 Ibid.

12 For example, Burns attributes the great wrath to Chemosh, god of Moab. (Ibid., 193). Rehm conjectures that a plague among the besiegers was understood as a sign of Chemosh's anger (Martin Rehm, Das zweite Buch der Könige: ein Kommentar, [Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982], 47).

13 For example, here are four views: (1) Margalit suggests that the wrath was from the Israelites, as is mentioned before. (2) Montgomery proposes that it was the anger, moral outrage and revulsion of Israelites at Mesha’s gruesome sacrifice that caused them to lose all heart and retreat. See James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of Kings, The International Critical Commentary, ed. Henry Snyder Gehman (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951), 364. (3) LXX translates as repentance (metavmelo") indicating a change of heart in the Israelites. (4) The Vulgate uses the word indignation (indignatio), thus crediting the besiegers with a righteous anger at this human sacrifice.

14 Burns, “Besieging Army,” 191.

15 The wrath of human beings includes that of Pharaoh (Gen 40:2; 41:10), of Moses (Exod 16:20; Lev 10:16; Num 31:14), of the commanders of the Philistines (1 Sam 29:4), of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:11), of Elisha (2 Kgs 13:19), of King Xerxes (Esth 1:12), of Xerxes’ guards (Esth 2:21), of people (Isa 8:21), of army officers (Jer 37:15), and of

204

Therefore, on the basis of word-count alone, [x#q# can refer equally to

Chemosh or to the Israelites. The decision needs to come from the context.

Wrath can hardly be an Israelite reaction to the revulsive action of

the Moabite king, given the fact that the soldiers of Israel were accustomed

to destruction (v. 25) and killing on the battlefield (v. 24). On the basis of

the preposition lu , it seems to indicate that this great wrath was something

that was superimposed upon Israel. This superimposition could not have

been from Yahweh, for through Elisha, Yahweh had already told the

Israelites that He would hand Moab over to them and that they were utterly

to destroy the land (vv. 18-19). Moreover, because Mesha’s revulsive

sacrifice was foreign to Yahwistic teaching, it certainly would have been no

grounds for Yahweh to be angry with the Israelites. The most natural

interpretation is that the great wrath from Chemosh forced the Israelites to

retreat.17

Was Chemosh truly powerful enough to force the Israelites to

retreat? This is the crux of the problem, the solution to this problem will

King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:12).

16 The following verses refer to the wrath of deity: Lev 10:6; Num 16:22; Deut 1:34; 9:19; Josh 22:18; Ps 106:32; Eccl 5:6; Isa 47:6; 54:9; 57:16, 17, 17; 64:9; 65:5; Lam 5:22; Dan 9:7, 8, 22; Zech 1:2, 15, 15; 8:14.

17 Burns suggests the same (Burns, “Besieging Army,” 193).

205

also provide the key to understanding this story. The Israelites had been

at wars with nations who believed in other gods. Before each military

encounter, Yahweh had exhorted the Israelites to “fear not;”18 they were to

remember that Yahweh was their God and that no other gods could stand

before him. In Joram’s time, sadly, the people of Israel had moved far away

from Yahweh. In this instance, it was the fear of the Israelites at what they

perceived as great wrath from Chemosh that put them in retreat.19

When contrasted to the Gentiles, the spiritual state of the Israelites

was even more pitiful. Burns recorded a Pharaoh’s management of a similar

event, which showed far greater courage than the Israelites’:

Egyptian temple reliefs of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties (1303-1085 BCE) record sieges of Canaanite towns by Seti I, Ramses II, Merenptah and Ramses III. Some of these reliefs depict citizens on the wall of the besieged town invoking divine aid with upraised hands and the offering of incense. On occasion a child is shown being dangled over the wall; in the illustration of the siege of Ascalon two children are displayed. P. Derchain and A. J. Spalinger believe that

18 For example, Exod 14:13; 15:16; 23:27; Num 14:9; Deut 1:21; 2:25; 3:22;

11:25; 31:6, 8; Josh 8:1; 10:8, 25; Judg 6:10; 2 Kgs 6:16. In battle, the Israelites were exhorted to fear neither pagan gods nor other nations.

19 Later on the narrator commented that the Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire (2 Kgs 17:17). Even though the starting time for this practice was not specified, the Canaanite theology of child sacrifice must have made constant inroads into the hearts of the Israelite. The battle of Moab showed this influence. Ahaz’s offering sacrifices to the gods of Damascus also showed a similar point of view toward the pagan gods (2 Chr 28:23).

206

these children were sacrificed by being thrown from the walls as a last despairing appeal to the tutelary deity. While this may be true, though the actuality of sacrifice is by no means clear from the reliefs, the pharaoh remained unaffected and pressed his assault to a successful completion. He did not withdraw moved by a conditioned reflex.20

Character and Characterization

Joram, son of Ahab

Joram is an antagonist. Joram did evil in the eyes of Yahweh and

continued in the sins of Jeroboam. Joram got rid of the sacred stone of Baal

that his father had made (v. 2). By no means did this imply that Joram had

removed Baal worship from Israel, for in the next encounter between Joram

and Elisha, Elisha urged him to consult the prophets of his father or mother

(v. 13). Apparently the prophets of Baal were very much “alive and well.”

During Jehu’s purge of Baalism from Israel, right after Joram was

killed, we find that the house of Baal was still there (2 Kgs 10:20). The

sacred stone of Baal was still intact inside the house of Baal (2 Kgs 10:27),

and there were enough Baal prophets to fill the house of Baal (2 Kgs 10:21).

Joram might not have served Baal with as much dedication as had his father

20 Burns, “Besieging Army,” 190.

207

Ahab, but his mother Jezebel was still with him,21 and Baal worship was

still flourishing during Joram’s reign.

Being the descendant of Ahab, Joram continued his hostility

against Yahweh. Joram perceived Yahweh as someone who brought only

bad things upon him (cf. vv. 10, 13). The retreat from Kir Hareseth

demonstrated that Joram did not have a healthy fear of Yahweh.

Mesha king of Moab and the Moabites

Mesha is a supporting character. At the death of Ahab, Mesha

tried to shake off Israel’s lordship. This cost him a major defeat, major

destruction of his land, and even the life of his firstborn son (vv. 24-25, 27).

Mesha’s desperate struggles during the siege reflected his points of view. In

his first attempt to break the siege, Mesha took with him 700 swordsmen and

tried to break through the enemy line to the king of Edom. Mesha might

have hoped that this action would induce Edom, Moab’s neighboring state

and also a vassal (to Judah), to turn against Israel and Judah. But this

attempt failed. In his second attempt to break the siege, Mesha sacrificed his

firstborn son to Chemosh. This action also reflected Mesha’s point of view:

when all human effort failed, his god might be able to help him.

21 Jezebel’s death happened after the death of Joram (2 Kgs 9:33).

208

The Moabites are agents. They served their king in struggling

for national independence.

Jehoshaphat king of Judah

Jehoshaphat is an agent. His presence with Joram illustrates the

alliance between Israel and Judah. Jehoshaphat also serves as a foil

character, both in his attitude toward Elisha and in Elisha’s attitude toward

Jehoshaphat, to contrast Joram’s faithless attitude and disfavored position

before Yahweh (vv. 10, 13, cf. vv. 11-12, 14).22

King of Edom

He is an agent. As a vassal king under Judah, he simply trod along

with the kings of Israel and Judah through the Edomite desert to attack

Moab.

Elisha son of Shaphat

Elisha is the protagonist. He represents Yahweh to give instruction

to the three kings and to prophesy the outcome of the battle (vv. 16-19).

22 Jehoshaphat’s role as a foil here parallels his similar function as a foil to

Ahab in 1 Kgs 22.

209The Israelites

They are agents. Their reaction toward Mesha’s sacrificing his

firstborn son reflects the spiritual condition of the northern kingdom.

Plot and Plot Structure • Conflict between Yahweh and Joram, Ahab’s Descendant, Begins (2 Kgs

3:1-27): With Ahab and Ahaziah gone, the conflict between Yahweh and the house of Ahab now moved to Joram.

† Setting (2 Kgs 3:1): It was during the reign of Joram. † Conflict Introduced (2 Kgs 3:2-3): Joram did evil before Yahweh,

though not as badly as had his father Ahab and his mother Jezebel. He also clung to the sins of Jeroboam. On the surface, this seems to represent a return to being loyal to Yahweh, but the real spiritual state of Joram would be revealed through this and the following episodes.

† Conflict Intensifies/The First Test Introduced (2 Kgs 3:4-27):

Yahweh removed Moab from being Israel’s vassal state. Through the impending conflict that Moab was to have against Israel, Yahweh was going to test Israel’s spiritual condition.

‡ Setting (2 Kgs 3:4): In the vassal state of Moab. ‡ Conflict Introduced (2 Kgs 3:5): Mesha rebelled against the

King of Israel. The narrative device of resumptive repetition is used (See 2 Kgs 1:1).

‡ Conflict Intensifies (2 Kgs 3:6-9a): Joram king of Israel

solicited help from Jehoshaphat king of Judah and also from Judah’s vassal, the king of Edom. They all marched through the Desert of Edom, intending to put down the Moabite rebellion.

210 ‡ Plot Twist (2 Kgs 3:9b-13): The alliance ran out of water

before they were to face the enemy. ‡ Plot Twist Resolved/Potential Solution Appears (2 Kgs 3:14-

20): Yahweh miraculously provided water for the alliance; he also predicted a victory for the alliance.

‡ Conflict Takes a Major Step toward Resolution (2 Kgs 3:21-

25): The alliance gained a major victory according to the words of Yahweh spoken through Elisha.

The next morning the stream-bed was filled with water flowing

from the direction of Edom (opposite from the side of the Moabites) just as

Elisha had said (v. 20). This water miracle led to still another miracle in

Israel’s victory over the Moabites. The Moabites were all aware of the

dryness of the stream-bed at that time. Without wind or rain, they would not

have expected this stream-bed to have water anytime soon. Therefore, when

the sun reflected on the water early in the morning, the Moabites mistook the

reflection for the blood of the soldiers of the three kings (v. 23). The

Moabites rushed to the camps of the three kings, not for battle, but for

plunder. Unprepared for battle, they were like lambs rushing into the hands

of their predators and were utterly cut down by the Israelites (v. 24). As

prophesied by Elisha, the Israelites destroyed the Moabite towns, threw

stones on every good field to cover them, stopped up all the springs and

211felled every good tree (v. 25). Only Kir-Hareseth, the capital city of

Moab, remained, so Israelite soldiers armed with slings surrounded and

attacked it (v. 25).

‡ Plot Twist/Israel Failed the Test (2 Kgs 3:26-27): Israel

retreated. Even with a dominating military victory, the Israelites failed to reclaim Moab due to their unhealthy fear of the Moabite god Chemosh.

Yahweh through Elisha had foretold victory for the Israelites (vv.

18-19). Everything went exactly as Elisha had prophesied, and Moab was to

be almost completely given into the hands of the Israelites (vv. 24-25).

Sadly, the fear of Chemosh, not of Yahweh, cost the Israelites their promised

victory. Israel ended up with Moab out of her control for many years to

come. Under the reign of Joram, the Israelites were very far off from the

Deuteronomistic teaching. With the retreat of the Israelites, Yahweh’s

conflict with Joram was left hanging.

Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (II); 2 Kings 4

Four subplots are presented within this episode to establish

Elisha’s prophetic authority. In addition, this episode also emphasizes

Yahweh’s care for the circle of Israelites who remained loyal to him. He

granted them life, removed death from the child, removed death from the

212food and fed the hungry. He multiplied the small amount of food that

the loyal Israelites had brought to Elisha and fed a great number of his

hungry people.

Setting

Physical Setting

The physical setting around Elisha is very different from that

around Elijah. Elisha is described as a sociable prophet, who is often

surrounded by disciples (vv. 38, 43). His whereabouts are known to people

who need help in emergencies (vv. 1, 27), and his route of travel is

predictable (v. 10).

Character and Characterization

The Widow of One of the Sons of the Prophets and Her Two Sons

They are agents. Similar to the Zarephath widow and her son (1

Kgs 17:7-16), the widow and her two sons in this episode represent the

needy people that Yahweh specifically mentioned that he would take care of

(Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:19-22; 26:12-13; 27:19).

The Mosaic Law allows persons to sell themselves for labor

servitude as a means of debt payment (Exod 21:1-2; Lev 25:39-41; Deut

213

15:1-11). The passages all refer to a man who is single, married, or even

a father. In this instance, the creditor was taking away the boys to be slaves

without the consent of their mother.

Elisha

In addition to the physical settings that describe Elisha as a

sociable person, his speech also points out that he is a prophet with tender

concern for people in need (vv. 2, 13, 27, 38, 42). Elisha is a protagonist

here, representing Yahweh to take care of the faithful Yahwists.

The Shunammite Woman

The Shunammite woman is a type in the subplot (vv. 8-37). She

was called “great” apparently due to her wealth and standing at home and in

the local community.23 She was perceptive in recognizing Elisha as a man

of God and was hospitable in receiving him (v. 8). Her husband trusted her

in the management of the home as was evidenced by his ready acceptance of

her proposal to build a room for Elisha (v. 10). Her insight into Yahweh’s

power was further evidenced by her determination to see and ask no one but

Elisha, the giver of life, for the restoration of her dead child (vv. 22, 26, 30).

23 Her wealth is evidenced by her ability to furnish an extra room for Elisha (2

Kgs 4:10) and by the presence of her many servants (2 Kgs 4:19, 22, 24).

214The Husband of the Shunammite Woman

He is an agent who plays a less important role than his wife. His

presence simply provides the Shunammite woman with married status.

The Son of the Shunammite Woman

He is an agent. His birth, death, and revival demonstrate the power

of Yahweh through his prophet Elisha.

Gehazi

He is an agent. He serves as an intermediate person between

Elisha and the Shunammite woman (vv. 12-15, 25-27). He also serves as a

foil character to demonstrate Elisha’s unique ministry of reviving the dead

(v. 31).

The Sons of the Prophets from Gilgal

They are agents. They represent the Yahweh loyalists whom

Yahweh cares for in time of need (v. 38).

Servant of Elisha

The servant of Elisha is an agent whose function is to carry out

Elisha’s command (v. 38), whose words are to reflect on the difficulties that

215challenge Elisha (v. 43).

A Man from Baal Shalishah

He is an agent who represents the loyal Yahwists whom Yahweh

uses to provide for his servant. The word Baal-Shalishah (hv*l!v* lu^B^),

literally, “three-Baals,” may indicate that there were three Baal idols there.

If this was the case, then this physical setting served as a foil to contrast the

loyalty that this man demonstrated toward Yahweh. Instead of bringing his

first fruits to Baal or to the apostate priests in Dan or Bethel (1 Kgs 12:28-

31), this man brought his first fruits to the man of God in accordance with

the teachings in Lev 23:20.

A Hundred Men before Elisha

They are agents. The number “one hundred” signifies Yahweh’s

ability to provide from seemingly limited resources.

Plot and Plot Structure • Establishment of Elisha’s Prophetic Authority Continues (2 Kgs 4:1-44)

† <Subplot> (2 Kgs 4:1-7): Elisha, like Elijah, sustained the widow and the fatherless in their time of need.

Comparison of this miracle with the one performed by Elijah in

216Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:7-16) shows close similarities:

217

Elijah Elisha Recipient A Gentile woman and her son,

who might not initially have possessed a personal knowledge of Yahweh.

An Israelite widow and her two sons, bereft of her husband who had been the servant of Elisha and who had feared Yahweh.

The things that they own

A handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug.

A jar of oil.

Condition for the miracle

Faith in the word of Yahweh came from the mouth of the man of God. Faith was shown by the act of the widow’s giving to Elijah the little that she had.

Faith in the word of Yahweh came from the mouth of the man of God. Faith was reflected by the number of jars that she borrowed from her neighbors.

† <Subplot> (2 Kgs 4:8-37): Elisha, like Elijah, revived a dead child.

The plot development divides this subplot into three scenes very

naturally. The first scene is at the home of the Shunammite woman and

centers around the birth of the child (vv. 8-17). The second scene is on

Mount Carmel and centers around the death of the child (vv. 18-30). The

third scene is back at the house of the Shunammite woman and centers

around the revival of the child (vv. 31-37).

In each scene, as Hobbs points out, there is one dominant event

that transgresses accepted traditional practices. In scene one, Elisha

transgresses the traditional acceptable boundary in trying to reciprocate the

218

hospitality offered by the host. In scene two, the Shunammite woman

transgresses the acceptable boundary by coming to the prophet and grabbing

his feet in her desperation for help. In scene three, Elisha transgresses the

boundary of clean and unclean by coming into direct contact with a corpse.24

‡ Scene 1 (2 Kgs 4:8-17): Elisha reciprocated the hospitality;

the Shunammite woman was blessed with a child.

Arguing from protocols as established by Matthews25 and

Malina,26 Hobbs points out that “the function of hospitality in the

Mediterranean world is to transform a potentially hostile stranger into a

guest.” The prerogative of offering hospitality can be, but need not be, the

male’s. Since hospitality here takes place in the house, the action is done in

the domain of women’s power.27 It is within this context that we are

introduced to the first scene of the episode of the Shunammite woman.

The Shunammite woman functioned well within her role as a

24 T. R. Hobbs, “Man, Woman, and Hospitality—2 Kings 4:8-36,” Biblical

Theology Bulletin (BTB), 23 (1993): 91-100.

25 Victor H. Matthews, “Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4,” BTB 21 (1991): 13-21.

26 Bruce. J. Malina, “The Received View and What It Cannot Do: III John and Hospitality,” Semeia 35 (1986): 171-89.

27 Hobbs, “Man, Woman, and Hospitality,” 94.

219

household wife. She was described as a “great woman” (hl*odg= hV*a!)

for her perception and her hospitality. She exercised her power by urging

the prophet to eat food in her home (v. 8). She recognized that the prophet

was a holy man of God (v. 9) and got her husband’s consent to build a small

chamber on the roof. It was furnished with bed, table, chair, and lamp so

that the prophet could come in and rest whenever he passed by (v. 10).28

The comfortable furnishing of the roof chamber reflected the high regard

that the Shunammite woman placed upon Elisha.

In the traditional conventions of hospitality, the woman’s behavior

presented no problem; it was the behavior of the prophet that deserves more

comment. Reciprocity by the guest was not expected in situations of

hospitality. Elisha’s attempt to use his influence on the woman’s behalf

transgressed the bounds of acceptable behavior.29 He offered to speak on

her behalf to the king or to the commander of the army. The Shunammite

woman’s short answer of four Hebrew words, “I dwell among my-people”

(tb#v*y{ yk!n{a* yM!u^ EotB=; v. 13), reflected her feeling of security and

contentment in the community of her own family and tribe, thus rejecting

28 Abigail, similarly, was also a great woman. She mustered a great number

of gifts in a short time so as to appease David and to save the life of her husband (1 Sam 25:18-19). Abigail functioned well within her domain of power.

220

Elisha’s offer of finding favor from high government officials.

Elisha, however, was not stopped by the Shunammite woman’s

rejection. After consultation with his servant Gehazi, Elisha predicted that

the Shunammite woman would conceive and have a son within the next

year, a prophecy which came true (v. 17).30

‡ Scene 2 (2 Kgs 4:18-30): The child died; the Shunammite

woman strove to have her dead child revived.

In scene 2, the action shifted gradually from the home of the

Shunammite woman to the home of Elisha on Mount Carmel. One day

when the little boy was with his father in the field, a sickness in the form of

a headache struck him, and the boy was taken back to his mother. Although

29 Hobbs, “Man, Woman, and Hospitality,” 95.

30 Shields argues that the child was Elisha’s responsibility because he had raped the Shunammite woman, presuming that it was her desire to have a son. See Mary E. Shields, “Subverting a Man of God, Elevating a Woman: Role and Power Reversals in 2 Kings 4,” JSOT 58 (1993): 62-63. This argument is purely a conjecture and finds no literary support from the episode. (1) Elisha had been consistently avoiding direct contact or even communication with this woman. Gehazi had been serving as the intermediary throughout (vv. 12-15, 36). Later on, when the Shunammite woman came to Elisha and held on to his feet, it was so unconventional and unacceptable that Gehazi pushed her away (v. 27). (2) The woman was called “the child’s mother” (vv. 19, 20, 30), and her husband was referred to as “the child’s father” (vv. 18, 19). Elisha, meanwhile, had consistently referred to the boy with neutral terms such as “your (the Shunammite woman’s) child” (v. 26), “the boy” (vv. 29, 32, 34, 35), and “your son” (v. 36). (3) In verse 16, the Shunammite woman told Elisha: “No, my Lord, Man of God, do not lie to your maidservant!” She was contesting that Elisha should not raise in her a false hope for a child, as was confirmed later on in her dialogue with Elisha (v. 28).

221

his mother cared for him on her lap, the boy died at noon. Up to this

time in the second scene, every character had functioned well within one’s

proper domain. The woman, however, at the death of her child, overstepped

the limits of her traditional role and made plans to see Elisha. Hobbs aptly

says:

Vv 21-25 portray the woman as dominant actor, which is normal in matters of domesticity, including family health and the preparation of bodies for burial. But in making plans for activity outside the home, the woman oversteps the limits of her traditional roles. She takes charge of the journey and the preparation for the journey, even though it is beyond the limits of her domain of power, and even though it is outside the time (“new moons and Sabbaths,” v 23) when women could be seen in public in a relatively independent manner. . . .

The image of the powerful woman continues even though she is now “out of place.” In vv. 25-28 she is on Elisha’s territory. . . . But, unlike Elisha earlier in the story, she is a stranger who arrives as an uninvited guest, thus breaking a primary rule of hospitality. She lies to her “host’s” servant (v 26), and challenges Elisha by accusing him of trickery and deceit (v 28), further insulting her “host.” In all this Elisha, the all-knowing prophet, is forced to confess ignorance (v 27).31

In response to the woman’s request, Elisha sent off Gehazi with

Elisha’s own staff so as to represent the prophet in this mission of rescue (v.

29). Even so, the Shunammite woman still refused to leave Elisha unless he

would go with her in person. The statement “As Yahweh lives and as you

There is no implication that Elisha had violated her at this moment as Shields argues.

31 Hobbs, “Man, Woman, and Hospitality,” 96.

222

live, I will not leave you” (v. 30), exactly the same wording Elisha had

expressed earlier (2 Kgs 2:2, 4, 6), showed that the Shunammite woman

possessed keen spiritual insight comparable to that of Elisha. She

understood that nothing short of Yahweh’s prophet par excellence could

revive her dead child.

‡ Scene 3 (2 Kgs 4:31-37): Elisha contacted the corpse and

revived the dead child.

The third scene was back again in the Shunammite woman’s home.

Gehazi had failed to revive the boy. At that point Elisha came into the room

and found32 the boy’s dead body on Elisha’s bed (v. 32). As a holy man of

God, Elisha was not supposed to touch the corpse, yet Elisha transgressed

his limit to save the boy. Not only had the corpse already been placed on

Elisha’s bed, but at that time Elisha actually came into direct contact with

the dead body. It was complete identification with the dead boy,33 causing

32 The Hebrew word is literally, and behold (hN}h!w+); with this word, the

readers are introduced to the prophet’s point of view. See chapter 2 of this dissertation for definition of “point of view.”

33 Elisha lay upon the boy mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands (v. 34). By symmetry, this gesture implied that Elisha was nose to nose and ears to ears, a complete identification of the prophet with the dead boy in all five senses.

223the resuscitation to take place.34

Elisha’s ministry of reviving the dead shared a great similarity with

that of Elijah:

Elijah (1 Kgs 17:17-24) Elisha (2 Kgs 4:32-37) Recipient A Gentile boy who belonged

to a widow in Zarephath of Sidon

The son of an Israelite woman, to whom this boy was given as a reward for her hospitality

Process Elijah put the dead boy on his bed, stretched himself out on the corpse three times, and cried to Yahweh, “O Yahweh my God, let this boy’s life return to him (v. 21)!”

The Shunammite woman had placed her dead boy on Elisha’s bed. Elisha got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As Elisha stretched himself out upon the corpse, the boy’s body grew warm. Elisha walked around and stretched out upon the corpse the second time (vv. 34-35).

Result Yahweh heard Elijah’s cry, the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived (v. 22).

The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes (v. 35).

Elisha’s behavior in this ministry is worth mentioning. He

apparently had learned well under his master: the reason that Yahweh

granted the boy life was because of Elijah’s total identification with the dead

34 See chapter 4 of this dissertation regarding Elijah’s ministry to the dead boy

in 1 Kings 17 for the significance of this act.

224boy, thus causing Elijah’s total defilement. When facing a similar

challenge brought to him by the Shunammite woman, Elisha imitated his

master. The text recorded the details to emphasize Elisha’s exactness, “He

got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to

hands” (v. 34). Elisha’s total identification with the corpse worked the very

first time; the boy’s body grew warm. In his careful way of doing things,

Elisha lay on the boy the second time, at which point the boy sneezed seven

times and became alive again.

† <Subplot> (2 Kgs 4:38-41): Elisha removed the death in the food

supply. † <Subplot> (2 Kgs 4:42-44): Elisha multiplied food for the

multitude.

In each of these two subplots, the parallel phrase “pour out for the

men, so that they may eat” ( Wlk@ay{w+ <u*l* qx^; v. 41), and “give to the men,

so that they may eat” ( Wlk@ay{w+ <u*l* /T@^; v. 42-43) appears. Both

expressions emphasize that through Elisha Yahweh cared for his own

people.

225

Israel’s Spiritual Leprosy/Yahweh’s Second Test of Joram’s Reign; 2 Kings 5

During the reign of Joram, two more tests showing the contrast

between Aram and Israel are presented (2 Kings 5 and 2 Kgs 6:24-7:20).

These are a continuation of the conflict between Yahweh and Joram, a

descendant of Ahab. However, in both tests, Joram is not mentioned by

name but is only presented as King of Israel. This seems to indicate that the

narrator used this opportunity to point out for the readers the poor spiritual

condition of Israel in general under the reign of Joram.

2 Kings 5:1-27 is clearly a narrative block not only because of plot

development but also by the fact that the word being-a-leper ( ur`x)m= )

appears in verses 1 and 27 and thus forms an inclusio.35 In this episode,

Elisha's ministry extends from the Israelites over to the Gentiles.

Setting

Physical Setting

Many locations are present in this episode. The locations include

places in both Gentile and Israelite territory. Through the use of the words

35 See chapter 2 of this dissertation for the definition of inclusio.

226

come to (aw{b, vv. 4, 6, 8, 9, 24, 25), go down (dr~y`, v. 14), return (bWv, v.

15), and hurry after ([d^r`, v. 21) different locations are introduced to the

readers. These words bring readers to the court of the King of Aram (v. 4),

the court of the King of Israel (v. 6), Elisha’s house (vv. 8-9), the River

Jordan (v. 14), Elisha’s house (v. 15), Naaman’s home-going chariot (v. 21),

the hill in front of Elisha’s house (v. 24), and Elisha’s house once again (v.

25).

The characters are interrelated through the “Leitwort” in front of

(yn}p=l!),36 which not only describes the spatial relationship but also

emphasizes the hierarchical relationship between the characters.37 Seven

different times the word in front of (yn}p=l!) is used to present paired

characters on stage: (1) As commander of the army of the king of Aram,

Naaman was a great man in front of his master (v. 1). (2) The little

(insignificant, hN`f^q=) girl who was captured from Israel during one of the

Aramean raids into Israel served in front of Naaman’s wife (v. 2). (3) This

little Israelite girl wished that Naaman might be in front of the prophet in

Samaria so that his leprosy might be cured (v. 3). (4) After washing in the

36 See chapter 2 of this dissertation for the definition of Leitwort.

37 Moore points out that in front of (yn}p=l!) has a meaning of subordination. See Rick Dale Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories, JSOTSup no. 95, ed.

227

River Jordan and being cleansed of his leprosy, Naaman stood in front of

Elisha and confessed that there was no God in all the earth except in Israel,

and Naaman urged Elisha to receive his gift (v. 15). (5) Elisha declined

Naaman’s gift and emphasized his refusal by using the formula “As Yahweh

lives, in front of whom I serve, I will not receive any” (v. 16). (6)

Afterwards, Gehazi pursued Naaman to ask him for a gift. Naaman gave

him two talents of silver and two sets of garments and even sent his two

servants to carry these things in front of Gehazi (v. 23). (7) Gehazi then

came and stood before Elisha (v. 25). Gehazi was then judged, went out

from in front of Elisha, and became a leper white as snow (v. 27).

Character and Characterization

Among many characters that are presented in this episode, only

Naaman, Elisha, and Gehazi are named. The others are agents that are

simply referred to through their roles: King of Aram, King of Israel, wife of

Naaman, little Israelite girl, servant of Elisha, and servants of Naaman.

Naaman

Naaman is a full-fledged major character in this episode. Through

David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 73.

228

the process of seeking a cure for his leprosy, he is transformed from a

man of pride to a man of humility and from being a pagan to being a

believer in Yahweh.

Naaman started as a great (lodG`) man. The narrator's description

of Naaman is most impressive: “He was the commander of the army for the

King of Aram, a great man before his master, a person highly regarded

because through him Yahweh had given victory to Aram, and a mighty man

of valor (v. 1).” Naaman's life, however, was short of being-whole ( <Ov*, cf. v.

19), because in just one Hebrew word, the narrator said that he-was-a-leper

( ur`x)m=, v. 1).

This wholeness ( <l)v*) was not something that would come easily.

Naaman, apparently, was very eager to cure himself of this illness, so upon

hearing the words from the little Israelite girl, Naaman went right into

action.38 Bringing with him many great gifts and being backed by two great

persons, the King of Aram and the King of Israel, Naaman expected healing

from Elisha. But all this greatness amounted to nothing. Everything

effectual in bringing healing to Naaman came from lowly sources: a little

38 The swiftness of Naaman’s action is reflected in the text’s moving from the

Israelite girl’s wish (v. 3) to the conversation about the same subject between Naaman and his king in the very next verse (v. 4). The narration time is far shorter than the narrated time (See chapter 2 of this dissertation for the definitions).

229

(hN`f^q=) servant girl (v. 2), an anonymous messenger of the prophet, and

Naaman's servants. When Naaman became healed, even his flesh became

like that of a little (/f)q*) boy (v. 14).

Naaman’s Transformation

Naaman’s exterior healing actually came as a result of his inner

transformation. Pompously, Naaman first came with his horses, chariots,

servants, and many gifts to Elisha’s humble place. He stopped at the door of

Elisha’s house, still mounted on his chariot (v. 9). Accustomed to moving

around in kings’ courts, Naaman naturally would expect a grand welcome

and a magnificent healing ritual to be performed on him (cf. v. 11). What

Naaman received, instead, was an anonymous messenger of Elisha, who

came out to meet Naaman and told him to wash himself seven times in the

Jordan and his flesh would be restored and he would be cleansed (v. 10).

Naaman was furious and began leaving for home. The narrator in

an artistic way showed the readers the conflicts boiling inside this Aramean

commander. The word, behold (hN}h!), introduced the readers into Naaman’s

inner life.39 “Behold, I thought that he [Elisha] would surely come out to

39 Naaman’s speech started in verse 11 with the word, behold (hN}h!). It

introduced the readers to Naaman’s point of view. See chapter 2 of this dissertation for definitions of point of view and inner life.

230

me, stand, and call on the name of Yahweh his God, wave his hand over

the place and cure the leprosy” (v. 11). Two observations can be made from

his speech:

(1) Naaman’s use of emphatic words40 revealed his expectation: the prophet

personally ought to come out and welcome a man of Naaman’s stature.

(2) Naaman was expecting to have an external, magical cure, having nothing

to do with any internal change of heart. Elisha was supposed to call on

the name of his God, wave his hand on the leprous spots and heal

Naaman.

If external factors had been the keys to his healing, then what

Naaman said in continuation would have been true, “Are not Abanah and

Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel?

Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed” (v. 12)? However, if what it took

for the miracle to take place was a change of the inner heart, then Elisha hit

Naaman’s sore spot squarely. It was Naaman’s ego that was keeping him

away from Yahweh’s mighty work.

As Naaman was leaving, his servants helped him to regain his

focus. “My father,” they said, “if the prophet had told you to do some great

40 Qal imperfect followed by Qal infinitive absolute of the word come out

(ax^y`) in verse 11 can be properly translated as he would surely come out.

231

(lodG*) thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when

he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’” (v. 13)? For these lowly servants, the

logic was quite straightforward: small things were easier to do than great

things. However, this was exactly the problem for Naaman: his obsession

with greatness was hindering him from receiving the healing.

For some untold reason, Naaman consented to the advice from his

servants. He went down and dipped41 himself in the Jordan River seven

times as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and

became clean like that of a little (/f)q*) boy (v. 14). What happened in the

process was more than the restoration42 of Naaman’s flesh; there was also a

change of heart inside Naaman.

Evidence of Naaman’s Transformation

Naaman’s transformation from greatness to humility was

evidenced in his subsequent dealings with Elisha and later on with Gehazi.

Naaman went back and stood in front of (yn}p=l!) Elisha (v. 15, cf. v. 9) and

41 Hobbs notes that the verb go down (dry) in verse 14 expresses more than

physical descent: Naaman is also descending from his attitude of superiority. See T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 13. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 69.

42 Moore notes that the word restored/returned (bWv) in verses 14 and 15 suggests more than physical movement; it connotes spiritual conversion as well. See Moore, God Saves, 77.

232

three times called himself “your [Elisha’s] servant” (vv. 15, 17, 18).

After Naaman had begun his journey homeward, Gehazi went after him.

When Gehazi caught up with Naaman, Naaman dismounted from his chariot

to meet this servant of Elisha (v. 21). These were very humble gestures by

Naaman toward the prophet of Israel and his servant.

Naaman’s transformation was also evidenced in his sensitivity

toward God. His proclamation revealed his changed inner life,43 “Behold, I

know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” When Elisha

refused to accept his gift, Naaman asked for two mules’ loads of soil from

Israel so that he might prepare a place in Damascus using Israelite soil upon

which to offer burnt offerings and sacrifices to Yahweh alone (v. 17).

Naaman’s changed life also made him keenly aware of the offensive nature

of idol worship.44 He pleaded for Yahweh’s pardon for going to the temple

of Rimmon due to his highly regarded position before the King of Aram.

Naaman’s pleading (v. 18) was arranged in a symmetrical chiasm:

43 Naaman’s proclamation here, like his earlier speech in verse 11, starts with

the word, behold (hN}h!). It introduces the readers to Naaman’s new point of view. See chapter 2 of this dissertation for definitions of point of view and inner life.

44 Though being a man outside the community of Yahweh’s gracious Decalogue, Naaman was keenly aware of his offense toward Yahweh (in violating the first commandment); in contrast, Israel possessed the Law yet showed no grief over its idol worship.

233

A2 A1 ;Dbul hwhy jlsy hZh rbDl may Yahweh pardon your servant In this thing B2 B1 hMv tojTvhl /omr-tyb ynd)a aobB to worship there When my lord comes into the house of Rimmon C /M)r tyB ytywjTvhw ydy-lu /uvn aWhw I worship in the house of Rimmon When he leans on my hand, B1’ B2’ /M)r tyB ytywjTvhB in the house of Rimmon When I worship A1’ A2’ hzh rbDB ;Dbul hwhy an-jlsy in this thing May Yahweh pardon your servant

A1/A2//B1/B2//C//B2’/B1’//A2’/A1’ forms a symmetrical chiastic

arrangement. The emphasis is on C; the disjunctive waw45 in C gives the

reason why Naaman worshipped in the house of Rimmon. Because the King

of Aram leaned on Naaman for physical support (apparently a very high

honor for one to be entrusted with this responsibility), Naaman had to go and

to worship in the house of Rimmon. Naaman’s presence in the house of

Rimmon was connected with the King of Aram’s presence there

(B1/B2//B2’/B1’). Naaman further enveloped his speech with pleas for

45 Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 39.2.3, p. 651; Allen P. Ross, Biblical Hebrew Handbook (Dallas: Privately printed, 1986), 152; Andrew Bruce Davidson, Introductory

234

Yahweh to pardon him in this thing (A1/A2//A2’/A1’). His speech

reflected that his going to the house of Rimmon was out of his duty and

would be done with reluctance. His asking for pardon beforehand reflected

his desire to remain loyal to his newly found faith. Naaman was not only

healed of his leprosy outside but was also a changed man inside.

Naaman’s New Status

Elisha answered Naaman, “Go in-peace ( <l)v*l=)” (v. 19). The

word <l)v* has the meaning of wholeness, restored relationship; it is free of

strife and debt; thus peace is attained. Carr describes its meaning:

The general meaning behind the root sh-l-m is of completion and fulfillment—of entering into a state of wholeness and unity, a restored relationship.

Of this group, some take their meanings from the comparatively infrequent simple stems while the others sh!ll@m,sh!llWm, and possibly sh^lm)n reflect the intensive Piel sense. The apparent diversity of meaning between the two stems can be accounted for in terms of the concept of peace being restored through payment (of tribute to a conqueror, Josh 10:1), restitution (to one wronged, Exod 21:36), or simple payment and completion (of a business transaction, II Kgs 4:7).

The payment of a vow (Ps 50:14) completes an agreement so that both parties are in a state of sh*lom. Closely linked with this concept is the eschatological motif in some uses of the term. Recompense for sin, either national or personal, must be given. Once that obligation has been met, wholeness is restored (Isa 60:20; Joel 2:25).46

Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 186.

46 G. Lloyd Carr, “#2401 <l@v* ” in Theological Wordbook of the Old

235

Naaman started as a leper ( ur`x)m=, v. 1), became clean (rh@f*, v.

14), and was pronounced whole ( <l)v*, v. 19) by Elisha. These words were

cultic terms and had tremendous significance. Naaman came to Israel with

the letter from the King of Aram to have his leprosy removed ([s^a*, v. 6).

The servant of Elisha told Naaman to wash in the Jordan River seven times,

saying that his flesh would be restored (v. 10). If the instruction had stopped

right there, it would have been all that Naaman was asking for. But the

servant of Elisha added, “and be clean ( rhf, v. 10).” The word, be clean

rhf, indicated “the purification necessary to restore someone who had

contracted impurity to a state of purity (see [am@f*]) so that he could

participate in the ritual activities (Lev 22:4-7).”47 In verse 14, when

Naaman’s flesh was restored to him like the flesh of a little child, the text

added that he was clean. After Naaman asked for Yahweh’s pardon and

Testament, 2 vols. ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:930-31.

47 Edwin Yamauchi, “#792 rh@f*,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1:343.

236Elisha told him to go in peace, he left in a state of wholeness with a new

relationship with Yahweh. Naaman had come as a leper, unclean and

unacceptable before Yahweh (Leviticus 13, 14); he left, being clean and

without strife or guilt before Yahweh. Naaman had become a new man.

The Young Girl from Israel

The young girl from Israel is an agent, a humble instrument of

Yahweh, through whom Yahweh initiated Naaman’s quest for healing.

Naaman's Wife

Naaman’s wife is an agent, through whom the message was

brought to Naaman. She is so insignificant that her action of passing the

information is even omitted in the text (cf. vv. 3 and 4).

The King of Aram

The king of Aram is an agent, whose great status helped Naaman

nothing in securing the healing.

The King of Israel

Joram, though his name is not mentioned here, is an agent and is

characterized as one who has no sense that God is in Israel (cf. vv. 7 and 8).

237

Elisha

Elisha, as the representative of Yahweh, remains as protagonist of

the entire story, even though his personality is less developed than those of

Naaman and Gehazi in this episode.

A Messenger of Elisha

This messenger is an agent, one humble instrument that Yahweh

used in directing Naaman to his healing.

The Servants of Naaman

The servants are agents, humble instruments that Yahweh used to

correct Naaman who had gone astray from his pursuit for healing.

Gehazi

Gehazi is a type, exemplifying the personality of disobedience and

greed. The narrator juxtaposes him here with Naaman to use him as a foil to

this Gentile. Naaman, a leper, received cleansing from Elisha and was

commissioned to go in peace ( <l)v*, v. 19). Gehazi, who self-assumed a

right relationship ( <l)v*, v. 22) with Yahweh as implied in his affirmative

answer to Naaman’s greeting, received judgment from Elisha and came out

238

as leprous ( ur`x)m=, v. 27). Gehazi, an Israelite, traveled the reverse path

of Naaman, a Gentile.

Gehazi was within the circle of the prophets of Yahweh, yet this

servant of Elisha showed no submission before Yahweh. When Gehazi

knew that his master had let Naaman go without receiving in payment

anything he had brought along, Gehazi said, “As Yahweh lives, I will run

after him and get something from him (v. 20)”. Gehazi uttered the same

vow as had his master in verse 16 but with some omission. Moore points

out:

Gehazi does not repeat Elisha’s vow precisely but makes an interesting and revealing deletion. Elisha in v. 16 had said, ‘As the Lord lives, before whom I stand’, but Gehazi does not follow the prophet in expressing submission before Yahweh. What Gehazi does not say, says much. Indeed the action he is planning illustrates his lack of submission before Yahweh. By contradicting the authority of the prophet, Gehazi has ceased to ‘stand before Yahweh.’

Gehazi has determined to catch up with the departing Naaman and ‘get something from him’ (v. 20). There is tragic irony in this oath statement, for Gehazi will get Naaman’s leprosy! It is as if Gehazi had unwittingly cursed himself. Thus the ultimate fate of Gehazi is anticipated unwittingly by an opening speech, just as was the fate of Naaman in the previous sequence.48

Gehazi was also characterized as one who had to come up with

many more lies simply to cover up his lack of submission. In order to get

48 Moore, God Saves, 80-81.

239

something from Naaman, Gehazi had to feign a story (v. 22). Verses 21-

23 are the only places where the protagonist and the antagonist meet, and it

is full of ironic contrast. Naaman the Gentile, now a converted Yahwist,

humbly dismounted from his chariot and gave his gift willingly to Gehazi, a

professing Yahwist, who had lied in the name of Yahweh in order to get this

gift.

After receiving the gift from Naaman, Gehazi moved swiftly to

hide the evidence. With five consecutive verbs the narrator described the

“cover-up”: “Gehazi came to the hill, he took the things from the servants

and put them away in the house. He sent the men away and they left” (v.

24).49 Gehazi then came in and stood before (la#)50 his master (v. 25). This

was in dire contrast to Naaman, who, after the healing, came in and

submissively stood in front of (yn}p=l!) Elisha (v. 15). Naaman’s and Gehazi’s

relationships with Yahweh as seen through their positions before Elisha, the

man of God, were very different. The Gentile came in submission before

Yahweh, while the Israelite came in antagonism before Yahweh.

49 Robert L. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” VT 33 (1983): 181.

50 A different Hebrew preposition, la#, is used in verse 25. The narrator carefully avoided the use of the Hebrew word, yn}p=l! (as in vv. 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 23, 27), to point out that Gehazi’s attitude before Elisha is not that of submission. See Cohn, “Form and Perspective,” 182. Also, Moore, God Saves, 82.

240

When Elisha asked Gehazi, “Where have you come from?”

Gehazi answered, “Your servant has gone neither here nor there” (v. 25)!

The repetition of denial by using the word hn\a* twice showed Gehazi’s

nervousness or emphatic desire to cover up. Elisha had to point out

Gehazi’s lying and pronounced the judgment: “Is it the time to take silver or

to take garments, olive orchards, vineyards, sheep, oxen, menservants, and

maidservants? The leprosy of Naaman will cleave to you and to your

descendants forever” (vv. 26-27a). Gehazi went out from before Elisha and

he had become a leper as white as snow (v. 27b).

Abrams rightly points out that Gehazi, like Miriam in Moses’ time

(Num 12:10), was guilty of insubordination.51 However, a few questions

need to be answered: Was Gehazi’s punishment too severe for what he did?

Did Elisha judge him on what he did and also blame him for what he had not

done? After all, the text mentions only the silver and the garments as things

that Gehazi received from Naaman (v. 23), yet Elisha mentioned eight things

in total (v. 26)!52 O’Brien points out that these six additional things

51 Receiving gifts from the Gentiles was not a sin. Actually, Elisha himself

later on received from the hand of Hazael forty camel-loads of all the finest wares of Damascus (2 Kgs 8:9). Gehazi’s sin was primarily insubordination like that of Miriam. See Judith Z. Abrams, “Metzora(at) Kashaleg: Leprosy, Challenges to Authority in the Bible,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 41-45.

52 LXX and the Vulgate circumvented this problem by suggesting that Gehazi

241

mentioned by Elisha represented the Deuteronomistic blessings that the

Israelites had been accustomed to receiving from Yahweh. Elisha, in

rebuking Gehazi, was pointing out that these covenantal blessings no longer

resided with the Israelites:

Olive-groves and vineyards often together serve as a metonymy signifying a safe and prosperous life in the promised land. Sheep and cattle together occur 77 times in the OT as synecdoche representing wealth in terms of agricultural produce but particularly as blessing through the covenant with Abraham. Menservants and maidservants occur together approximately 16 times in the OT and are a sign of Yahweh’s blessing particularly to the detriment of other nations. Levitical law prohibited the treating of fellow Israelites as slaves (Lev 25:39; cf. Jer 34:9ff). Thus, menservants and maidservants were normally acquired as the plunder of victorious battles or were obtained outside Israel either through purchases or as gifts. Often, two or more of these couplets are tied together. In all these incidences the idea of Yahweh’s blessing through the covenant with Abraham is implied. Indeed, all six items of olive-groves and vineyards, flocks and herds, menservants and maidservants are found together in close proximity in 1 Sam 8:14-17 in the form of a tithing list for a despotic ruler from the blessings of the land. Thus, it seems likely that the appended couplets of blessing in Elisha’s reproach represent, not Gehazi’s intended shopping list from the bartering of garments and silver, but rather the blessings of the land, including security and prosperity, as a significant component of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel.53

Gehazi did not recognize the timing; he did not acknowledge that

intended to purchase the list of things with his ill-gotten silver and garments. For a discussion of the MT reading see D. P. O’Brien, “ ‘Is this the time to accept . . .’ (2 Kings 5:26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or an Ominous Foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” VT 46 (1996): 452-53.

53 Ibid., 455-56.

242Yahweh’s favor was leaving Israel. Earlier in Elijah’s time, Yahweh had

already pronounced the punishment of the ban ( <rj) on Ahab and his people,

“it is your life for his life, your people for his people” (1 Kgs 20:42b). In the

beginning of this episode, the Arameans were raiding Israel. As the

commander of the Aramean army, Naaman was at least partially responsible

for these raids, yet it was Yahweh that gave victory to Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1).

Later on when the Arameans soldiers were captured in Samaria ( 2 Kgs 6:8-

23), the command from Yahweh was not to destroy them (as was so taught

in 1 Kgs 20:40a), but to feed them and then set them free. Things were

changing. Yahweh was leaving the faithless Israelites and moving his favor

and dealings more directly toward the Gentiles. The insubordinate Gehazi,

however, could not recognize that the times were changing. Thinking of

himself as one of the Israelites, Yahweh’s chosen people, Gehazi arrogantly

treated Naaman as “this Aramean” (v. 20)!

Plot and Plot Structure

• Conflict between Yahweh and Joram Continues/The Second Test (2 Kgs

5:1-27): Tests were given during Joram’s reign, one to a Gentile, and another to an Israelite. When contrasted, the different responses demonstrated Israel’s general spiritual condition of poverty in this era.

243There are two parallel plots within this episode with one plot

serving as a foil to the other. Both plot structures follow the pattern of test

and result in dramatic different ending. The first plot is a comic plot (vv. 1-

19a) which focuses on Naaman, a Gentile, who undergoes a transformation

from leprosy to wholeness. The second plot is a tragic plot (vv. 19b-27)

which focuses on Gehazi, an Israelite, who undergoes a transformation from

wholeness to leprosy.

† The Test of a Gentile (2 Kgs 5:1-19a)

‡ Setting (2 Kgs 5:1): The protagonist was a Gentile hero who

had leprosy. ‡ Test Introduced (2 Kgs 5:2-3): The test was brought to

Naaman by an Israelite slave girl. Naaman was to go and see Elisha in Samaria for cure.

‡ Major Character’s Response (2 Kgs 5:4-7): Naaman pursued

healing with an impressive powerful approach. Naaman’s approach, nevertheless, came to a dead end.

‡ Divine Counter Response (2 Kgs 5:8-10): Elisha’s offer to

heal Naaman’s leprosy required Naaman’s complete humiliation.

‡ Plot Twist (2 Kgs 5:11-12): Would Naaman give up his

pursuit of being healed? ‡ Plot Twist Resolved (2 Kgs 5:13-14): The advice of

Naaman’s lowly servants changed his course of action. Naaman’s submission to the man of God brought him healing.

244

‡ Consequence (2 Kgs 5:15-19a): Naaman’s humility before

the man of God and his alarm toward worshipping in the temple of Rimmon evidenced his genuine conversion.

† The Test of an Israelite (2 Kgs 5:19b-27)

Even though the story of Gehazi occupies only about seven verses

(vv. 19b-26), Gehazi matched Naaman in all three plot developments: (1)

Gehazi journeyed to a foreign person to satisfy a desire which had been set

forth in his opening statement (v. 20, cf. v. 3). (2) That desire was met (v.

23, cf. v. 14), and (3) Gehazi returned to the man of God and received a

concluding pronouncement (v. 27, cf. v. 19).54 Though being similar in the

plot development, the story about Gehazi comes into stark contrast with that

of Naaman, the Gentile.

‡ Test (2 Kgs 5:19b-20): Through Elisha’s entire dealing with

Naaman, Gehazi must have been a spectator. The great gift that Naaman had brought along must have become an attraction to this Israelite. Now, the same gift was to be shipped back to Aram untouched. Should Gehazi do something to gain possession of this wealth, or was he to take the same approach as his master?

54 Moore, God Saves, 80.

245 ‡ Major Character’s Response (2 Kgs 5:21-24): Gehazi lied to

take possession of the Gentile’s wealth. ‡ Divine Counterresponse and Consequences (2 Kgs 5:25-27):

The leprosy that had left the Gentile now fell upon this Israelite.

Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (III); 2 Kgs 6:1-23

There are two events within this episode. The first covers 2 Kgs

6:1-7 and the second 2 Kgs 6:8-23. Both events clearly establish Elisha’s

authority—the first one domestically, the second one internationally.

In the beginning of the second event, the narrator said that the

King of Aram was at war with Israel (v. 8), but as the plot developed, no

army of Israel was ever mentioned. Even when the Aramean army was led

into the city of Samaria, the presence of the Israelite army in Samaria was

only implied when the King of Israel asked Elisha, “Shall I kill them, my

father? Shall I kill them” (v. 21)? It is very clear, therefore, that the battle

was actually between the Aramean army and Yahweh, who was represented

by Elisha, the man of God. Through Elisha, Yahweh warned Joram of the

coming Aramean ambush, captured a strong Aramean army, fed them and

released them. Thus Elisha’s prophetic authority was further established

before the Israelites and the Arameans alike.

246Setting

The physical setting of the first event is not specifically identified

except to mention that it is the place where the sons of the prophets live and

meet with Elisha (6:1). The next setting is in the timberland by the Jordan

River where the floating of iron happened (6:4).

The second event of this episode progresses in three different

physical settings. The first setting is the king’s chamber inside which the

King of Aram and his generals were planning their wars against Israel (vv.

8-13). The second setting is in the city of Dothan where Elisha was residing

during that time and during which a strong Aramean force was sent to

besiege it (vv. 14-19). The third setting is the city of Samaria within which

the Aramean army was entrapped, fed, and sent back home (vv. 20-23).

Yahweh, who had proved his omniscience in the first setting, demonstrated

his omnipotence in the second setting and displayed his benevolence in the

third setting.

Mental pictures of circles are expressed through the use of the

words surround ([q^n`, v. 14; bb^s*, vv. 15, 17) and in the midst of (E otB=, v.

20). Three such circles are pointed out through the word behold (hn}h!). The

first circle is seen through the physical eyes of Elisha’s servant, “Behold, an

[Aramean] army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city” (v. 15)!

247The second circle is seen through the spiritually-opened eyes of the same

servant, “Behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire

surrounding Elisha” (v. 17)! The third circle is seen through the restored

eyes of the Arameans, “Behold, [the Arameans were] in the midst of

Samaria” (v. 20)!

Character and Characterization

The Company of the Prophets

They are agents, there is no development of their characterization

in the episode. Their increasing number presented a need to enlarge their

living quarters.

Elisha

Elisha is the protagonist, representing Yahweh in this episode.

Elisha is also the only character named in this episode; all the others remain

anonymous. The emphasis is, therefore, on the plot development.

In the second event, Elisha ran a one-man supernatural intelligence

service for Israel. The King of Aram and his officers came to realize that

they had to capture Elisha before they could lay hands on the King of Israel.

As the plot develops, through the eyes of Elisha’s servant, Elisha was seen

248as commanding the heavenly army to bring blindness to the Arameans.

The narrator clearly established Elisha’s prophetic authority. Elisha was the

true representative of Yahweh.

The King of Aram

The king of Aram is an agent. He represented the Aramean force

whose single intention was to win the war against Israel.

The Aramean Officers

The Aramean officers are agents. They were there to show the

reasoning process of the Aramean leadership and to show why the Aramean

strike-force attacked Dothan.

Elisha’s Servant

Elisha’s servant is a supporting character. His anxiety is a foil to

the confidence of Elisha (v. 15 cf. v. 16). His physical sight is a foil to the

spiritual foresight that Elisha possessed (v. 17).

The King of Israel

The king of Israel is an agent. Aside from representing Israel in

this war narrative, his presence also implied the presence of the Israelite

249

army (vv. 10, 21).

Plot and Plot Structure • Establishment of Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (2 Kgs 6:1-7): Through the

miracle of the floating axhead the narrator established Elisha’s prophetic authority.

Many have been puzzled why this short episode, seemingly

unrelated to the stories before or after, has been placed here and they have

variously interpreted this passage.55 The most evident function of this event

55 For example, Robinson calls this passage a legend and says that it came to

be attached to the religious leaders for personal aggrandizement but with compassion and in service to people (J. Robinson, The Second Book of Kings, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 57). Nelson calls this story “something of an embarrassment for modern readers. The miracle seems both trivial and pointless.” He classifies this story as an act of imitative magic (Richard Nelson, First and Second Kings, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987], 184-85). Montgomery also calls this story one about “imitative magic” (James A Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, The International Critical Commentary, ed. Henry Snyder Gehman [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951], 381). Among others Dilday, House, Miller, and Wiseman recognize this story as a “miracle” (Russell H. Dilday, 1, 2 Kings, The Communicator’s Commentary, ed. Lloyd J. Ogilvie [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987], 310. Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, vol. 8, The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture NIV Text, ed. E. Ray Clendenen [Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995], 275. Clyde M. Miller, First and Second Kings, vol. 7, Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament [Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1989], 339. Donald J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman [Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993], 209). Gray and Jones explain this story as Elisha’s fishing out the axe-head by a long pole or stick, and this simple prophetic sagacity was soon exaggerated to miracle (John Gray, I & II Kings, 2nd ed. The Old Testament Library, ed. Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, John Bright, and G. Ernest Wright [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970], 511. Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, vol. 2, New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements

250

is to establish the authority of Elisha as the representative of Yahweh.

This is supported by the macro plot structure. In the third round of

establishing the authority of Elisha, his status is beyond questioning. This

first event started with a need. The need was expressed by the sons of the

prophets as they said, “Behold, the place that we dwell/sit (bv^y`) there in

front of you ( ;yn}p*l=) is too small for us “ (v. 1). It was a problem of

insufficient space. As the sons of the prophets grew in number, they needed

more space. They were under the authority of Elisha as is implied by the

phrase in front of you ( ;yn}p*l=) after sit (bv^y`).56 Therefore, any expansion of

space also implied the expansion of the sphere of influence of the man of

God. After stating their problem, the sons of the prophets also suggested a

solution, “Let us go to the Jordan, and let each man take from there a log.

And let us make for us there a place to dwell” (v. 2). Elisha gave them

permission and even went with them at their request (v. 3).

As the sons of the prophets were chopping trees, one young man’s

[Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1984], 422).

56 See previous episode in 2 Kings 5 for the discussion of the word in front of (yn}p=l!). Also, some translations on 2 Kgs 6:1 support this interpretation. NEB: A company of prophets said to Elisha, “You can see that this place where our community is living, under you as its head, is too small for us. . .” NRSV: Now the company of prophets said to Elisha, “As you see, the place where we live under your charge is too small for us. . .” TANAK: The disciples of the prophets said to Elisha, “See, the place where we live under your direction is too cramped for us. . .”

251

axhead (lz#r+B^h^, literally iron) became loose and slipped off the shaft.

In anguish he cried out, “Alas, my master, it was borrowed” (v. 5)! Finding

out from his servant where the axhead had fallen, Elisha cut a stick ( Ju@), threw

it into the water and made the iron float. When Elisha told the servant, “take

it up,” the servant reached out his hand and took it. The story ended

abruptly here. There was no telling whether the dwelling place was actually

built, and none of the characters was extensively developed. Therefore, the

focal point of this event was to demonstrate the ability of the prophet to meet

the urgent need of his disciples.

• Establishment of Elisha’s Prophetic Authority Continues (2 Kgs 6:8-23):

Elisha’s prophetic authority was further established through his dealing with the Arameans. This plot follows the structure of a test (upon the Arameans). † Setting (2 Kgs 6:8a): Aram was at war with Israel.

† Test (2 Kgs 6:8b-12): Elisha frustrated every Aramean military

plan; how would the King of Aram react?

The King of Aram conferred with his officers to set up his camp at

such and such a place.57 Every time without exception, Elisha warned the

57 Instead of repeating the exact location names used by the King of Aram and

his officers, the narrator used at such and such a place, yn]m)l=a^ yn]l)P= <oqm=-la (v. 8), as his authorial abstraction to demonstrate his control of material. Similar indefinite expressions were used in subsequent verses: that place in v. 9, there in v. 9, the place

252

King of Israel to stay away from that place. 58 The King of Aram was

furious and told his officers to identify the spy for the Israelites (v. 11). One

observant servant told the King of Aram that it was Elisha who had told the

King of Israel “the words that you speak in your bedchamber” (v. 12).

† Major Character’s Response (2 Kgs 6:13-17): The Arameans

surrounded Dothan, the city where Elisha was residing.

The King of Aram realized that if he wanted to capture the king of

Israel, he first had to seize Elisha. Determined to win, the king of Aram sent

his officers to find the whereabouts of Elisha. In the same verse, right after

the inquiry by the King of Aram, his officer reported back to him, “Behold,

in Dothan” (v. 13).59 Right away the King of Aram sent a great army to

Dothan by night, and in no time the army surrounded the city of Dothan (v.

indicated by the man of God in v. 10, such places in v. 10. The narrator was applying generalization to several known places without specifically mentioning any. (Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, [Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983], 99-101.)

58 The text says, “Not once, and not twice,” <y]T*v= al)w+ dj^a^ al), to indicate that 1) it happened more than once, 2) it happened on every occasion.

59 In finding the whereabouts of Elisha, the narration time (the time required to tell or read the story) is much shorter—almost nonexistent—than the narrated time (the time that the officer took to find the dwelling place of Elisha). This is the author’s way of telling the readers that the process is not important to this story (See chapter 2 of this dissertation for a detailed discussion of narration time and narrated time).

253

14).

Early the next morning, when the servant of the man of God rose

and went out, “Behold, an army with horses and chariots has surrounded the

city” (v. 15).60 In great distress, the servant cried out to his master for help,

who commented, “Fear not,61 for those who are with us are more than those

who are with them” (v. 16)! Then Elisha prayed, “O Yahweh, open his eyes

that he may see.” Yahweh opened the eyes of Elisha’s servant, who then

observed, “Behold,62 the mountain is full of horses and chariots of fire

surrounding Elisha” (v. 17).

† Divine Response and Consequences (2 Kgs 6:18-23a): The man of

God struck them with temporary blindness and led them into the city of Samaria. Under the command of the man of God, the Israelites surrounded the Arameans, fed them and sent them back to Aram. God’s grace toward the hostile Arameans was very clear.

60 The word behold ( hN}h!) introduces the readers to the servant’s first point of

view (see chapter 2 of this dissertation for a detailed discussion).

61 “Fear not” is Yahweh’s standard exhortation in addressing Israelites before their battle. See n. 18 of this chapter for discussion.

62 The word behold ( hN}h!) introduces the readers again to the servant’s second point of view. While the servant’s first point of view was from what his eyes had physically seen, his second point of view, after Yahweh had opened his spiritual eyes, enabled him to see the spiritual reality in this situation.

254

As the heavenly hosts came down to aid Elisha,63 he prayed,

“Strike these Gentiles with blindness” (v. 18). In answer to Elisha’s prayer,

Yahweh struck them with blindness.64 There is a stark contrast between the

results of Elisha’s two prayers in verses 17 and 18. Yahweh opened his

servant’s eyes to see heavenly reality, while he closed the Arameans’ eyes so

that they could not even see earthly reality. Then Elisha told them, “This is

not the way, and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the

man that you are seeking.” Then Elisha led them into the city of Samaria (v.

19).

63 This conceptualization is suggested by LaBarbera and is different from the

traditional translation (e.g. NIV) which places the Aramean army as the subject. LaBarbera argues that the subject of the first part of verse 18 is the heavenly horses and chariots of fire, because it is they that came down (dry) to Elisha (to aid him). The Arameans would have to “go up against him,” as Dothan must have been on a hill. Also, this is in accordance with Elisha’s following prayer to strike the Arameans with blindness. It demonstrates that Elisha is in command of a heavenly army. See Robert LaBarbera, “The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in 2 Kings 6:8-7:20,” CBQ 46 (1984): 642.

64 LaBarbera argues that this was not actual physical blindness but a distortion of what they were seeing. The same word blindness (<yrwns) is used in Gen 19:11, where the men of Sodom were struck with blindness. But their “blindness” did not deter them from pursuing their goal. It only made it impossible for them to find the door. Obviously they still thought they could see, but their vision did not correspond to reality. The same thing happened in 2 Kgs 6:18. The Aramean soldiers did not even realize that they were no longer seeing correctly. They persisted in trying to find Elisha and failed to recognize that the stranger offering to help them was the very man they were seeking. See Ibid., 643.

255

Once the Arameans were inside the city of Samaria, Elisha

prayed for the restoration of their eyesight. When Yahweh heard Elisha’s

prayer and opened the eyes of the Arameans, “Behold,65 in the midst of

Samaria” (v. 20), those doing the surrounding found themselves surrounded.

Since the Arameans were surrounded, the king of Israel asked permission to

slay them.66 “Do not slay them,” Elisha said, “for those whom you have

captured with your sword and with your bow, would you slay” (v. 22)? The

king of Israel was probably reminded of what his father Ahab had done in

releasing Ben-Hadad (1 Kgs 20:40). If those captured in battle had not been

slain, how much more did the principle hold true for these Arameans not

captured by the Israelites but by Yahweh? Elisha instructed the king of

Israel to feed the Aramean soldiers a great feast of bread and drink and then

to send them back to their master.

† Closure (2 Kgs 6:23b): The Arameans stopped raiding Israel’s

territory.

65 The word behold (hN}h!) introduces the readers to the Arameans’ point of

view. See chapter 2 of this dissertation for a detailed discussion.

66 The king of Israel said, “Shall I slay, shall I slay (hK#a^ hK#a^h^) them, my father” (v. 21)? The repetition of words showed the readiness and the eagerness of the king of Israel to do so.

256The Siege of Samaria/Yahweh’s Third Test of Joram’s Reign;

2 Kgs 6:24-7:20

The narrator’s use of the phrase some time later (/k@-yr}j&a^ yh!y+w~;

2 Kgs 6:24) at the beginning of this episode indicates that this episode is a

continuation of the previous one. Also, the city of Samaria serves as a nice

stage for the last episode to close and for the current episode to open. These

two episodes should be viewed with contrasting emphases.

Setting

Mental pictures of dynamic circles are prevailing in this episode.

The first dynamic circle starts from the constraint of the Aramean siege,

narrows to the city wall of Samaria, and then tightens around the house of

Elisha where he has the elders shut the door and hold it tightly to resist the

coming of the king’s messenger (2 Kgs 6:24-33). The second dynamic

circle starts from the central focus—Elisha’s prophecy of deliverance uttered

from his house—then widens to the city wall where the four lepers are

conversing outside the city gate, and then widens even further to the

encampment of the Arameans. Then upon the confirmation of the

257

Arameans’ retreat, the whole city rushes out to the Aramean camps for

the spoils (2 Kgs 7:1-20).67

Character and Characterization

All the characters except Ben-Hadad and Elisha, remain

anonymous. Ben-Hadad is mentioned only once in 2 Kgs 6:24 as historical

background, and there is no further development of this character. Other

than for the characterization of Elisha, this episode emphasizes plot

development as did the previous one.

Ben-Hadad, King of Aram

Ben-Hadad is an agent, whose name is mentioned to provide the

temporal setting for this episode. This character then disappears through the

episode.

King of Israel

The King of Israel is a full-fledged character, an antagonist in this

episode. His clothing and his words initially seemed to grant him a pious

appearance (2 Kgs 6:27, 30), yet his attitude toward Yahweh and Yahweh’s

67 Moore, God Saves, 95-104.

258servant (2 Kgs 6:31, 33) and his inability to comprehend Yahweh’s plan

of deliverance (2 Kgs 7:12) betrayed him as a foolish and faithless king.

The Carnivorous Women

These women are agents whose behavior reflected the covenantal

curse that Yahweh had brought on the people of Samaria (Lev 26:29; Deut

28:53-57). Their dialogue with Joram, King of Israel, was to reveal Joram’s

inability in handling the spiritual issues involved when facing a major crisis.

Elisha

Elisha is a protagonist, representing Yahweh in this episode.

The Elders of Samaria

The elders are agents whose role was to accompany Elisha and to

serve as a witness for Elisha’s word.

The Officer on Whose Arm the Israelite King Was Leaning

The officer is a supporting character and together with Joram,

represents the leadership of Samaria during the siege. Because of the

officer’s disbelief, he saw the relief that Yahweh brought to the people of

Samaria, but he died and could not participate in Yahweh’s deliverance (2

259Kgs 7:2, 20). This officer’s rejection of Elisha’s prophecy parallels

Joram’s rejection of the gatekeepers’ report (2 Kgs 7:2 cf. 7:12). This

officer is a foil, by parallel, to illustrate Joram’s lack of faith before Yahweh.

Four Lepers

The four lepers are supporting characters. They are the outcast

class of society that Yahweh used to bring deliverance to the people

besieged within Samaria. Their God-fearing attitude motivated them to

bring the good news to the gatekeepers. These four lepers are foils, by

contrast, to heighten the king and his officer’s roles as obstacles to God’s

deliverance.

Gatekeepers

The gatekeepers are agents. Since their position was to guard the

gate, they naturally became the first persons with whom the lepers came in

contact. They also became the first persons to announce the news of

deliverance to the people in Samaria.

The Officer Who Advises Investigation

The officer is an agent representing common sense. His advice to

260

Joram (2 Kgs 7:13) reflected that Joram’s faithless attitude was

depriving of even common sense in handling the unconfirmed report.

The Messengers

The messengers are agents, whose function is simply to bring to

the foreground what happened during the Arameans’ retreat.

Plot and Plot Structure • Conflict between Yahweh and Joram Continues/The Third Test (2 Kgs

6:24-7:20):

† Setting (2 Kgs 6:24): Ben-Hadad, king of Aram laid siege to Samaria.

† Test (2 Kgs 6:25-29): There was a great famine inside the city of

Samaria to the point that women even traded children to eat. How would Joram handle this crisis?

The siege lasted for so long that a great famine was occurring

inside of Samaria. A donkey’s head68 was selling for eighty shekels of silver

68 A donkey was an unclean animal because it does not chew the cud (Lev

11:2-7; Deut 14:4-8). The famine lasted so long that the Israelites disregarded the law of uncleanness and were even paying a high price for a part of an animal that did not have much edible meat on it. Similarly, seed-pods, normally not eaten, were eagerly sought after and brought a high price.

261

and a quarter of a cab of seed pods for five shekels (v. 25). The famine

was so severe that mothers exchanged and ate their own children.

The heinous actions of these two women who traded their children

in order to relieve their own hunger reflected Yahweh’s covenantal curse on

the nation of Israel (Lev 26:29; Deut 28:53-57). The women’s dispute

caused one of them to cry out to the king, “Help me, my lord the king” (v.

26)! “If Yahweh does not help you, from where can I help you? From the

threshing floor or from the wine press” (v. 27)? The king pointed out the

depletion of grain on the threshing floor and the wine in the wine press and

correctly acknowledged that only Yahweh could help in this desperate

situation.

The king asked the woman, “What is [the problem] for you” (v.

28)? The Hebrew syntax juxtaposes these words together: EL*-hm^ El#M#h^.

Moore points out that the king wanted to know the problem, whereas the

narrative intimated that the king himself was the problem.69

† Antagonist’s Response (2 Kgs 6:30-33): Joram blamed the crisis on

Yahweh and vowed to kill Elisha, the representative of Yahweh.

The author carefully communicated to the readers the great

69 Moore, God Saves, 100.

262

inconsistency between the picture that they see in the king and the words

that they hear from the king. When the king tore his robes upon hearing of

the heinous behavior, it revealed the sackcloth that the king wore underneath

his robes. Both his action and what he wore were signs of great remorse

before Yahweh. However, the king’s rash vow to kill the prophet of God (v.

31) and the king’s unwillingness to depend any longer on Yahweh (v. 33)

revealed the king’s true attitude as anger and animosity toward Yahweh.

Interestingly, Brueggemann points out that in verse 27 Joram acknowledged

that only Yahweh could help, but in verse 33 he refused to depend any

longer upon Yahweh. 70

King Joram sent a messenger to get Elisha, who was inside his

own house within the city of Samaria, but then the king himself followed his

messenger. The focus now moves from the larger circle of the city wall to

the smaller circle of the house of Elisha, where his prophecy of deliverance

marks the beginning of the second dynamic circle.

† Divine Counter Response and Consequences (2 Kgs 7:1-19): Elisha

predicted relief from the famine 24 hours later. It was fulfilled according to the word of the prophet. Because of his disbelief,

70 Walter Brueggemann, 2 Kings, Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta: John

Knox Press, 1982), 27.

263

the king’s trusted officer saw the relief but was trampled to death by the people who rushed for the food. ‡ A-Divine Statement Given (2 Kgs 7:1): Relief from the

famine was prophesied by the man of God.

Circles 1 and 2 show poetic parallelism. In 2 Kgs 6:25, the

Aramean siege brought about the situation that “A donkey’s head was sold

for eighty shekels of silver and a quarter of a cab of seed pods for five

shekels.” Here in 2 Kgs 7:1, Elisha prophesied that deliverance would come

the next day so that “A seah of flour will sell for a shekel and two seahs of

barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria.”71

‡ B-Divine Statement Rejected (2 Kgs 7:2): Israel’s leadership

(in this case, the military officer of the king) rejected the prophecy. As a result, judgment was pronounced upon this officer.

‡ A’-Report Given (2 Kgs 7:3-11): Through the outcast of

society, Yahweh brought relief information to the city.

In 2 Kgs 7:2, the officer on whose arm the king was leaning

responded to Elisha, “If Yahweh should make windows in the heavens

( <ymvB tobra), could this thing happen?” Right in the next verse four men

( <yvna huBra) with leprosy were seen sitting outside the entrance of the city

71 Moore, God Saves, 95.

264

gate. The word play between windows in the heavens and four men

suggested that through these four lowly persons Yahweh’s salvation would

be brought to the Israelites.72

The lepers reasoned that they would either die of starvation or be

killed by the Arameans. They ventured into the Aramean camp hoping that

their lives might be spared and that they would be given some food to eat

(vv. 3-4). When they arrived, behold (hN}h!w+),73 they discovered an empty

camp with all the spoils intact and all the soldiers gone. Yahweh had caused

the Arameans to hear the sound of chariots and horses of a great army so that

the Arameans soldiers fled away in a great hurry (v. 5).

Having had their shares of the spoils, the lepers reported this

unusual happening to the gatekeeper. In turn, the gatekeeper shouted this

information to the city dwellers, and the king was immediately informed (v.

11).

‡ B’-Report Rejected (2 Kgs 7:12): The leadership (in this case, Joram, King of Israel) rejected the relief information.

Elisha had prophesied relief from the siege only one day before.

72 LaBarbera, “Man of War,” 648.

73 The word behold (hN}h!) introduces the readers to the lepers’ point of view See chapter 2 of this dissertation for detailed discussion.

265

The following day the lepers witnessed the empty Aramean camps and

reported it to the gatekeeper (vv. 1, 8-10), who shouted it to the city (v. 11).

Yet, as was hinted in 6:28, the king, who had been the problem in circle 1,

continued to be the problem in circle 2: he kept his hungry people from

taking advantage of this good news. Rising up in the dark, the king insisted

that this was an Aramean trap to capture the Israelites. However, even the

king’s officer did not agree with the king. The circle of relief that had

started from the house of Elisha had now expanded to the city wall. The

king wanted to contain this circle within the walls of Samaria, but everyone

else pushed hard to expand the circle.

‡ C’-Report Confirmed (2 Kgs 7:13-15): An objective

reconnaissance confirmed the report.

One of the officers urged the king to send out scouts to see if this

report was true (v. 13). The horses were all going to die of starvation

anyway, so why not use them now? The officer’s reasoning convinced the

king to send out two chariots to find out the facts. As the messengers

followed the Aramean trail all the way to the Jordan, behold (hN}h!w+),74

74 The word behold (hN}h!) introduces the readers to the messengers’ point of

view. See chapter 2 of this dissertation for detailed discussion.

266garments and equipment had been littered along the way in the

Arameans’ haste to run away from the impending seemingly great army.

‡ C-Divine Statement Confirmed (2 Kgs 7:16-19): Relief to the

city and judgment on the officer were both fulfilled as the man of God had said (2 Kgs 7:1-2).

When this great news of deliverance was announced to the people

of Samaria, they rushed out to the Aramean camps for plunder. The king

continued to be the single strongest force that kept the circle of relief from

expanding outwardly from the city wall. He sent his captain on whose hand

he leaned to be in charge of the gate. However, the captain was not able to

contain the people from expanding the circle of relief to the surrounding

Aramean camps. Trodden under the feet of the people rushing out for the

plunder, the captain died. Elisha’s prophecy all came true: a seah of flour

was sold for a shekel, and two seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of

Samaria, but the captain had no part in the relief.

In 2 Kgs 7:1-19, there is a clear double-layered arrangement in the

plot structure (A/B//A’/B’//C’/C). This double-layered arrangement allowed

Joram’s rejection of the report to be couched inside his officer’s rejection of

Elisha’s prophecy. It pointed out that the king, out of his own will, was

unable to participate in Yahweh’s blessing. Instead of being an instrument

267for Yahweh’s use, Joram served as a hindrance to Yahweh’s deliverance.

Joram was in a pitiful spiritual condition.

† Closure (2 Kgs 7:20): The officer of Joram died because of his

disbelief.

Point of View

If we trace the word behold (hN}h!/ hN}h!w+), it gives us a quick

glimpse into the entire story through a series of snapshots from various

points of view. The first snapshot comes from the distressing scene on the

city wall, “behold (hN}h!w+), the sackcloth is upon the king’s body (6:30).”

The second snapshot is from the house of Elisha within the city of Samaria,

“behold (hN}h!w+), the messenger [of the king] came down to get Elisha.” The

king also complained from his own point of view, “behold (hN}h!), this evil is

from Yahweh; why should I wait for Yahweh any longer” (6:33)? In 2 Kgs

7:2, the snapshot introduces the disbelief of the king’s captain, “behold

(hN}h!), if Yahweh should make windows in heaven, this thing could not

happen!” Then comes Elisha’s judgment, “behold, you (hk*N+h!) shall see it

with your own eyes, but you shall not eat of it.” Within this innermost circle

268of the siege is the struggle between Yahweh’s word of deliverance and

human disbelief.

From this point on, the snapshots take us in the direction of an

ever-enlarging circle. The four lepers went to the Aramean camps and saw

with their eyes, “behold (hN}h!w+), the camp was empty” (7:5) because

Yahweh had caused the Arameans to hear the sound of chariots and the

sound of horses. In hearing the sound, the Arameans’ point of view was that

“behold (hN}h!), the king of Israel had hired the kings of the Hittites and the

kings of Egypt to come upon us” (7:6). The lepers then reflected their point

of view to the gatekeepers, “behold (hN}h!w+), there was no one there” (7:10).

When the king tried to discourage any action, his officer reminded him,

“behold (hN}h!), the horses are going to die, why not send them out as scout to

find out the fact” (7:13)? From the scout’s eyes, “behold (hN}h!w+), [from the

camp all the way to the Jordan] the Arameans had deserted garments and

equipment in their haste” (7:15). Each character, through his perspective,

moves the plot development forward, and the whole development follows

the prophecy from Yahweh.

268

The Comparison between the Arameans under Siege (2 Kgs 6:8-23)

and the Israelites under Siege (2 Kgs 6:24-7:20)

The siege of the Arameans (2 Kgs 6:8-23) and the siege of the

Israelites (2 Kgs 6:24-7:20) both take place in the city of Samaria and show

great similarity in plot development, yet they bring out great contrasting

points. Both episodes are composed of circles of sieges, with deliverance

having come from the innermost circle where Elisha the man of God uttered

Yahweh’s words of deliverance. These sieges and deliverances can be

represented by the following charts:

The Siege of the Arameans (2 Kgs 6:8-23)

269

The Siege of the Israelites (2 Kgs 6:24-7:20) 2 Kgs 6:8-23 2 Kgs 6:24-7:20 inner circle Elisha and his servant were in

the innermost circle, in the city of Dothan.

Elisha and the elders of Samaria were in the innermost circle, in Elisha’s house inside Samaria.

middle circle

The Arameans surrounded the city of Dothan.

The king of Israel and his officer surrounded Elisha’s house.

outer circle The Arameans were surrounded by the Israelites in the city of Samaria.

The Israelites were surrounded by the Arameans whose camps were surrounding the city of Samaria.

deliverance The deliverance of the Arameans in the middle circle was from the word of Yahweh uttered by Elisha from the inner circle.

The deliverance of the Israelites in the middle circle was from the word of Yahweh uttered by Elisha from the inner circle.

feeding The Arameans in the middle circle were fed by the Israelites of the outer circle.

The Israelites in the middle circle were fed by the spoils from the Arameans of the outer circle.

271In the first episode the Arameans did not raid the borders again

for sometime, very possibly an acknowledgement of either “there being a

prophet in Israel” or “there being no God in all the earth but in Israel” (cf. 2

Kgs 5:8, 15). In the second episode, the captain of the king of Israel

witnessed the deliverance of Yahweh, yet because of his disbelief he died

and had no part in receiving Yahweh’s deliverance.

The Sword of Hazael and the Sword of Jehu; 2 Kings 8-10

Yahweh was going to use strong and forceful instruments, the

sword of Hazael and the sword of Jehu, to remove Baalism completely from

the land of Israel. Even in the midst of judgment, Yahweh was caring for his

faithful followers.

Setting

Physical Setting

Yahweh inflicted Joram with the sword of Hazael in Ramoth

Gilead. Jehu then removed the house of Ahab, Jezebel, and the ministers of

Baal in the cities of Jezreel and Samaria. In between Jezreel and Samaria

Jehu further struck down 42 relatives of Ahaziah, king of Judah. Most of

272

these events happened in the Jezreel Valley and in adjoining plains. The

Jezreel Valley is described as:

Between the heights of Galilee and Samaria there extends a valley linking the Jordan rift with the coastal plain at Acco. Shaped like an arrow that points to the Mediterranean just north of Mt. Carmel, the valley is known in the Old Testament as Jezreel. . . . The slender shaft of the arrow, stretching between the cities of Beth-shan and Jezreel, is hemmed in by Mt. Moreh in the north and the mountains of Gilboa in the south and is drained by the Harod River.”75

The arterial traffic, which is called the Great Trunk Road and

travels from Egypt to Syria or Mesopotamia, passes this area. Ramoth

Gilead is due east of the slender arrow shaft which runs between the cities of

Shunem and Jezreel and leads toward Beth-shan and the Jordan River.76

Aside from the coastal plain, this is one of the very few places along the

Central Ridge that allows for extensive use of horses and chariots in Israel.

Though mountainous, Samaria is connected with the Jezreel Valley

through the plain of Dothan, a large and intensively cultivated basin, and the

plain of Sanur, an extremely flat and inundated plain.77

In this setting of the flat plain and with the predominant use of

75 Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody Press,

1985), 34.

76 Ibid. Also, Thomas C. Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1998), map 63.

77 Beitzel, Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, 35.

273horses and chariots (e.g. 2 Kgs 9:16, 18, 19, 21, 33; 10:15), the events

took place very quickly. Jehu’s second letter to the leaders of Samaria

allowed them only one day from the time they received his letter to carry the

heads of Ahab’s seventy sons to the city of Jezreel (2 Kgs 10:6). With the

fastest transportation of that day weaving through the Jezreel Valley, this

episode describes Yahweh’s final blow upon the house of Ahab as being

swift and decisive.

Temporal Setting

This episode has a fast tempo. Anointing Jehu was like igniting an

explosive, and it ushered in a chain of rapid plot developments. The aged

Elisha sent a young prophet to do the anointing of Jehu, after which the

young prophet rushed away from the scene. His peculiar behavior won for

himself the description of madman by Jehu’s fellow-officers (2 Kgs 9:11).

Like a spreading fire, this same description was passed to Jehu when the

watchman of Jezreel described Jehu’s driving of his chariot as “he drives

like a madman” (2 Kgs 9:20). The development of things moved so fast that

the forty-two relatives of Ahaziah, king of Judah, met their death for the

apparent reason that the news of Jehu’s revolt had not yet traveled to Judah

(2 Kgs 10:14).

274Character and Characterization

Elisha

Elisha is a protagonist throughout the many episodes in this

chapter. He represents Yahweh in initiating many events in this episode.

Elisha advised the Shunammite woman to leave Israel in the time of famine

and he prophesied that Hazael would be king over Aram and started the

usurpation in Aram. Through his disciple, Elisha anointed Jehu and set in

motion the military coup in Israel.

Two things indicated that Elisha’s prophetic authority had been

firmly established by this time. First, Gehazi was referred to as the servant

of the man of God, and the king of Israel desired strongly to learn the great

things Elisha had done (2 Kgs 8:4). Second, the honor and respect that

Elisha received from Ben-Hadad and Hazael (2 Kgs 8:7-9) indicated that

Elisha’s fame had spread outside of Israel.

The Shunammite Woman and Her Family

The Shunammite woman and her family are agents who

represented the faithful Yahwist of whom Yahweh took good care. In only

six verses of this short episode the author through the life of the Shunammite

woman and her household revealed how Yahweh took care of every facet of

275the lives of his faithful people. Though the term “the Shunammite

woman” was nowhere mentioned in this episode, the reference to her as “the

woman whose son Elisha had restored to life” (vv. 1, 5) connects this

episode unmistakably to the Shunammite woman in 2 Kgs 4:8-37.

Nowhere was the Shunammite woman’s husband mentioned. The

use of pronominal suffixes either in the second feminine singular ( E-@, v. 1) or

third feminine singular ( H-*, vv. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6) to refer to the Shunam-mite’s

household or properties indicated that she probably had become a widow by

this time. The care that Yahweh showed to the Shunammite woman

included many areas: (1) forewarning of the coming famine, (2) protecting

her during her sojourn in Gentile land, and (3) restoring to her the land and

the produce that was rightfully hers.

The King of Israel

The king of Israel is an antagonist. Joram (initially not named in 2

Kgs 8:1-6), with his position as king over Israel, was the instrument Yahweh

used to bring care and justice to the Shunammite woman. With his lineage

as son of Ahab, Joram stood cursed by Yahweh and was wounded by Hazael

and brought to his death by Jehu.

276Gehazi

Gehazi is an agent. By calling Gehazi the servant of the man of

God and by Gehazi’s relating to the king the great things that Elisha had

done, the narrator pointed out that Elisha’s prophetic authority was firmly

established in Israel. The conversation between Gehazi and the king also

readied the stage for the appearance of the Shunammite woman.

The King’s Official Who Attended to the Shunammite Woman’s Case

The king’s official is an agent. He represents the king’s

(ultimately Yahweh’s) special attention to the need of the Shunammite

woman.

Ben-Hadad, King of Aram

Ben-Hadad is a supporting character. As a pagan king who seeks

an oracle from Israel’s God, Ben-Hadad serves as a foil to the late Israelite

king Ahaziah who seeks an oracle from Baal-Zebub (2 Kgs 1:1-4).

Hazael

Hazael is a major character. Yahweh used the military power of

Hazael to inflict Joram. Partly reflecting the attitude of his master, Hazael

came to Elisha with great humility. The narrator described as follows: (1)

277

Hazael, following the command of his master, took with him forty camel

loads of all kinds of good things from Damascus as gifts to present to Elisha

(2 Kgs 8:9a). (2) Hazael came and stood in front of (yN}p=l!)78 Elisha and (3)

referred to his master as “your son, Ben-Hadad, King of Aram” (2 Kgs

8:9b). (4) Later on, Hazael called Elisha, “my lord” (v. 12). Hazael’s

submission and respect to Elisha the man of God, thus to Yahweh, were very

vivid.

Even so, Hazael was still a murderous man. Regarding Ben-

Hadad’s inquiry, Elisha told Hazael, “Go and tell him, ‘You shall surely

recover’” (2 Kgs 8:10a).79 Elisha then added, “But Yahweh has shown me

that he shall surely die” (2 Kgs 8:10b). The juxtaposition of these two

contradictory prophecies predicted that Ben-Hadad was not going to die of

this illness, but of some other cause. Elisha further identified Hazael as the

one who was to be that other cause. Referring to the same revelation, Elisha

said, “Yahweh has shown me that you will be king over Aram” (v. 13).80

78 See the discussion of this word in the episode “Israel’s Spiritual Leprosy.”

79 The Qere reading (ol) instead of the Ketib reading (al)) is taken here because the same answer of the Qere reading was repeated verbatim by Hazael to Ben-Hadad in verse 14.

80 “Yahweh has shown me” (hwhy yn]a^r+h!), this same phrase was used in verses 10 and 13, pointing to the same revelation that Elisha had received from Yahweh.

278Hazael went back to his master and told him only the beginning part of

Elisha’s prophecy; then Hazael wasted no time in carrying out the second

part of the prophecy. He murdered his king the next morning and usurped

the kingship of Aram (2 Kgs 8:15).

Hazael was also a cruel man. During the inquiry, the man of God

prophesied with much emotion and with tears that Hazael would set fire to

the fortresses of the Israelites, kill the choicest men of Israel with the sword,

dash their children to pieces, and rip open the wombs of the Israelite women

(2 Kgs 8:12). Upon hearing this heinous description of his future evil deeds,

Hazael not only showed no revulsion but simply wondered how he could

have the power to do this “great thing” (2 Kgs 8:13). Hazael, a man after

position and power to the point that he would not hesitate to murder his

master or to slaughter his enemy cruelly, was the first sword that Yahweh

employed to punish the Israelites (cf. 1 Kgs 19:17).

Jehoram, King of Judah

Jehoram is an agent to provide chronological correspondence

between the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 8:16-24).

Also, through his marriage with the house of Ahab, he followed the evil

ways of the house of Ahab, thus placing himself under Yahweh’s curse.

279Ahaziah, King of Judah

Ahaziah is an agent. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter

of Omri, king of Israel. He walked closely with the house of Ahab (2 Kgs

8:28-29) and died, as the house of Ahab, under the sword of Jehu (2 Kgs

9:27).

Jehu

Jehu is a full-fledged character. He is the protagonist in 2 Kings 9-

10. Through the actions of Jehu, Yahweh’s judgment on the house of Ahab

was carried out. The naming indicates that he descended from a famous

grandfather. Jehu was first introduced as “Jehu son of Jehoshaphat, the son

of Nimshi” (2 Kgs 9:2, 14); later on he was only called “Jehu son of

Nimshi” (2 Kgs 9:20). He had been an officer under Ahab and his son

Joram and apparently had been trusted by both kings (2 Kgs 9:25). Jehu was

also a commander who had the liking and the support of his fellow officers

(2 Kgs 9:13).

Jehu was characterized as a man capable of making quick

decisions and a man who would carry out a work to its total completion even

though the means might be brutal. After Jehu had conspired against Joram

in Ramoth Gilead, the first chariot that arrived in Jezreel city was driven by

280Jehu himself (2 Kgs 9:15-16). He then completed the assignment given

him in the anointing by (1) killing the whole household of Ahab (2 Kgs

9:24; 10:7, 11; cf. 2 Kgs 9:7-9), and (2) killing Jezebel (2 Kgs 9:33; cf. 2

Kgs 9:10). In addition to that, Jehu also killed Ahaziah king of Judah (2 Kgs

9:27), forty-two members of the Judean royal family (2 Kgs 9:14), and the

ministers of Baal (2 Kgs 10:25). Further, Jehu tore down the temple of Baal

and made it a latrine (2 Kgs 10:27).

Jehu had a good command of military strategy. With speed and

psychological manipulation (e.g. 2 Kgs 10:3-6, 9-10), Jehu was able to

annihilate the house of Ahab without entering into any warfare against his

own countrymen.

Jehu was also a man of trickery. He proclaimed an assembly in

honor of Baal and summoned all the prophets, all the worshippers, and all

the priests of Baal to come to the temple of Baal in Samaria. The narrator

pointed out in his commentary that this was Jehu’s scheme to eliminate the

worshippers of Baal (2 Kgs 10:19). Long points out that this was Jehu’s

cleverly built stageplay. When Jehu announced, “I have a great sacrifice

(jb^z#) to offer to Baal” (v. 19), the readers can recall that Dtr had used the

same word to describe that King Josiah would sacrifice (jb^z*) on the altar

of Bethel the priests of the high places (1 Kgs 13:2; 2 Kgs 23:20). More-

281

over, Jehu’s declaration, “Jehu will serve (db^u*) him [Baal] much” (v.

18), may contain a pun. With a slight change in the sound of the first

guttural consonant in the verb, Jehu could be heard to say that he would

destroy (db^a*) Baal.81

Filling the temple of Baal from one end to another with Baal

devotees and making sure that no worshippers of Yahweh were among this

crowd, Jehu had all of them killed. The soldiers also destroyed the sacred

stone brought out from the inner shrine of the temple of Baal and tore down

the temple of Baal, which was later used as a latrine (2 Kgs 10:25-27).

Thus, Baal worship was removed from Israel (2 Kgs 10: 28).

Jehu, however, would allow his desire to control the northern king-

dom to surpass his zeal for Yahweh. After becoming king, Jehu continued

in the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 10:29, 31). His reformation stopped short of

removing the golden calf worship. With all of Jehu’s early successes, the

commentator gave him this evaluation, “yet Jehu was not careful to keep the

law of Yahweh, the God of Israel, with all his heart” (2 Kgs 10:31).

81 Burke O. Long, 2 Kings, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol.

10, ed. Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. Tucker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 139. Long rightfully points out the pun, yet he wrongfully states that it was Baal priests that Josiah would sacrifice on the altar of Bethel.

282The Young Prophet Sent by Elisha

This young prophet is an agent. His youth and energy to run were

needed in the assignment of anointing Jehu.

Army Officers Who Were with Jehu

The officers are agents. They served as the initial support for

Jehu’s coup d’état.

The Sentinel in Jezreel

The sentinel is an agent. He served to bring before the readers the

scenes he saw from the lookout tower of Jezreel.

The First and Second Horseman

The horsemen are agents. In the three panel repetition, three times

people from the city of Jezreel went out to meet the approaching troops of

Jehu. The same question, “Do you come in peace?” ( < olv*h&/ <olv*; 2 Kgs

9:18, 19, 22), was asked three times. In the first and the second panels,

these two horsemen went out, but Jehu would not deal with them. In the

third panel of repetition, Joram and Ahaziah rode their own chariots to meet

Jehu and asked if Jehu came in peace. It was at this time that Jehu pointed

out that peace could only come when Joram and his mother Jezebel were

283removed (2 Kgs 9:22). The role of these two agents was to bring out the

third and final panel of repetition in which Joram was judged through the

sword of Jehu.

Bidkah, Jehu’s Chariot Officer

Bidkah is an agent. He served as a witness for what Elijah said to

Ahab; he also served as an audience that allowed Jehu to utter his view

regarding the fulfillment of Yahweh’s prophecy.

Jezebel

Jezebel is a major character. She served as the antagonist, the

ultimate foe behind Baalism in Israel. She was characterized as a fearless

woman. When facing her coming judgment, she painted her eyes, arranged

her hair and looked out of a window in waiting for Jehu. When Jehu entered

the city, she said to him, “Have you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of

your master” (2 Kgs 9:31)? Zimri had previously rebelled against Elah and

had killed the whole household of Baasha, but his reign lasted for only seven

days (1 Kgs 16:10-11, 15). Furthermore, Zimri’s seven-day rule had been

ended by Omri, Jezebel’s father-in-law (1 Kgs 16:17-18). Therefore, for

Jezebel, “Zimri” was a byword for a defeated usurper. In saying to Jehu,

284

“Zimri, you murderer of your master,” Jezebel was using the word

“Zimri” figuratively.82 She was mocking Jehu that his revolt would meet

swift defeat.83 But the narrator proved her final words to be futile, for

Yahweh granted Jehu’s descendants to “sit on the throne of Israel to the

fourth generation (2 Kgs 10:30).”

The narrator also described Jezebel’s death in a derogatory way.

Under the commanding authority of Jehu, the eunuchs in Jezebel’s palace

threw her down. Her blood splattered on the wall, and the horses trampled

her underfoot (2 Kgs 9:33). Yahweh had pronounced that every male

(literally one urinating against a wall) of Ahab’s house would be cut off (2

Kgs 9:8), and right after that, Yahweh pronounced judgment against Jezebel

(2 Kgs 9:10). In the description of Jezebel’s death scene, her blood, like the

urine, also splattered on the wall. Moreover, dogs devoured her body so that

only her skull, her feet and her hands remained (2 Kgs 9:35).

82 This figure of speech is called hypocatastasis. It means an implication or a

declaration that implies comparison. E.g. Ps 22:17, “Dogs (=Evil men) have compassed me about.” See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1968), 744-47.

83 Some takes Jezebel’s gesture and words as her seductive, Cleopatra-like preparation for lovemaking in the expectation that Jehu would take over Jehoram’s harem. Her greeting would then be teasing or taunting. (See Nelson, First and Second Kings, 203). But this is unlikely, for Ahab ruled from 874-853 B.C. and Jehu rebelled in 841 B.C. (Dates are from Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983], 217). Since Jezebel had married Ahab 33 years previously, she might have been a bit too old.

285

Eunuchs

The eunuchs are agents. No characterization was given to them.

Their ready agreement to be on Jehu’s side (2 Kgs 9:32-33) seemed to

characterize Jezebel as someone not greatly loved even by persons who

waited upon her.

The Seventy Sons of the House of Ahab

The seventy sons of the house of Ahab are agents. No

characterization was given to any of them. Their being slaughtered served

as the fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecy.

The Officials (the Palace Administrator and the City Governor) and the Elders of Samaria, the Guardians of Ahab’s Children

They are agents. The single characterization for these people is

fear. After Jehu killed both kings and Jezebel, he wrote a letter to the

officials, to the elders of the city of Samaria84 and to the guardians of Ahab’s

children and challenged them to a fight (2 Kgs 10:2-3).

Confronted with the death of two kings and one queen-mother and

the loss of the city of Jezreel all in one single day, the leaders of Samaria

84 In 2 Kgs 10:1, the Septuagint and Vulgate reading of the city ryu!h* (i.e.

Samaria) is preferred to the MT reading of Jezreel. The context clearly indicates that Samaria was the destination of this letter.

286

were very very85 terrified. They could not even think about facing Jehu

in military terms. The narrator described their inner thoughts, “If two kings

could not resist him, how can we?” They decided to surrender to Jehu

unconditionally (2 Kgs 10:4-5). Jehu wasted no time in stating his

conditions for their surrender in the second letter. They complied with his

terms and in one day slaughtered all seventy sons of Ahab and brought their

heads in one basket to the city of Jezreel.

Forty Two Relatives of Ahaziah, King of Judah

The forty two relatives of Ahaziah are agents. They represented

the Judean royal family who sympathized with the house of Ahab.86

Jehonadab son of Recab

He is an agent. Jehonadab was the head of the Recabite clan who

refrained from drinking wine and purposely adopted a nomadic way of

living (cf. Jer 35:6-7). This group of people considered this rigorous way of

85 They were very very terrified (da)m= da)m= War+y]). The repetition of words in

Hebrew intensifies the description of the leaders’ fear. See chapter 2 of this dissertation for detail.

86 It is not likely that this great number of people followed after Ahaziah to visit the wounded Joram (cf. 2 Kgs 8:29). There is a good possibility that they came to attend some kind of coming Baal festivity. If this hypothesis is correct, then Jehu’s calling of an assembly in honor of Baal would follow naturally (2 Kgs 10:20).

287life style a means to be close to Yahweh. Jehonadab served as a foil, by

parallel, to illustrate the zealous religious reformation that Jehu was

undertaking. Jehonadab’s presence (2 Kgs 10:16, 23) also provided

approving witness to Jehu’s zeal in killing the remaining household of Ahab

(2 Kgs 10:17) and the annihilation of the whole system of Baal worship (2

Kgs 10:18-27).

All the Prophets of Baal, All His Ministers, and All His Priests

They are agents, representing a whole system of Baal worship.

Keeper of the Wardrobe in the Temple of Baal

The keeper of the wardrobe is an agent, being part of the Baal

worship system.

The Guards and Officers Guarding the Exits of the Temple of Baal

They are agents. Their guarding the exits to prevent any Baal

worshipper from escaping reflected Jehu’s determination to wipe out the

Baalism in Israel.

288

Plot and Plot Structure

• Pause—Regarding the Faithful Israelites (2 Kgs 8:1-6)

Mere coincidence cannot explain the perfect timing that the

Shunammite woman chose to petition King Joram. She entered the court at a time when the king was eager to give her his undivided hearing. Mere luck cannot explain the favor that the Shunammite woman received from the king. Not only were her house and land restored to her, but also the income of the land during her absence was given to her. It was clearly the providence of Yahweh, who was taking care of his loyalists. Yahweh led the Shunammite woman away to avoid the famine; he also gave her back all her belongings after her return from Gentile land.

Through the anointing of Hazael as king of Aram and the anointing

of Jehu as king over Israel, Yahweh was to remove both the house of Ahab and Baalism completely from the land of Israel.

• Conflict between Yahweh and Joram Moves toward Resolution-The

Enthronement of Hazael (2 Kgs 8:7-15)

† Setting (2 Kgs 8:7): Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, was ill. Elisha the man of God who had healed Naaman came to Damascus.

† Action Begins (2 Kgs 8:8-9): Ben-Hadad sent Hazael to inquire of

Elisha regarding the illness of Ben-Hadad; would he recover from his illness?

† Tension Introduced (2 Kgs 8:10-13): Elisha prophesied that Ben-

Hadad’s illness was not terminal but that Hazael would usurp his master’s power and become king of Aram.

† Tension Resolved (2 Kgs 8:14-15): Hazael murdered Ben-Hadad

and became king of Aram.

This passage has three main purposes. First, it completes Yahweh’s command to Elijah to anoint Hazael as king of Aram (1 Kgs

28919:15). Second, it contrasts Ahaziah’s previous pursuit of Baal’s help with Ben-Hadad’s pursuit of Yahweh’s help. Third, it tightens the conflict that Yahweh had with Joram. The Arameans under the leadership of Hazael were to wound Joram, and afterwards Jehu was to kill Joram. • Plot Twist (2 Kgs 8:16-29): As Yahweh was raising up forces to exert his

final blow upon Baalism in Israel, Baalism made inroads into the southern kingdom.

† Setting (2 Kgs 8:16-17): Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat became king

of Judah. † Conflict Introduced (2 Kgs 8:18): Jehoram followed the house of

Ahab and served Baal. † Pause (2 Kgs 8:19): Yahweh was not willing to destroy Jehoram

because of Yahweh’s promise to David. † Conflict Intensifies (2 Kgs 8:20-22): Yahweh allowed Edom to

rebel against Jehoram. In his attempt to put down the rebellion, Jehoram was defeated, and only his own life was spared. Edom, therefore, remained outside of Judah’s control; Libnah revolted at the same time.

† Pause/Temporary Relief (2 Kgs 8:23-26a): After Jehoram died and

was buried in the City of David, Ahaziah his son succeeded him on the throne in Jerusalem.

† Conflict Continues (2 Kgs 8:26b-27): Ahaziah, who was related by

marriage to Ahab’s family, continued to follow the ways of the house of Ahab and thus provoked Yahweh to anger.

† Conflict Intensifies (2 Kgs 8:28-29): Ahaziah allied with Joram

King of Israel and warred against Hazael King of Aram. After Joram was wounded by the Arameans, Ahaziah went down to Jezreel to visit him. This conflict awaited the anointing of Jehu for its final resolution.

290Here the sword of Hazael moved into action. What was left

from the sword of Hazael would later be taken up by the sword of Jehu (2 Kgs 8:28; 9:24-27; cf. 1 Kgs 19:17).

• Conflict between Yahweh and Joram Moves Further toward Resolution-

Anointing Jehu as King over Israel (2 Kgs 9:1-13)

The anointing of Jehu fits into the type-scene “the call of a prophet,” as described in chapter 2. Jehu was a military commander and not a prophet. The application of this type-scene to Jehu signified Yahweh’s plan to call out a military force and to use it to judge the leadership of Israel and Judah.

† The Call of an Unsuspected Leader (2 Kgs 9:1-5): Elisha, through a

young prophet, called out Jehu to perform an act of judgment that Yahweh had decreed for the house of Ahab.

† The Commission of the Unsuspected Leader (2 Kgs 9:6-10): Jehu

was commissioned to annihilate the house of Ahab and Jezebel. † The Hesitation of this Emerging Leader (2 Kgs 9:11): Jehu’s

hesitation was reflected in his deprecating of the word of the young prophet.

† The Leader Accepts the Call and the Commission (2 Kgs 9:12-13):

Jehu accepted the call and the commission upon the urging and the support of the military stationed in Ramoth Gilead.

• Conflict between Yahweh and Joram Resolved/Plot Twist (of 2 Kgs 8:16-

29) Resolved (2 Kgs 9:14-10:17): Interestingly, Jehu started his action in Jezreel, the place where Jezebel had threatened Elijah (1 Kgs 18:46; 19:3).

(1). Joram King of Israel and Ahaziah King of Judah were both killed

by Jehu (2 Kgs 9:14-29). (2). Jezebel was killed (2 Kgs 9:30-37). (3). Ahab’s family was killed (2 Kgs 10:1-17).

291

• Larger Conflict between Yahweh and Baal Resolved (2 Kgs 10:18-28): The ministers of Baal were killed, and the temple of Baal was demolished. Baalism was finally removed from Israel.

• Plot Twist (2 Kgs 10:29): Nevertheless, the worship of golden calves at

Bethel and Dan remained! • Action Ends (2 Kgs 10:30-33): The divine response to Jehu’s work was to

reward Jehu with the kingship of Israel for four generations (2 Kgs 10:30). In response to Jehu’s sin in golden calf worship, Yahweh started to reduce the size of Israel by allowing Hazel to take land from Israel (2 Kgs 10:31-33).

• Closure (2 Kgs 10:34-36).

The Smoldering Fire Burned Again and The Renewal

of Yahwistic Worship; 2 Kings 11-1287

Plot and Plot Structure

The fire of Baalism seemed to be burning out in both the northern

kingdom and the southern kingdom. In the northern kingdom, the house of

Ahab, Jezebel, and priests of Baal had all been killed; the temple of Baal had

been destroyed. In the southern kingdom, Ahaziah, the apostate king, and

his relatives who were sympathetic to Baal worship (2 Kgs 10:13) had also

87 Since 2 Kings 11 and 12 deal primarily with the southern kingdom and are

not directly related to the Elijah and Elisha stories, there is no detailed analysis of these two chapters as in other episodes before. Only plot and plot structure are provided in this episode so as to show the continuity of the entire story from 1 Kgs 16:29 to 2 Kgs 13:21.

292been destroyed by Jehu. However, similarly to Jezebel in the northern

kingdom (1 Kgs 19:2), Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel (2 Kgs 11:1, cf. 2

Kgs 8:18), was ruling in the southern kingdom. Judah still had to deal with

Athaliah before the conflict could be counted as resolved.

• New Conflict between Yahweh and Baal Started (2 Kgs 11:1): The smoldering fire of Baalism burned brightly again in Judah. When her son died, a woman would normally have been expected to mourn or even try to take revenge. But this was not the case for Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah who had been killed by Jehu (2 Kgs 9:27). Athaliah proceeded to destroy the Davidic house, primarily her grandchildren. This was Baal’s last all-out-attack on Yahweh’s chosen line.

• Relief (2 Kgs 11:2-3): Joash, son of Ahaziah, was saved from death and

reared in the temple of the Lord. • A Potential Solution Appears (2 Kgs 11:4-12): Joash was enthroned at the

age of seven at the temple of the Lord. • Conflict Takes a Major Step toward Resolution (2 Kgs 11:13-16): Athaliah

was killed at the entrance to her palace. • Conflict Resolved (2 Kgs 11:17-18a): The temple of Baal was torn down;

Mattan the priest of Baal was killed.

• Action Ends (2 Kgs 11:18b-21): King Joash was enthroned in his palace. Judah was under the rule of the Davidic house once more.

• Closure (2 Kings 12): The establishment of pure Davidic rule

accompanied by faithful observation of the Law led to the reformation of the Yahwistic worship. The temple at Jerusalem was repaired.

293

The Conflict over Golden Calf Worship; 2 Kgs 13:1-21

Setting

Temporal Setting

This episode took place during the reign of the house of Jehu.

Jehoahaz and Jehoash were the first and second generation after Jehu.

Jehoash started his reign in Joash’s thirty-seventh year (2 Kgs 13:10), and

his reign lasted for sixteen years (ca. 798-782 B.C.). Jones points out that

“this chronological detail is at variance with 2 Kgs 13:1 and 14:1, which

make [Jehoash’s] accession to the throne of Israel in the thirty-ninth year of

[Joash] of Judah.” Jones calls for the adoption of some MSS and the Greek

version and read “thirty-ninth” here. 88 Likewise, Nelson calls this

chronological order “in confusion” and attributes it to the textual corruption

in the Masoretic text.89 Gray suggests a two-year coregency between

Jehoahaz and Jehoash.90 Thiele offers an alternative to explain the two-year

discrepancy:

88 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 2:501. “Joash” and “Jehoash” are erratically

exchanged in Jones’ commentary. It is corrected in this quote.

89 Nelson, First and Second Kings, 216.

90 Gray, I & II Kings, 597, n. a.

294

Beginning with Jehoash, regnal years in Israel were reckoned in accord with the accession-year system; and this was continued to the end of the nation.

At the same time in Judah, beginning with Amaziah, the southern kingdom returned to the accession-year system and continued its use to the end. Jehoash and Amaziah almost certainly collaborated with each other in their shift to accession-year reckoning.

The reason for this shift appears to have been due to the great influence of Assyria in western Asia at this time. In Assyria and Babylonia the accession-year system was in use. Under the Assyrian monarch Adad-nirari III (811-783), great efforts were being made to secure the mastery of the Mediterranean coastlands.91

Character and Characterization

Jehoahaz King of Israel

Jehoahaz is a major character who serves in this episode as an

antagonist. The narrator mentioned only two characterizations of him. (1)

Jehoahaz was described as evil for following the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs

13:2). Then (2) Jehoahaz “sought the favor of Yahweh”—an unusual step

for a northern monarch—after being oppressed by Hazael king of Aram and

Ben-Hadad his son (2 Kgs 13:3-4). Yahweh provided an unidentified

deliverer for them. Yet like the cycle in Judges, Jehoahaz continued in the

sins of Jeroboam. God used Arameans to bring Israel to a very weak stage;

91 Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 111-12.

295

only a handful of chariots and horsemen were left to the northern

kingdom (2 Kgs 13:7).

Under normal political circumstances, Hazael would probably have

obliterated Israel. All the pieces were in place for Syria to do what Assyria

would accomplish later.92 The reason that this catastrophe did not occur was

(1) because of Yahweh’s faithfulness to his promise toward Jehu (2 Kgs

10:30), and (2) because of Yahweh’s grace and compassion due to his

covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (2 Kgs 13:23).

Hazael king of Aram and Ben-Hadad son of Hazael

They are agents; no characterizations are given to them. They

served as the instruments Yahweh used to bring punishment to Israel.

Jehoash King of Israel

Jehoash is a major character, serving as an antagonist after

Jehoahaz in this episode. Like his father, Jehoash was also characterized as

evil in following the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 13:11). Yet it was God’s

grace that he granted Jehoash three victories over the Aramean king Ben-

Hadad son of Hazael (2 Kgs 13:25).

92 House, 1, 2 Kings, 309.

296Jehoash apparently respected Elisha, for he wept over Elisha

the prophet as he lay on his sickbed. At that time, Jehoash called Elisha,

“the chariots and horsemen of Israel” (2 Kgs 13:14)! This statement

revealed that Jehoash might either have admired the deeds of Elisha in the

Omride dynasty (2 Kgs 3:16-19; 6:13, 16-23), or more probably, even

though there is no record in the Book of the Kings, Jehoash might have

received Elisha’s help in achieving certain military functions. Losing Elisha

was like losing his major military weapons.

Before he died, Elisha was to prove again that he was the chariots

and horsemen of Israel. He had Jehoash shoot the arrow toward the Trans-

jordan where most of the battles between Israel and Aram had taken place,

declaring that Yahweh would grant Jehoash opportunity to destroy the

Arameans completely. After knowing what the arrows now meant, the king

was asked to take the arrows again and to strike the ground. The king

responded to the command but failed the test of aggressiveness. Yahweh

would only give him partial success; the complete victory over the

Arameans was not achieved until the reign of his son Jeroboam II (2 Kgs

14:25, 28).

Elisha demonstrated much enthusiasm regarding the deliverance of

Israel even when on his deathbed, yet Jehoash, while healthy, lacked

297

enthusiasm regarding Israel’s deliverance. Lack of vigor in following

Yahweh also made Jehoash unable to receive the full blessings of Yahweh.

Elisha

Elisha is a protagonist. When he instructed King Jehoash to shoot

the arrow and to strike the ground, Elisha was in his old age yet showed no

lack of enthusiasm.93 Even after he died, his bones could still bring the dead

man back to life. Yahweh’s power had evidently been with Elisha through

his life long ministry. The prophet finished his life span, but the power of

Yahweh went on.

Moabite Raiders

The Moabite raiders are agents.

Plot and Plot Structure • Plot Twist (2 Kgs 13:1-13): The house of Jehu, though credited with the

removal of Baal worship from the northern kingdom and partially credited with the removal of Baal worship from the southern kingdom, was not able to free itself from the sins of Jeroboam. The house of Jehu continued to worship golden calves. This episode picked up the theme of apostasy in 2 Kgs 10:29, 31.

93 Joram King of Israel reigned in 852-841 B.C., Jehoash King of Israel

reigned in 798-782 B.C. Elisha started his solo ministry at the beginning of Joram’s reign, and now he was dying during Jehoash’s reign. Elisha had been in his ministry for at least 54 years. He was now an old man. (Dates are from Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 10.)

298

† The Conflict during the reign of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13:1-9)

‡ Setting (2 Kgs 13:1): It was the reign of Jehoahaz son of Jehu. ‡ Conflict Introduced (2 Kgs 13:2): Jehoahaz offended

Yahweh by following the sins of Jeroboam. ‡ Conflict Intensifies (2 Kgs 13:3): Yahweh showed his anger

against Israel by allowing Hazael to overpower it. ‡ Potential Solution Appears (2 Kgs 13:4-5): Jehoahaz sought

Yahweh’s favor; Yahweh gave Israel a deliverer; the Israelites were able to live in their own homes again.

‡ Conflict Resumes (2 Kgs 13:6): The Israelites did not turn

away from the sins of Jeroboam. Also, the Asherah pole remained standing in Samaria.

‡ Conflict Intensifies (2 Kgs 13:7): Israel was very weak under

the oppression of Aram. ‡ Closure (2 Kgs 13:8-9): Jehoahaz died; his son Jehoash

continued after him as king of Israel. † Conflict during the Reign of Jehoash (2 Kgs 13:10-13)

‡ Setting (2 Kgs 13:10): Jehoash reigned in Samaria. ‡ Conflict Introduced (2 Kgs 13:11): Jehoash followed the sins

of Jeroboam. ‡ Closure (2 Kgs 13:12-13): Jehoahaz died and was buried in

Samaria. Jeroboam succeeded him on the throne.

• Epilogue (2 Kgs 13:14-21): In a flashback to an event which happened between Jehoash and Elisha, the author hinted that Yahweh was still the originator of victory and the granter of life.

299† Test on Jehoash (2 Kgs 13:14-19): Victory was in the hand of

Yahweh.

‡ Setting (2 Kgs 13:14): Elisha was on his death bed. King Jehoash came to visit Elisha.

‡ Test (2 Kgs 13:15-17): God’s desire was for the king to

destroy the Arameans completely. ‡ The Major Character’s Response (2 Kgs 13:18): Jehoash

gave only a lukewarm response to the task. ‡ Divine Counterresponse and Consequence (2 Kgs 13:19):

God would grant Jehoash victory three times only. † Closure (2 Kgs 13:20-21): Elisha died and was buried. His bones

made a dead body came to life. Even though the man of God had died, the gift of granting of life still belonged to Yahweh. If Israel would come and seek him, Yahweh could still grant life.

Summary

Yahweh’s conflict against Baal continued in this chapter. Elisha

was the protagonist and Joram son of Ahab the primary antagonist followed

by Jehoahaz and Jehoash as other antagonists. Elisha represented Yahweh;

Joram represented the system of Baalism, and Jehoahaz and Jehoash

represented the state religion of golden calf worship.

Elisha started as a disciple of Elijah. As the plot developed, three

episodes later (2 Kings 2; 2 Kgs 4:1-44; 2 Kgs 6:8-23) Elisha was firmly

established as Yahweh’s prophet par excellence. Joram started with a

300commendable deed—he got rid of the sacred stone of Baal that his father

had made (2 Kgs 3:2)—but three episodes later (2 Kings 3; 2 Kings 5; 2

Kings 6:24-7:20) Joram proved himself just as spiritually corrupt as his

father Ahab. Yahweh’s judgment eventually came: Through his prophet

Elisha and through his instruments, Hazael and Jehu, the whole household of

Ahab, Jezebel, and the system of Baal worship were completely destroyed

from the land of Israel.

For his work in removing Baalism from Israel, Jehu was awarded

the kingship of Israel to his fourth generation. Yet Jehu’s heart was not right

before Yahweh; he continued the state religion established by Jeroboam. It

was the faithfulness of Yahweh and his remembrance of the covenant which

he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that caused him not to banish

the Israelites from his presence right away. Yet the patience of Yahweh

would not last forever. His focus was shifting gradually toward the Gentiles.

He had proved many times that he was capable of taking care of the faithful

during time of famine or even in Gentile land. Elijah and Elisha were gone,

yet Yahweh remained the God of life; it was up to the Israelites to choose

life or death before time ran out for them.

300

CHAPTER 6

SYNTHESIS OF THE ELIJAH AND ELISHA STORIES

The Elijah and Elisha stories as analyzed in chapters 4 and 5 are

synthesized in this chapter under the same headings of setting, character and

characterization, plot and plot structure. The themes of the stories of Elijah

and Elisha are presented at the end of the synthesis.

Setting

Temporal Setting

The dates of the Israelite kings in their order of sequence are as

follows:1

1 Kgs 12:25-14:20 Jeroboam I 22 years 930-909 B.C. 1 Kgs 15:25-31 Nadab 2 years 909-908 1 Kgs 15:32-16:7 Baasha 24 years 908-886 1 Kgs 16:8-14 Elah 2 years 886-885 1 Kgs 16:15-20 Zimri 7 days 885 1 Kgs 16:21-22 Tibni Rival of Omri 885-880 1 Kgs 16:23-28 Omri Rival of Tibni 885-880 12 years

total reign 885-874

1 These dates are from Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the

Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1983), 11-12.

3011 Kgs 16:29-22:40 Ahab 22 years 874-853 1 Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 1:18 Ahaziah 2 years 853-852 2 Kgs 1:17; 2 Kgs 3:1-8:15

Joram 12 years 852-841

2 Kgs 9:30-10:36 Jehu 28 years 841-814 2 Kgs 13:1-9 Jehoahaz 17 years 814-798 2 Kgs 13:10-25 Jehoash 16 years 798-782 2 Kgs 14:23-29 Jeroboam II coregency

with Jehoash 793-782

41 years total reign

793-753

beginning of sole reign

782

2 Kgs 15:8-12 Zechariah 6 months 753 2 Kgs 15:13-15 Shallum 1 month 752 2 Kgs 15:16-22 Menahem 10 years ruled

in Samaria 752-742

2 Kgs 15:23-26 Pekahiah 2 years 742-740 2 Kgs 15:27-31 Pekah overlapping

years in Gilead

752-740

20 years total reign

752-732

2 Kgs 15:30; 17:1-41 Hoshea 9 years 732-723

Among the reigns of 19 kings in the 207-year-history of the

northern kingdom (930-723 B.C.), the narrator gave greatest emphasis, 17

chapters in all (1 Kings 17-22, 2 Kings 1-10, 13), to Ahab, Ahaziah, and

Joram’s 33 years of reign (874-841 B.C.). The significance of this 33 years

was that at the beginning Baalism made its inroad into the northern

kingdom, and Yahweh, through dramatic events, removed Baalism from the

land. The ministry of Elijah, spanning about 22 years (874-852 B.C.),

302paralleled the reigns of Ahab and Ahaziah. The ministry of Elisha,

spanning about 55 years, paralleled the reign of Joram, Jehu, and Jehoash

(852-797 B.C.). Yet the majority of Elisha’s stories were concentrated in the

12-year reign of Joram (852-841 B.C.), only one recorded ministry occurred

in the time of Jehoash (2 Kgs 13:14-20). The narrator’s emphasis on the

struggle between Yahwism and Baalism is quite evident.

Character and Characterization

The conflict started as one between Yahwism and Baalism (1 Kgs

16:29-2 Kgs 12:21) and then continued as one between Yahwism and golden

calf worship (2 Kgs 13:1-20). Many important characters presented in these

conflicts can be classified into two major groups: (1) the protagonists who

represented Yahweh, primarily Elijah and Elisha; and (2) the antagonists,

initially the house of Ahab and Jezebel who were followers of Baal, and

later on the house of Jehu who continued in the state religion established by

Jeroboam. All other characters are basically minor characters either as foils

to the major characters or to further the development of the plot.

On the surface, it seemed that the conflicts were primarily between

the prophets and the kings. But on the theological level, it was Yahweh

against Baal and later on Yahweh against the golden calf worship. Yahweh

303was the ultimate protagonist in all the conflicts. Yahweh used prophets

(such as Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah ben Imlah, the anonymous prophet in 1 Kgs

20:35), military personnel (such as Jehu), and even an enemy of Israel (such

as Hazael) to accomplish his purpose.

The Protagonists

Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah son of Imlah, and Jehu are listed as

protagonists in the analyses of chapters 4 and 5. The last two persons appear

only in a single episode, and their characterizations have already been

discussed individually under each episode. Elijah and Elisha, on the other

hand, appear in multiple episodes; their characterizations are summarized

here, and their close relationship is presented afterwards.

Elijah

The name “Elijah,” which means “Yah(weh) is my God,” appears

66 times in Kings (4 times in the form of hY`l!a@, 62 times in the form of

WhY`l!a@). Elijah’s name signified his ministry as struggling against Baal

worship in Israel and trying to bring the hearts of the Israelites back to

Yahweh.

Elijah was a man of mystery. He came from Tishbe in Gilead, an

304unfamiliar territory, and his introduction to the scene was simple and

utilitarian (1 Kgs 17:1). He always appeared suddenly, often to intervene

against evil and to utter Yahweh’s judgment (1 Kgs 18:7; 21:18; 2 Kgs 1:3).

Many times he disappeared supernaturally without much trace (1 Kgs 18:12;

2 Kgs 2:11).

Elijah was a man of solitude. He hid himself in Kerith Ravine,

east of Jordan, was fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17:3-4), and later stayed with the

family of a Gentile widow in a foreign land (1 Kgs 17:10). Alone, he

communicated with Yahweh in a cave on Mount Horeb (1 Kgs 19:9). When

he was found by the captains of fifty, he was sitting on the top of a hill, not

readily accessible (2 Kgs 1:9).

Elijah was not very sociable. He wore a garment of hair with a

leather belt around his waist, drastically different attire from that of the

common people (2 Kgs 1:8). His words with others or even about himself

were characterized as brief, harsh, and at times judgmental (e.g. 1 Kgs 18:8,

18; 19:4, 20). Elisha seemed to be Elijah’s only longtime companion until

the latter’s translation to heaven, and even then, Elijah asked Elisha to leave

three different times at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho (2 Kgs 2:2, 3, 6). While

on his last earthly trip, Elijah had no conversation with any of the sons of the

305prophets at Bethel or Jericho; all the conversations with them were

conducted by Elisha (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 16).

Elijah was a man of zealous dedication. Often seen fighting

single-handedly against a much greater number of Yahweh’s enemies, he

still brought in magnificent spiritual victories (1 Kgs 18:22; 2 Kgs 1:9, 11,

13). He faced autocrats fearlessly and delivered Yahweh’s judgments

without compromise (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:18, 40; 21:20-24; 2 Kgs 1:16).

Elijah was a round character. Contrary to the many positive

characterizations of Elijah described above, the narrator in his commentary

showed us the opposite side of Elijah: he was afraid and ran for his life (1

Kgs 19:3). Though he was victorious and used commanding authority while

at Mount Carmel, Elijah was dejected later on and even sought his own

death in the wilderness of Judah (1 Kgs 19:4).

Elisha

The name “Elisha” ( uv*yl!a$ ), which means “God is Salvation”,

appears 58 times in the Books of Kings. Elisha’s ministry is especially

noted for his extending Yahweh’s salvation toward those who were helpless

or submissive before him.

Elisha was a more sociable and more accessible man when

306compared with his master, Elijah. Elisha was always seen among

crowds (1 Kgs 19:19, 21; 2 Kgs 2:17, 19; 3:12; 4:38; 6:1, 32), or was

accompanied by his servants (2 Kgs 5:10, 20; 6:15). Elisha’s itinerary and

whereabouts were more predictable than that of Elijah (2 Kgs 3:11; 4:10, 22;

5:9; 6:13, 32; 8:7). Elisha was a man with tender emotions (1 Kgs 19:20; 2

Kgs 4:27).

Elisha’s characterization is more flat when compared with Elijah.

Even though Elisha cursed the youth of Bethel (2 Kgs 2:24), wept before

Hazael (2 Kgs 8:11), and became angry at King Jehoash (2 Kgs 13:19), most

of the time, Elisha’s inner life was kept from the readers. While presenting

Elijah as a full-fledged character, the narrator was content to leave Elisha as

a type, an ideal prophet of Yahweh.

The Relationship between Elijah and Elisha

The narrator through many narrative devices emphasized the tight

relationship between Elijah and Elisha. They were seen almost as one

prophet instead of two prophets.

The Call of the Prophets

Chapter 2 of this dissertation has already discussed the type-scene

of “the call of a prophet” in calling out a man to serve as Yahweh’s prophet.

307

This type-scene includes these basic features: (1) an unexpected call

from God, (2) a hesitation to respond to the call, (3) a divine reassurance,

and (4) the acceptance of the call.2 This type-scene is not found in the

calling of Elijah; it is in keeping with the lofty, mysterious status with which

the narrator intended to characterize Elijah. Interestingly, this type-scene is

not found in the calling of Elisha either. Because Elisha was treated as the

continuation of Elijah and not as just another prophet, this type-scene might

have been purposefully avoided.

The hairy mantle was the connection between Elijah and Elisha. It

was first symbolically placed around Elisha (1 Kgs 19:19) and was then left

behind by Elijah for Elisha’s sole possession (2 Kgs 2:12-13). What

significantly took place was the double portion of Elijah’s spirit that Yahweh

granted to Elisha (2 Kgs 2:9) as symbolized externally by the transference of

the mantle. Both what happened internally and externally emphasized

Elisha as the continuation of the prophet Elijah. As a further proof of this

continuation, Elisha carried through the ministry commissioned of Elijah to

anoint Jehu and Hazael (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 8:13; 2 Kgs 9:1-3).

2 See “type-scene” in chapter 2 of this dissertation.

308The Death of the Prophets

Death is the end of one man’s physical ministry. Elijah and Elisha

were so closely connected, however, that there was only one death and only

one burial at the end of these two men’s combined ministry (2 Kgs 13:20).

This narrative emphasis stressed the one period as championed by the

prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha.

Support outside the Books of Kings

Though there are more episodes recorded about Elisha’s ministry

than about Elijah’s, nevertheless, Elisha is rarely mentioned outside Kings.

Elijah is mentioned in many books of the Bible (2 Chr 21:12; Mal 4:5; Matt

11:14; 16:14; 17:3-4, 10-12; 27:47, 49; Mark 6:15; 8:28; 9:4-5, 11-13;

15:35-36; Luke 1:17; 4:25-26; 9:8, 19, 30, 33; John 1:21, 25; Rom 11:2; Jas

5:17). Elisha is only mentioned in Luke 4:27, following a similar ministry

of Elijah. The viewpoints of other books of the Bible support the contention

that Elijah was Yahweh’s prophet and that Elisha was his successor.

The Antagonists

Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, Jezebel, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash are listed as

309antagonists in the analyses of chapters 4 and 5. The first three belonged

to the house of Ahab; the last two belonged to the house of Jehu.

The House of Ahab

Similar to the close relationship between Elijah and Elisha is the

relationship between Ahab and his two sons, Ahaziah and Joram. Ahab,

Ahaziah, and Joram are full-fledged characters and, as supporters of

Baalism, they are portrayed as antagonists in many similar ways.

Ahab institutionalized Baal worship in Israel. He built a temple for

Baal in Samaria and set up an altar for Baal (1 Kgs 16:31-32). Ahab was in

hot pursuit of Elijah, Yahweh’s representative (1 Kgs 18:10), and blamed on

him the judgment from Yahweh by calling Elijah “you troubler of Israel” (1

Kgs 18:17). Yahweh had judged Ahab by bringing famine to Israel and

Sidon for three years (1 Kgs 18:1) and finally had Ahab killed by an arrow

(1 Kgs 22:37-38). In all his evil portrait of Ahab, the narrator did not forego

deriding Ahab. For example, he portrayed Ahab as sulking and refusing to

eat, lying on his bed waiting to be pampered by his wife after failing to gain

Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21:4-7).

Ahaziah, like his father Ahab, forsook Yahweh for Baal. Ahaziah

sent messengers to consult Baal-Zebub regarding the likelihood of Ahaziah’s

310recovering from his fall (2 Kgs 1:2). When Elijah intercepted the

messengers, Ahaziah sent soldiers to pursue him (2 Kgs 1:9, 11, 13). In a

comical use of the Leitwort “go down,” Ahaziah never “went down” from

his sick bed as a healthy man. He died in bed according to Yahweh’s word

(2 Kgs 1:4, 17).

Joram, like his father Ahab, was also a Baal follower. After

Joram’s death, during Jehu’s bloody cleansing, the prophets, the

worshippers, and the priests of Baal in great numbers were found packed in

the temple of Baal (2 Kgs 10:21), and inside it was the sacred stone of Baal

(2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26). Joram also tried to kill Elisha at the height of the

Aramean siege (2 Kgs 6:25). Yahweh judged Joram by bringing seven years

of famine to the land of Israel (2 Kgs 8:1). And according to the word of

Yahweh, Joram was killed by an arrow from Jehu (2 Kgs 9:24 cf. 1 Kgs

21:21). The narrator also derisively portrayed Joram as he tried to stop the

hungry Israelites from pursuing food in abundance that was just outside the

city of Samaria (2 Kgs 7:12).

Among the many protagonists who upheld Yahwism in Israel,

Elijah stood as the head of those who continued after him (Elisha, Hazael,

and Jehu were all his reinforcement, cf. 1 Kgs 19:15-17). Similarly, among

the many antagonists who upheld Baalism in Israel, Ahab stood as the head

311

of those who continued after him. This is made particularly clear by

the narrator’s insertion of the Hiel passage in 1 Kgs 16:34, “In Ahab’s time,

Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his

firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son

Segub, in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of

Nun” (NIV). This verse parallels prior verses (1 Kgs 16:29-33) and forms a

narrative analogy3 between Hiel and Ahab.

Conroy points out that in this pericope of 1 Kgs 16:29-34 there are

two literary panels existing side by side which focus respectively on King

Ahab (1 Kgs 16:29-33) and Hiel (1 Kgs 16:34). The pericope opens with the

personal name Ahab ben-Omri (v. 29a), which balances the personal name

Joshua ben-Nun (v. 34b) that closes the pericope.4 On the level of thematic

and lexical contacts there are two particularly significant links between these

two literary panels: (1) both Ahab and Hiel were presented as engaged in

3 For the occurrences of narrative analogy in the Hebrew Bible, Alter

emphasizes, “As a general rule, analogy plays a more important role in biblical narrative than in most other kinds of narrative because the art of the ancient Hebrew tale usually avoids explicit commentary by the narrator and instead invites us to see connections and even evaluative perspectives through an awareness or intuition of correspondences between one part of the story and another.” (Robert Alter, The World of Biblical Literature, [New York: BasicBooks, 1992], 103).

4 Charles Conroy, “Hiel between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha: 1 Kgs 16,34 in Its Immediate Literary Context,” Biblica 77 (1996): 211-12.

312

constructions,5 and (2) these constructions were contrary to the will of

Yahweh.6 As a result of their violating Yahweh’s will, both men received

Yahweh’s judgment. Hiel’s two sons, Abiram and Segub, died an untimely

death, as did Ahab’s two sons, Ahaziah and Joram.

First Kings 16:34, therefore, served as a warning to Ahab that

Yahweh’s judgment was sure for anyone who dared to challenge his

authority; it foreshadowed coming judgment upon the house of Ahab. From

the narrative analogy between Hiel and Ahab, it is clear that the episodes of

Ahaziah and Joram, the two sons of Ahab, served as mere continuations to

the episodes of Ahab. Just as Elijah was the head of the protagonists who

followed Yahweh, Ahab represented the head of the antagonists who

followed Baal.

Jezebel

Jezebel was first mentioned as Ahab’s wife when the narrator

introduced Ahab in 1 Kgs 16:30-31. She was identified as the daughter of

5 Both Ahab and Hiel are the subjects of three verbs that belong loosely in the

semantic field of “construction.” Ahab “erected” ( <Wq Hiphil; v. 32a) an altar for Baal, in the temple of Baal which he “built” (hnb ; v. 32b) in Samaria, and he also “made” (hcu; v. 33) an Asherah. In v. 34 three verbs of construction are also used for Hiel: he “built/rebuilt” (hnb) Jericho, “laid” (dsy Piel) its foundation, and “set up” (bxn Hiphil) its gates. Ibid., 212-13.

6 Ibid.

313the Gentile king Ethbaal of Sidon and the source of Ahab’s Baal

worship. Interestingly, whenever mentioning Ahab’s household, the narrator

would not automatically include Jezebel but always treated her as a separate

entity. For example, after pronouncing judgment on Ahab and his house-

hold, Elijah then added, “and also concerning Jezebel . . .” (1 Kgs 21:23).

When Jehu was slaughtering Joram and Ahab’s descendants, Jezebel was

singled out as a separate entity to be dealt with (2 Kgs 9:30-37). Throughout

the stories, Jezebel was presented as the presence of a foreign power.

Jezebel was characterized as a woman without the usual

femininity. She smelled of murder all around and was the real power behind

the throne. Jezebel rigorously killed off the prophets of Yahweh (1 Kgs

18:4). She was the one who received Ahab’s report regarding what

happened atop Mount Carmel, and she counterattacked by issuing a death

threat to Elijah (1 Kgs 19:1-2). When Ahab was disappointed by Naboth’s

refusal to sell him the vineyard, Jezebel was the one who devised a plan to

kill Naboth and to secure the vineyard for Ahab (1 Kgs 21:7, 15).

No good things were ascribed to Jezebel; she was typical of evil.

She represented something that did not originate from the Yahwistic

community; she was not at all welcome and needed to be removed.

Jezebel’s death, therefore, was fittingly derogative: her blood, like urine,

314

was splattered on the wall, and her body was trampled by horses and

eaten by dogs so that only her skull, feet, and hands were left (2 Kgs 9:33,

35).

The House of Jehu

Jehu was Yahweh’s instrument in bringing judgment upon the

house of Ahab, yet Jehu’s zeal for God extended only as far as his personal

interests would allow.7 His acceptance of Jeroboam’s cult indicated that his

personal desire to keep the northern kingdom intact surpassed his heart for

Yahweh (cf. 1 Kgs 12:26).

At the founding of the dynasty of Jehu, the northern kingdom

reverted back to the spiritual condition before Ahab. The state religion of

golden calf worship continued to be snares to the nation; none of Jehu’s

descendants were able to break away from this sin. God’s promise to Jehu

(2 Kgs 10:30) and God’s remembrance of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob (2 Kgs 13:23) allowed Israel to continue to exist. But judgment

would eventually come when Israel persisted in its sin.

7 Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, vol. 8, The New American Commentary, ed. E.

Ray Clendenen (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 296

315

Supporting Characters

Of the many supporting characters, Gehazi is worth mentioning.

Gehazi started as a servant of Elisha (2 Kgs 4:12; 5:20) and later on became

closely associated with the king of Israel (2 Kgs 8:4). Gehazi’s moving

from around prophetic authority to around the monarchical authority was a

movement from the source of life to a place of judgment; it seemed to reflect

his personal journey from being whole to being leprous (2 Kgs 5:20-27).

Gehazi, who presumed himself to be whole ( <olv*; 2 Kgs 5:21, 22)

before Yahweh and looked down upon Naaman the Aramean (2 Kgs 5:20),

was eager to trade his spiritual integrity for a talent of silver and two sets of

clothing (2 Kgs 5:22). Gehazi’s exterior piety mixed with his interior drive

for material wealth might be a reflection of the miserable spiritual condition

in general at the time of King Joram. The monarchy was already corrupt.

Gehazi’s actions coupled with the Israelite people’s fear of the wrath of

Chemosh at Kir Hareseth (2 Kgs 3:27) reflected a society of spiritual

bankruptcy.

Plot and Plot Structure

In chapters 4 and 5 the narrative of Elijah and Elisha has been

316

divided into individual episodes. Each episode is a self-contained unit,

using Aristotle’s term, providing a beginning, a middle, and an end.8

Treating the episodes as the building blocks, the superstructure—the overall

story of Elijah and Elisha—can be construed and its themes explored.9

The macro plot structure of the Elijah and Elisha stories is

presented as follows:

1 Kgs 16:29-33

Conflict Introduced into Israel: Ahab started the

conflict by introducing Baal worship into the land of Israel.

1 Kgs 16:34 Foreshadowing: The judgment on Hiel and his

household was Yahweh's warning to those who dared to challenge his authority.

1 Kgs 17:1-19:21 Divine Response: Yahweh demonstrated that he

alone was the only true God, and Yahweh established Elijah as his representative in the land. After Ahab’s stubborn disbelief was revealed, Yahweh laid out his plan to judge the house of Ahab.

1 Kgs 20:1-22:50 Divine Judgment on Ahab: After Ahab failed in

three more opportunities to recognize that Yahweh was God, he was killed.

1 Kgs 22:51- 2 Kgs 1:18

Divine Judgment on Ahaziah: Ahaziah failed to

8 See definition of “plot” in chapter 2 of this dissertation.

9 Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996), 66.

317recognize that Yahweh was God of Israel. Ahaziah died of his sickness.

2 Kgs 2:1-25 Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (I): Elisha

succeeded Elijah at Trans-jordan as the representative of Yahweh and demonstrated at Jericho and Bethel that this new prophet had authority over life and death.

2 Kgs 3:1-27 Divine Test of Joram’s Reign (I): The battle with the

Moabites revealed the miserable spiritual condition of the general public of Israel.

2 Kgs 4:1-44 Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (II): By

caring for the widow and the fatherless, by resuscitating a dead child, and by miraculously providing for the sons of the prophets, Yahweh continued to establish Elisha as his representa-tive on earth.

2 Kgs 5:1-27 Divine Test of Joram’s Reign (II): The contrast with

a transformed Gentile revealed the miserable spiritual condition of a religious Israelite. This contrast also foreshadowed the changing positions of the Gentiles and the Israelites before Yahweh.

2 Kgs 6:1-23 Establishing Elisha’s Prophetic Authority (III): By

causing the iron to float and by supernaturally capturing the soldiers of the Arameans, Yahweh continued to establish Elisha’s prophetic authority.

2 Kgs 6:24-7:20 Divine Test of Joram’s Reign (III): The siege of

Samaria revealed the miserable spiritual condition of the leadership of Israel. In this case, the leadership consisted of King Joram and his chief military officer.

3182 Kgs 8:1-10:36 Divine Judgment on Joram, Jezebel, the House of

Ahab, and the system of Baal worship: Using Jehu as his instrument, Yahweh killed Joram, Jezebel and the remaining household of Ahab, and obliterated the system of Baal worship.

Jehu also killed the pro-Israelite Judean king

Ahaziah and his forty-two relatives.

2 Kgs 11:1 Conflict Introduced into Judah: Athaliah killed most of the house of David and revived Baal worship in the kingdom of Judah.

2 Kgs 11:2-12:21 Conflict in Judah Resolved: Athaliah was killed; the

system of Baal worship was obliterated; the house of David was restored to kingship, bringing in reformation of Yahwistic worship.

2 Kgs 13:1-13 Plot Twist: Jehu’s reformation stopped short of

Yahweh’s Ideal. Golden calf worship was kept as the national religion of Israel.

2 Kgs 13:14-21 Epilogue: Though Elisha died, the power of

Yahweh continued; Yahweh was still capable of giving life if Israelites would come before him.

From the overall plot structure outlined above, there are three

strands of actions intertwined in the stories of Elijah and Elisha: (1)

Yahweh’s judgment on the rebellious, (2) Yahweh’s establishment of his

representatives, and (3) Yahweh’s care for his faithful followers and for the

needy. These three strands of actions composed the most important themes

in the stories of Elijah and Elisha and are discussed in the following section.

319The Themes of the Stories of Elijah and Elisha

Yahweh’s Judgment on the Rebellious

Yahweh’s judgment fell primarily on the kings of Israel. The

episodes of “The Death of Ahab” (1 Kings 20-22), “Yahweh’s War against

Ahaziah” (1 Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 1:18), and “The Sword of Hazael and the

Sword of Jehu” (2 Kings 8-10) are punitive plots depicting the punishment

that Yahweh laid upon the house of Ahab. At the outset, the kings some-

times appeared to be Yahwistic; for example, they had court prophets

prophesy in the name of Yahweh (1 Kgs 22:6, 11) and the kings used the

name of Yahweh (2 Kgs 6:27, 31). Therefore, Yahweh tested these kings to

reveal that their hearts were really pagan before he would impose judgment

on them.

Syncretism had been the problem of Israel since Jeroboam

introduced golden calf worship, a condition which worsened as Ahab

brought Baal worship into the land. The people might not have wanted to

reject Yahweh outright, but neither did they want to get rid of Baal, a kind of

attitude which was reflected in their silence toward Elijah’s challenge to

choose between Yahweh and Baal (1 Kgs 18:21). Ahab was a clear example

of this kind of attitude: he named his two sons Ahaziah and Joram, which

320

respectively mean “Yahweh has grasped” and “Yahweh is high”.10 Ahab

might still have held to some degree of Yahwistic form of piety (such as

wearing sackcloth in 2 Kgs 6:30), yet inside he was pagan (called “evil” by

the narrator in 1 Kgs 16:30).

The Israelites stopped their wavering of opinions and turned to

Yahweh when Elijah called down fire and burned up the offering. The

people of Israel captured and slaughtered the prophets of Baal in the Kishon

Valley (1 Kgs 18:40). But this was not the case for Ahab, who continued to

follow Jezebel in living a pagan life like that of the Amorites (1 Kgs 21:26).

The same kind of spiritual observation could be made of Joram.

When the text said that “he did evil but not as bad as his father and mother,”

and that “he removed the sacred stone of Baal” (2 Kgs 3:2), it appeared that

he might be a better king. However, after the tests that Yahweh brought

10 Ahaziah, hy`z=j^a&, a combination of Yah(weh), hy`, and grasp, zja, means

“Yahweh grasps, Yahweh takes hold graciously, or Yahweh sustains.” Francis A. Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB), 1979 reprint ed., s.v. “zj^a*”, Qal 28. See also H. B. MacLean, “Ahaziah”, The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962 ed. 15th printing 1985), 1: 66-67. R. D. Culver, “Ahaziah”, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 1: 84-85. Joram, <r ohy+, means “Yah(weh) is exalted, or Yah(weh) is high.” See BDB, s.v. , “ <r ohy+”, 221. See also H B. MacLean, “Joram”, The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 2: 971-73. S. Barabas, “Joram”, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 3:684.

321

upon Joram’s reign, it became obvious that he was just as pagan as his

father.

With the tests, Yahweh also granted to those being tested

opportunities to repent (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:28-29). The kings, however, after

having failed to grasp their opportunities, were duly judged.

Yahweh’s Establishment of His Representatives

Yahweh established Elijah and Elisha as his primary

representatives. The narratives around Elijah and Elisha are heroic

narratives, built around the lives and exploits of these protagonists who

demonstrated qualities of lives committed to honor Yahweh. Elijah and

Elisha fit into the following definition of a hero:

A traditional . . . hero must be more than merely the leading figure or protagonist of a literary work. The true hero expresses an accepted social and moral norm; his experience reenacts the important conflicts of the community which produces him; he is endowed with qualities that capture the popular imagination. It must also be remarked that the hero is able to act, and to act for good.11

Elijah was the pattern for a hero. At the end of his earthly journey,

Elisha cried out toward Elijah, “My father! My father! The chariots and

horsemen of Israel” (2 Kgs 2:12)! The cry was a tribute to Elijah, who

11 Walter Houghton and G. Robert Stange, ed., Victorian Poetry and Poetics,

2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), xxiii.

322

through his ministry of trying to restore Israel back into right

relationship with Yahweh had demonstrated himself being the foremost

defense for the nation of Israel.12 Elisha achieved the same status when

Jehoash King of Israel cried out to him at Elisha’s deathbed, “My father!

My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel” (2 Kgs 13:14)!

Yahweh’s Care for the Faithful and the Needy

Yahweh’s care for his faithful and the needy was enveloped in

Yahweh’s establishment of Elijah and Elisha as his representatives.

Through the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, Yahweh cared for the widow,

the orphan, and the sojourner (1 Kgs 17:13-16; 2 Kgs 4:1-7; 8:1-6), raised

boys from the dead (1 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Kgs 4:32-35), fed the hungry

multitude (1 Kgs 17:16; 2 Kgs 4:38-41, 42-44), healed the water (2 Kgs

2:19-22), and healed the leper (2 Kgs 5:1-19).

In the midst of Israel’s national spiritual bankruptcy, there were

remnants, however, who held unto their faith and followed Yahweh:

Obadiah in Ahab’s court (1 Kgs 18:3); the prophets who were pursued by

Jezebel (1 Kgs 18:13); the unnamed prophet in the battle between Israel and

12 Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, 1, 2 Kings, The Expositor’s

Bible Commentary, vol. 4, ed. Frank E. Gabelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) 4:178.

323Aram (1 Kgs 20:13, 22, 35); Naboth (1 Kgs 21:1); Micaiah (1 Kgs

22:13); the sons of the prophets at Bethel and at Jericho (2 Kgs 2:3, 5); the

widow and children of Elisha’s servant (2 Kgs 4:1); the Shunammite woman

and her family (2 Kgs 4:8); the man from Baal Shalishah (2 Kgs 4:42); the

company of the prophets who followed Elisha (2 Kgs 6:1); and even the four

lepers who brought good tidings to the besieged Samarians (2 Kgs 7:9).

When Yahweh judged the nation of Israel, he took special caution

not to jeopardize unnecessarily the faithful remnant and even to provide for

them in times of his judgment: Obadiah was allowed to bring Ahab to see

Elijah (1 Kgs 18:15-16). Elijah was cared for in the distress of his ministry

(1 Kgs 19:5-9). Yahweh took swift vengeance against Ahab and Jezebel for

their murdering and robbing Naboth (1 Kgs 21:17-24). The widow whose

husband served Yahweh and her children were cared for through the

miraculously provided oil (2 Kgs 4:7). The Shunammite woman who

provided for the prophet was handsomely rewarded with a child (2 Kgs 4:16,

37). Finally, the sons of the prophets who learned under Elisha were

provided for by the faithful Yahwist and by Elisha’s miracles (2 Kgs 4:41-

44).

When Yahweh judged Israel by imposing seven years of famine on

it, the Shunammite woman and her family were instructed to sojourn in the

324land of the Gentiles for seven years (2 Kgs 8:1-2). At the end of the

famine, the Shunammite woman returned to Israel, and her land as well as

the produce of the land during her absence were providentially restored to

her (2 Kgs 8:6). The sojourning of the Shunammite woman in the land of

the Philistines stood as special encouragement to the remnant when the exile

to Gentile land became unavoidable due to the sins of the Israelites,

something Solomon had foreseen (1 Kgs 8:46). Yahweh would have special

care for those who remained faithful to him.

These interacting strands of actions may be expressed in a

diagram:

Punishing the Rebellious Passage Defining

the hero (Establishing Yahweh’s representative)

Caring for Yahweh’s faithful and the needy

Testing Judgment

1 Kings 17 • • 1 Kings 18-19 • 1 Kings 20-21 • 1 Kings 22:1-50 • • 1 Kgs 22:51- 2 Kgs 1:2

•

2 Kgs 1:3-18 • 2 Kgs 2:1-18 • 2 Kgs 2:19-22 • 2 Kgs 2:23-25 • 2 Kings 3 • • 2 Kings 4 • •

3252 Kings 5 • • • 2 Kgs 6:1-23 • 2 Kgs 6:24-7:20 • • 2 Kgs 8:1-6 • 2 Kgs 8:7-10:36 • 2 Kgs 13:1-13 • 2 Kgs 13:14-21 •

Since 2 Kings 11-12 covers the southern kingdom and does not

really belong to the stories of Elijah and Elisha, it is not listed in the diagram

above. However, the plot development of these two chapters is discussed in

chapter 7 of this dissertation in its relationship to Deuteronomistic history.

In addition to these three main themes, three sub-themes surfaced

in the progress of the plot: (1) the centrality of the word of Yahweh, (2) the

changing status of the Israelites before Yahweh, and (3) the recognition of

the ownership of the land. All are discussed in the following section.

The Centrality of the Word of Yahweh

In the stories of Elijah and Elisha, neither Elijah, Elisha, nor the

prophets of the northern kingdom were mentioned as going to the temple of

Jerusalem for worship, yet the prophets rightly represented Yahweh and

directed people in their daily lives according to the word of Yahweh.

Without a centralized cultic place for worship (Bethel and Dan had never

326been accepted by Yahweh), the word of Yahweh had become the central

focus of the religious life in the northern kingdom.

The prophets of Yahweh uttered the word of Yahweh and brought

down judgment upon the rebellious leaders (1 Kgs 17:1; 22:38; 2 Kgs 1:17;

5:27; 9:26, 36; 10:10). The prophets also uttered the word of Yahweh and

provided for the daily needs of his people (1 Kgs 17:6, 14, 2 Kgs 3:20; 4:7,

43; 6:23; 7:18), healed leprosy (2 Kgs 5:14), pardoned sin (2 Kgs 5:19), and

revived the dead (1 Kgs 17:23; 2 Kgs 4:36).

For the northern kingdom which had no convenient access to the

temple in Jerusalem, the prophets demonstrated the centrality of Yahweh’s

word in their daily lives. The way Yahweh’s word functioned in the

northern kingdom would later serve as a model for the exiles and would

encourage them toward righteous living, especially for the exiles of the

southern kingdom when the temple was no longer in existence.

The Changing Status of the Israelites before Yahweh

Yahweh’s tests during the reign of Joram, within whose reign

some external reformation seemed to be taking place (cf. 2 Kgs 3:2),

revealed a saddening spiritual darkness in the nation of Israel. In Yahweh’s

first test (The Moabite Battle, 2 Kings 3), the populace, as represented by the

327Israelites who fought against the Moabites and retreated on their

perceived coming wrath from the Moabite god Chemosh, demonstrated their

lack of faith in Yahweh and subsequently were unable to grab the foretold

victory. In Yahweh’s second test (Israel’s Spiritual Leprosy, 2 Kings 5), the

religious Israelite, as represented by Gehazi who assumed he was whole

before Yahweh and became a leper at the end, demonstrated lack of

obedience before Yahweh. In Yahweh’s third test (The Siege of Samaria, 2

Kgs 6:24-7:20), the leadership of Israel, as represented by King Joram and

his chief military officer who persistently rejected Elisha’s prophecy and

were a constant hindrance to Yahweh’s deliverance, demonstrated lack of

faith and lack of obedience before Yahweh.

The Israelites fought against the Moabites under the guidance of

Elisha’s prophecy (2 Kgs 3: 19), Gehazi served before Elisha (2 Kgs 5:25),

King Joram wore sackcloth in time of distress and swore in the name of

Yahweh (2 Kgs 6:30-31). All this external piety, nevertheless, could not

keep Yahweh’s covenantal blessings from leaving Israel. This changed

relationship between Israel and Yahweh had been reflected in the different

ways that Yahweh treated the Arameans (cf. 1 Kgs 20:42 and 2 Kgs 6:22)

and in the judgment Elisha pronounced upon Gehazi.

During King Ahab’s battle against the Arameans, Yahweh put

328

them under the ban ( <rj) and Ahab was to annihilate them completely (1

Kgs 20:42). However, Ahab failed to obey. In Joram’s time, Yahweh

commanded Joram to feed the Arameans, who were trapped inside the city

of Samaria, and to send them home (2 Kgs 6:22-23). Israel disobeyed

Yahweh and did not completely remove the Aramean threat; in response,

Yahweh decided to keep the Arameans as thorns and snares to the

Israelites.13

Gehazi, out of his greed and disobedience, took from Naaman two

talents of silver and two sets of clothing (2 Kgs 5:23). Elisha judged this

disciple of his with leprosy and mentioned eight things that the Israelites

normally would experience in Yahweh’s covenantal blessings, “Is this the

time to take money, or to accept clothes, olive groves, vineyards, flocks,

herds, or menservants and maidservants?” (2 Kgs 5:26, NIV). By

implication, the covenantal blessings that were to follow the Israelites when

they demonstrated their obedience before Yahweh had left them.14

13 A parallel example was in the time of the Judges: Yahweh commanded the

Israelites to destroy the Canaanites completely, so as to have no association with them politically, socially and religiously (Deut 7:2-5, 16). The Israelites failed to obey this command; as a result, God did not drive out the Canaanites and kept them as thorns in the sides of the Israelites and snares to them (Judg 2:1-3).

14 See discussion under Israel’s Spiritual Leprosy, 2 Kings 5 in chapter 5 of this dissertation.

329The Recognition of the Ownership of the Land

Recognizing Yahweh as the land-giver was the prerequisite to

enjoying life in the promised land. The land of Canaan was Yahweh’s

promise to Abraham (Gen 12:1; 13:15; 15:7; 17:7-8). Before the Israelites

entered the land, it was always mentioned as “the land that Yahweh had

sworn to their fathers to give them” (e.g. Josh 5:6). By dedicating Jericho,

the first city that they conquered in the land of Canaan, in an irrevocable ban

( <rj), the Israelites were acknowledging that Yahweh was the giver, thus the

original owner, of this land. To make this point unmistakably clear that the

land was not something that Israel took of its own strength, Yahweh brought

down the city of Jericho, a feat which cost the Israelites not even one sword

nor one arrow. Jericho, the destroyed city, had been an unmistakable sign to

tell Israelites that the land was from Yahweh. When Hiel disregarded this

ownership sign by rebuilding the city of Jericho, he forfeited the lives of his

two sons (1 Kgs 16:34).

Ahab committed the same evil. By murderously taking possession

of Naboth’s vineyard, Ahab clearly indicated his disrespect toward

Yahweh’s ownership of the land. The vineyard, which for Naboth was the

inheritance his forefathers had had from Yahweh, was merely a piece of

330

convenient real estate for Ahab to grab. Henceforth, Ahab and his

descendants were allowed no further life in that land.

Summary

In Israel’s spiritual Dark Ages under the reign of the house of

Ahab, Yahweh sent out powerful and undaunted prophets like Elijah and

Elisha. The message through them was basically that of the Book of

Deuteronomy,15 “There is life and blessing in obeying Yahweh, but death

and destruction in following Baal.” Obeying Yahweh meant to obey the

word of Yahweh and to recognize that the land was a gift from Yahweh.

The leaders kept on their rebellious ways of following Baal, resulting in

Yahweh’s judgment. Those who remained faithful to Yahweh, even the

lowest among society like the widow, the orphan, the sojourner, and the

lepers would be provided for in sustenance and in protection by Yahweh,

who was more than capable.

Being the physical descendants of Abraham guaranteed the

Israelites neither the permanence of Yahweh’s covenantal blessings nor their

permanent possession of the land. Both the blessings and possession of the

land were conditioned upon their faithfulness toward the covenant. Yahweh

15 Cf. Deuteronomy 28.

331had demonstrated that his word could sustain his people in a time of no

cultic worship center. Yahweh had also demonstrated that he could take

care of his faithful followers sojourning in foreign lands. The sins of Israel

had made them ripe to be exiled. The reason that Yahweh had not done so

more quickly was because of his remembrance of the covenant he had made

with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Prophets came and went, but Yahweh

remained; in him there was life. The Israelites had to make a choice before

the time ran out.

332

CHAPTER 7

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ELIJAH-ELISHA STORIES TO

THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY

Martin Noth presented a negative Deuteronomistic theology: Dtr

discovered that Yahweh was at work in history, continuously meeting the

accelerating moral decline with warnings and punishments and, finally,

when these proved fruitless, with total annihilation.1 Von Rad argued that

positive hope still resided with the house of David, while Wolff argued that

positive hope was dependent upon Israel’s possible return to the covenant of

their forefathers. The various redaction schools basically stayed within the

Deuteronomistic theology as articulated by Noth, von Rad, and Wolff.

The themes of the Elijah and Elisha stories as summarized in

chapter 6 of this dissertation uphold the tenets, both negative and positive, of

the Deuteronomistic History. The laws from the Book of Deuteronomy

1 Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, trans. Jane Doull and others,

JSOTSup no. 15 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981), 89.

333form the backbone of the stories. The contributions of the Elijah-Elisha

stories to the Deuteronomistic History are discussed below.

Yahweh’s Judgment Is Inevitable When His People Persist in Sin

Moses had warned the Israelites long ago that curses would come

when they forsook the God of their forefathers and went after other gods

(Deut 28:15-68). The following chart shows the fulfillment of the Mosaic

curse during the reign of the house of Ahab.

Deuteronomistic Curses Fulfillment during the reign of

the house of Ahab

The land would be unfruitful (Deut 28:18).

The city of Jericho was unfruitful (2 Kgs 2:19-22).

Drought would occur (Deut 28:23-24).

There were 3 years of drought at the time of Ahab (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:2) and 7 years of drought at the time of Joram (2 Kgs 8:1).

The enemy would lay siege to the Israelite city (Deut 28:52).

The Arameans laid siege to Samaria (2 Kgs 6:24).

Under the siege, the women would eat their own children (Deut 28:56-57).

The women in Samaria ate their own children during the Aramean siege (2 Kgs 6:28-29).

Parallel to Noth’s negative Deuteronomistic theology is one of the

major themes in the stories of Elijah and Elisha—“Yahweh’s judgment on

the rebellious.” The house of Ahab had persisted in following Baal. After

334failing to grab the many opportunities which Yahweh had granted them

for repentance, the house of Ahab, along with the system of Baal worship,

was annihilated from the land of Israel.

The house of Jehu which continued in the sins of Jeroboam was

also under Yahweh’s judgment. It was because of Yahweh’s faithfulness to

his own promise (2 Kgs 10:30) and Yahweh’s remembrance of his covenant

with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (2 Kgs 13:23) that a deliverer was given to

Israel (2 Kgs 13:5) and that Elisha blessed Jehoash with three victories over

Aram (2 Kgs 13:19). In Yahweh there was life, but when the house of Jehu

continued in sin, judgment eventually came; Jehu’s dynasty ended just as the

word of Yahweh had spoken (2 Kgs 15:12).

There Is Preference for the House of David

There are five major retrospective and anticipatory reflections in

DtrH, according to Noth: Joshua 1, 23, 1 Samuel 12, 1 Kgs 8:14-61, and 2

Kgs 17:7-23. Joshua 1 addresses the leader Joshua, admonishing him to be

strong and courageous in leading the Israelites into holy war (1:6, 9) and in

obeying the Law (1:8). This forward-looking speech is the only place in the

reflections of Dtr in which the addressee carries out all admonitions

faithfully.

335Joshua 23 admonishes all of Israel—its elders, leaders, judges

and officials (v. 2), to continue to be strong in finishing the holy war, to

obey the Law, and especially not to worship pagan gods (vv. 6, 16). The

unfolding of history following Joshua's departure proved to be a morally

downward spiral as is witnessed in the book of Judges: “In those days Israel

had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (Judg 21:25). This last verse in

Judges closes with a pessimistic tone on the state of moral decline of the

people, yet with an expectation of the coming of a king.

Samuel's speech in 1 Samuel 12 looks back and recounts the

rebellion-repentance-rescue cycles in the days of the judges, with Samuel

being placed last by Dtr in the list of the judges to end this era (v. 11).

Samuel’s speech ushers in the age of the kings (v. 12-13). The Israelites are

told that their demand for a king is a sign of their having deserted Yahweh.

The king, as well as the Israelites, is admonished to fear Yahweh, to serve

him and to obey his commands, in order not to experience the judgment their

fathers experienced by being swept away (vv. 14, 15, 25).

The oracle of Nathan and the Prayer of David in 2 Sam 7:1-16 and

7:18-29 promise an eternal dynasty for the house of David. Second Samuel

336

7 is crucial in the Deuteronomistic theology, as Cross points out;2 it

should be included as part of the Deuteronomistic speeches. First Kings

8:14-20 continues the king motif, praising Yahweh for establishing the

house of David on the throne of Israel (vv. 25, 26). As such, it echoes the

Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7. Second Kings 17:7-23 briefly summarizes

the rebellious history of Israel and ends with a disapproving comment about

the house of Jeroboam (v. 21).

From the Deuteronomistic speeches, it is clear that Dtr takes

Joshua, the people of Israel, the judges, and the kings and evaluates each one

according to the laws as found in the Book of Deuteronomy. The result: the

Israelites were disqualified; the qualities of the Judges were on a downward

spiral; and among the kings, only David was recognized as “a man after

Yahweh's heart” (1 Sam 13:14). Saul, the king before David, and Jeroboam,

the king after David, were each given an opportunity to establish an

everlasting kingdom (1 Sam 13:13; 1 Kgs 11:38), but both were later

disqualified in the light of the laws from the Book of Deuteronomy.3

2 Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, (Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1973), 275.

3 The Deuteronomistic concept is that when Yahweh accepts or rejects a king, it includes the house of that king. The house of Saul was rejected; though Jonathan was a godly man, he died along with his father Saul. Jeroboam and his sons, and the whole household, were rejected. The house of David was accepted, though many of David’s

337

DtrH ends with kind treatment of the house of David in the

land of Israel’s exile (2 Kgs 25:27-29). Sad as it might be, Jehoiachin

became a king without land or subjects at the end of the DtrH. The situation

resembled the coffin of Joseph at the end of Genesis (Gen 50:26), awaiting

Yahweh’s deliverance. The spectacular histories of the northern and the

southern kingdoms were over, but the seed, the house of David, was still

there awaiting future development.

In the stories of Elijah and Elisha, Yahweh’s favor toward the

southern kingdom is very evident, even though the majority of the narrative

is devoted to the northern kingdom. Before Ahab’s third Israel-Aram war,

Jehoshaphat King of Judah was the one that requested the counsel of a true

prophet of Yahweh for the forthcoming battle (1 Kgs 22:7). Elisha helped

Joram’s campaign against the Moabites on account of Jehoshaphat King of

Judah (2 Kgs 3:14). The friendship that the house of David extended to the

house of Ahab was seen as an undesirable connection with the northern

kingdom (1 Kgs 22:41-50), because this friendship provided a bridge for

Baalism to make inroads into the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 8:16-29) and

eventually led to a major destruction of the house of David (2 Kings 11).

descendants were disqualified, Yahweh preserved them because of David.

338When overt Baalism was cleansed from the northern kingdom, the house

of Jehu still remained in the sins of golden calf worship (2 Kgs 10:28-29).

In great contrast, when Baalism was suppressed in the southern kingdom and

the house of David was placed on the throne, this led to a reformation in the

form of restoring the temple of Yahweh (2 Kings 11-12).

In addition to the two tenets mentioned above, there are four more

themes from the stories of Elijah and Elisha that contribute to Deuterono-

mistic theology. Since Dtr used Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:14-61) as a

Deute-ronomistic reflection in ushering in the era of the divided kingdom,

this prayer would be of special importance to the Elijah-Elisha stories. The

following discussion often interacts with the Solomonic prayer.

Yahweh Is the Only True God, and He Allows No Rival

Solomon in his prayer addressed Yahweh in this way, “O Yahweh,

God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth below”

(1 Kgs 8:23). Yahweh’s supreme position had long been understood. In the

stories of Elijah and Elisha, both prophets were established as the true

representatives of Yahweh. Through their heroic deeds, Elijah and Elisha

exposed the impotence of Baal and the foolishness of being his followers.

Elijah and Elisha also brought in judgment upon those who followed after

339Baal. Yahweh, the only true God, would allow no rival in the land of

Israel.

Yahweh Especially Cares for the Remnant

In all periods of DtrH, valiant men and women of faith lived their

lives in faithfulness despite the wickedness of their neighbors. The faithful

Israelites in the stories of Elijah and Elisha continued the list in DtrH:

Rahab in Jericho (Joshua 2); Joshua and Caleb among the twelve spies (Josh

14:6-15); the Judges among their tribes; David among the Israelites when

facing Goliath (1 Samuel 17); Abigail in the house of Nabal (1 Samuel 25);

the faithful prophets whom Yahweh used to challenge the faithless kings (1

Kgs 13:1-10; 14:1-18; 22:9-28); Obadiah among the officials of Ahab (1

Kings 18); the seven thousand remnant among the idolatrous Israelites (1

Kgs 19:18); the sons of the prophets (2 Kgs 2: 3, 5, 7; 4:38); the

Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 4:8-36; 8:1-6); and the anonymous man from

Baal Shalishah (2 Kgs 4:42). At the time of judgment, when Israel was

overrun by its enemies, Yahweh always had special protection for the

remnant and granted them their own lives or even gave them back their

property as a reward for their faith in Yahweh.

340

The Word of Yahweh Is to Occupy the Central Place

in the Lives of the Israelites

The temple was the center of Israelite cultic life, yet in Solomon’s

prayer of dedication (1 Kgs 8:23-53), cultic sacrifice was conspicuously

absent.4 The temple was significant in many ways. Solomon mentioned its

significance in his prayer: (1) Yahweh would listen to the Israelites’ prayers

when they prayed toward the temple (vv. 29-30). (2) The temple would be a

place for the administration of justice (vv. 31-32). (3) When the Israelites

were defeated by an enemy because of their sins against Yahweh, if the

Israelites would repent of their sins and pray toward the temple, Yahweh

would forgive his people by bringing them back to the land (vv. 33-34). (4)

Yahweh would again send rain on the land if the Israelites prayed toward the

temple and repented of their sins which had been the reason for the drought

to take place in their land (vv. 35-36). (5) Upon hearing genuine prayers

toward the temple, Yahweh would stop any famine which had resulted from

natural disaster or from enemies’ sieges (vv. 37-40). (6) Gentiles’ prayers

would also be heard, so that the whole world might know Yahweh’s name

and fear Him (vv. 41-43). (7) The cause of a holy war would be upheld

4 Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 94.

341when Israelites prayed toward the temple (vv. 44-45). (8) Even though

the Israelites were in the hands of their conqueror, if they would repent and

pray toward the temple, Yahweh would have mercy on them (vv. 46-51).

None of the above themes that are contained in the Solomonic prayer have

much to do with cultic sacrifices.

When the ark of the covenant was mentioned in the Solomonic

prayer, the two stone tablets which had the Decalogue inscribed upon them

were mentioned as being the only contents of the ark (1 Kgs 8:9). There was

no mention of the manna nor of the rod of Aaron (cf. Exod 16:34; Num

17:10; Heb 9:4). The ark of the covenant was symbolic of the covenant

which Yahweh had made with the Israelites when they were brought out of

Egypt (1 Kgs 8:9, 21). The centrality of Yahweh’s word seems to be

emphasized.

The stories of Elijah and Elisha also de-emphasized the ritual part

of religious life. Neither Elijah, Elisha, nor the prophets of the northern

kingdom were mentioned as going to the temple for worship, yet they rightly

represented Yahweh and directed people in their daily lives according to

Yahweh’s word.

342

Honoring Yahweh Is the Prerequisite to Living in the Land

Moses made it clear that when the people of Israel persisted in

forsaking Yahweh their God, the end result would be their exile to a foreign

land (Deut 28:36-37, 64-68). The Solomonic prayer foresaw the sinning of

the Israelites (1 Kgs 8:46) and the strong possibility of their being exiled (1

Kgs 8:48). When the Israelites repented and prayed toward the temple of

Solomon in the city of Jerusalem in the land of Israel, Yahweh was exhorted

to forgive their sins and to cause their conqueror to show mercy to them (1

Kgs 8:48-50). A possible return to the land of Canaan was also mentioned

in the Solomonic prayer (1 Kgs 8:33-34).

The stories of Elijah and Elisha clearly point out that honoring

Yahweh is the prerequisite to live in the land. When Ahab King of Israel

murdered Naboth and took his vineyard, through the repetitions of Naboth’s

words by the narrator and then by Ahab (1 Kgs 21:4, 6), the narrator made it

clear that Ahab did not honor Yahweh as the land giver. The ultimate

judgment for Ahab, who did not honor Yahweh as the owner of the land,

was to remove Ahab’s life from the land.

Even though the exile was not mentioned as a warning toward the

Israelites at the time of Elijah and Elisha, nevertheless, the stories of Elijah

343and Elisha had set the stage for exile to happen. Two practical questions

would arise if the Israelites were to be exiled. (1) Would Yahweh be able to

take care of his people in the foreign land? (2) Could the Israelites, who

were uprooted from the land of Canaan and no longer possessed the city

where Yahweh had chosen to place his temple, still minister among the

Gentiles?

There had been ample examples regarding how Yahweh took care

of his people in the foreign land. Through a jar of flour and a jug of oil in

the home of a Zarephath widow, Yahweh provided for Elijah in the land of

Sidon. The Shunammite woman sojourned in Philistine land during the

seven years’ famine and received her land and its income back at the end of

her sojourn (2 Kgs 8:1-6). Elisha received many gifts and great respect from

the king and the officials of Aram in Damascus (2 Kgs 8:7-9). Yahweh’s

care for his faithful followers in the foreign land was an assurance that

Yahweh was capable of taking care of the faithful Israelites in the time of

exile.

The issue of the exile would also involve interactions with the

Gentiles. The Gentiles had a place in the many functions of the temple. As

a natural consequence of the greatness of Yahweh, Gentiles would come and

pray to Yahweh in the temple, and Yahweh was exhorted to honor their

344prayers so that the whole earth might know Yahweh and fear him (1 Kgs

8:43). In the exile, could the Israelites, being uprooted from the land of

Canaan and no longer possess the temple, minister among the Gentiles?

As was mentioned earlier, the centrality of the word of Yahweh

had taken place to replace the function of the temple in the northern

kingdom. Elijah ministered to the Zarephath widow; Elisha ministered to

Naaman and later on to Hazael. Yahweh’s ministry among the Gentiles

would continue with or without the temple.

Summary

As part of the DtrH, the stories of Elijah and Elisha expounded the

Deuteronomistic theology and demonstrated that Yahweh was faithful to his

own law as stipulated in the Book of Deuteronomy. Yahweh was the only

true God who allowed no rival in the land of Israel, and he would judge even

the kings if they persisted in their rebellious ways. Though Yahweh had

driven out Baalism from the northern kingdom through the faithful

ministries of Elijah and Elisha, the northern kingdom continued in its sins of

golden calf worship and demonstrated its unwillingness to return completely

to Yahweh. The stories of Elijah and Elisha had set the stage for exile—the

ultimate consequence for the rebellious Israelites.

345The house of David, which brought in a reformation by

restoring the temple of Yahweh, remained favored by the narrator when

compared with the house of Ahab and the house of Jehu. The favored

position toward the house of David reflected the oracle of Nathan and the

Prayer of David in 2 Sam 7:1-29 and paved the way for the future blessings

of Israel under the house of David.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

Books Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms, 4th ed., New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, 1981.

Abrams, M. H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953.

Aharoni, Yohanan, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze’ev Safrai. The Macmillan Bible Atlas, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1993.

Alonso Schokel, Luis. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, Subsidia Biblica. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basics Books, 1982.

Aristotle Poetics, ed. Louis Ropes Loomis in On Man in the Universe. New York: Walter J. Black, 1943.

Atkinson, B. F. C. Literary Criticism in Antiquity. Cambridge: The University Press, 1934; reprint London: Methuen, 1952.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series, no. 70, Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989.

Barré, Lloyd Milton, The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion: The Narrative Artistry and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9-11. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988.

Barrett, Lois, The Way God Fights. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1987.

Beitzel, Barry J. The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

348Bergen, Robert D., ed., Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics.

Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1994.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond, 1983.

Binger, Tilde. Asherah: Goddesss in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series no. 232, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Brichto, Herbert Chanan. Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Brisco, Thomas C. Holman Bible Atlas. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Bronner, Leah. The Stories of Elijah and Elisha. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1 Kings, Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982.

Brueggemann, Walter. 2 Kings, Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982.

Brueggemann, Walter and Hans Walter Wolff. The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982.

Cassuto, Umberto. The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age, translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1971.

Cate, Robert L. An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its Study Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987.

349Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998.

Cooper, Alan. “Chapter IV: Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” chap. in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Stan Rummel. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981, 3: 333-469.

Coote, Robert B. ed. Elijah and Elisha in Socioliterary Perspective. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992.

Corbett, Edward P. J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976.

Craigie, Peter C. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1986.

Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.

Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Story and Faith. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Cross, Frank M. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Chap. in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1973.

Davidson, A. B., Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985.

350DeVries, Simon John. Prophet Against Prophet, the role of the Micaiah

Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.

Dilday, Russell H. 1, 2 Kings, The Communicator’s Commentary, ed. Lloyd J. Ogilvie. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.

Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Fensham, F. Charles. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” In Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. James L. Crenshaw, 161-71. New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1976.

Friedl, E. “The Position of Women: Appearance and Reality.” In Gender and Power in Rural Greece, ed J. Dubisch, 42-52. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1and Dtr2.” In Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson, 167-92. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

Gibson, J. C. L. Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978.

Gileadi, Avraham, ed. Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Hornor of Roland K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible—A Socio-Literay Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1985.

351Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible in Its Social World and in Ours,

The Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993.

Gray, John. I & II Kings, 2nd, ed. The Old Testament Library, ed. Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, John Bright, and G. Ernest Wright. Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1970.

Gros Louis, Kenneth R.R. “Elijah and Elisha.” In Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, James S. Ackerman, and Thayer S. Warshaw, 177-90. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1974.

Gunkel, Hermann. The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History, translated by W. H. Carruth, New York: Schocken Books, 1901.

Hagan, Michael G. “Chapter 12, First and Second Kings.” In A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.

Halpern, Baruch, and Jon D. Levenson. eds., Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

Harvey, W. J. Character and the Novel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1965.

Hauser, Alan J. and Russell Gregory. From Carmel to Horeb, Elijah in Crisis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series no. 85, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990.

Hayes, John H. An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1979.

Herdner, Andrée. Corpus Des Tablettes: En Cunéiformes Alphabétiques. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963.

352Hobbs, T. R. 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 13. Waco, TX:

Word Books, 1985.

Houghton, Walter and G. Robert Stange. eds., Victorian Poetry and Poetics, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

House, Paul R. 1, 2 Kings, The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture NIV Text, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 8. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Humphreys, W. Lee. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.

Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings, New Century Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (1 Kings 1—16:34), ed. Ronald E. Clements. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1984.

Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings, New Century Bible Commentary, vol. 2 (1 Kings 17:1—2 Kings 25:30), ed. Ronald E. Clements. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1984.

Kapelrud, Arvid S. Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen, Denmark: G. E. C. Gad, 1952.

Kissling, Paul J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History, Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996.

Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966.

Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King; the Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1963.

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method, ed. Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

353LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush,

Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.

Licht, Jacob. “Biblical Historicism.” In History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literature, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, 107-20. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983.

Licht, Jacob. Storytelling in the Bible. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. 1st ed. 1978, 2nd ed. 1986.

Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962.

Long, Burke O. 1 Kings, with an Introduction to Historical Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. 9, ed. Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. Tucker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1984.

Long, Burke O. 2 Kings. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. 10, ed. Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. Tucker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991.

Long, V. Philips. The Art of Biblical History, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, vol. 5, ed. Moises Silva. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Long, V. Philips. The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence. SBL Dissertation Series, no. 118. ed. David L. Petersen. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989.

Longman, Tremper III. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, ed. Moisés Silva, vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1987.

Malina, B. J. “The Received View and What It Cannot Do: III John and Hospitality,” in Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World. Semeia no. 35, ed. J. H. Elliott. Decatur, GA: Scholars Press 1986. 171-89.

354McConville, J. Gordon. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic

Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.

McKenzie, Steven. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, Vetus Testamentum, Supplements, vol. 42. New York: E. J. Brill, 1991.

Meyer, F. B. Elijah and the Secret of his Power. Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, reprint, 1972.

Miller, Clyde M. First and Second Kings, The Living Word Commentary, vol. 7, ed. John T. Willis. Abilene, TX: A.C.U. Press, 1991.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, The International Critical Commentary, ed. Henry Snyder Gehman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951.

Moore, Rick Dale. God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series, no. 95. ed. David J.A. Clines, Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series no. 18, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

Nelson, Richard. First and Second Kings, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1987.

Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament—Supplement Series no. 15, translated by Jane Doull and others. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. [This is a translation of Matin Noth's original Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 2nd ed., 1-110. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957.]

355O'Brien, Mark O. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A

Reassessment. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1989.

Patterson, Richard D. and Austel, Hermann J. 1, 2 Kings, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 4, ed. F. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Peckham, Brian. “The Composition of Deuteronomy 5-11.” In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, 217-40. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Peckham, Brian. The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 35. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Petty, Richard J. Asherah: Goddess of Israel. American University Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion, vol. 74. New York: Peter Lang, 1990.

Powell, Mark Allan. What Is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 1990.

Rad, Gerhard von. Holy War in Ancient Israel, translated by Marva J. Dawn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., translated by D.M.G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

Rad, Gerhard von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, translated by Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh & London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966.

Rad, Gerhard von. Studies in Deuteronomy, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 9, translated by David Stalker. London: SCM, 1953. [Originally published as Deuteronomium-Studien. Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1948.]

Rast, Walter E. Tradition History and the Old Testament, ed. J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

356Robinson, J. The Second Book of Kings, The Cambridge Bible

Commentary, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney and J. W. Packer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Rofé, Alexander. “Classes in the Prophetical Stories: Didactic Legenda and Parable.” In Studies on Prophecy, Vetus Testamentum, Supplements, no. 26, 143-64. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.

Rosenberg, Joel. “Biblical Narrative.” In Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, ed. Barry W. Holtz, 31-81. New York: Summit Books, 1984.

Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974.

Ryken, Leland. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1987.

Saint-Laurent, George E. “Light From Ras Shamra on Elijah’s Ordeal upon Mount Carmel.” In Scripture in Context: Essays on Comparative Method, ed. Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White, 123-39. Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1980.

Schaeffer, Claude F. A. The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra—Ugarit, the Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1936. London: Oxford University Press. 1939.

Silva, Moises, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, Zondervan, 1983.

Smend, Rudolf. "Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte." In Probleme Biblischer Theologie, ed. H. W. Wolff, 494-509. Munich: Kaiser, 1971.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1985.

357Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Presentation of Synchroneity and

Simultaneity in Biblical Narrative.” In Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content, 112-33. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1993.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.

Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Uspensky, Boris Andreevich. A Poetics of Composition, translated by Valentina Zavarin and Susan Wittig. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973.

Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983.

Walsh, Jerome T. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry, Commentary on I Kings, ed. David W.Cotter. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996.

Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Webb, Barry G. The Book of the Judges. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1987.

White, Marsha C. The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup, Brown Judaic Studies no. 311, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Calvin Goldscheider. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997.

Wiggins, Steve A. A Reassessment of ‘Asherah': A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millenia B.C.E., Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 235. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1993.

358Wilson, Robert R. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament,

Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series, ed. Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1 & 2 Kings, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.

Würthwein, Ernst. “Elijah at Horeb: Reflections on 1 Kings 19:9-18.” In Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davis. ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter, 152-66. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1970.

Dictionaries, Encyclopedias Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds.

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green, 8 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1977.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, reprint, 1979.

Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprint, 1968.

Buttrick, George Arthur, et al. eds. The Interperter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 4 vols. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962.

Crim, Keith, et al. eds. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, supplementary vol. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962.

359Elliger, Karl, Wilhelm Rudolph, et al., eds. Biblia Hebraica

Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

Even-Shoshan, Abraham, ed. A New Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: “Kiryat Sefer” Publishing House Ltd., 1989.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann eds., translated by Mark E. Biddle. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Joüon, Paul, S.J. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, translated by and revised by Takamitsu Muraoka, 2 vols, subsidia bibilca – 14. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993.

Kautzsch, E. ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, translated by A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.

Mish, Frederick C., et al., eds. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1987.

Owens, John Joseph. Analytical Key to the Old testament, 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989-1992.

Ross, Allen P. Biblical Hebrew Handbook. Dallas: Privately printed, 1986.

Scholze-Stubenrecht, W., J. B. Sykes, et al., eds. The Oxford Duden German Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Tenney, Merrill C., et al. eds. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975-1976.

360VanGermeren, Willem A. ed. New International Dictionary of Old

Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.

Wigram, George V. The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, 5th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970.

Periodicals Abrams, Judith. “Metzora(at) Kashaleg: Leprosy: Challenges to Authority

in the Bible.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (Jan. 1993): 41-45.

Alter, Robert. “A Literary Approach to the Bible.” Commentary 60 (1975): 70-77.

Alter, Robert. “How convention Helps Us Read: The Case of the Bible’s Annunciation Type-Scene.” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 115-30.

Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 179-94.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. “Literary Modes and Methods in the Biblical Narrative: In View of 2 Samuel 10-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.” Immanuel 8 (1978): 19-31.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 154-73.

Begg, Christopher. “This Thing I Cannot Do.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1989): 23-27.

Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Once the Lamp Has Been Kindled: A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT nîr in 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19 and 2 Chr. 21:7.” Australian Biblical Review 39 (1991): 19-30.

361Berlin, Adele. “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives.”

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (1982): 69-85.

Berlin, Adele. “On the Bible as Literature.” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 323-27.

Berlyn, P. J. Checkmate: “The King is Dead.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 22 (July 1994): 151-62.

Brodie, Thomas L., O.P. “Luke 7, 36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4, 1-37: A Study in Luke’s Use of Rhetorical Imitation.” Biblica 64 (1983): 457-85.

Brueggemann, Walter. "The Embarrassing Footnote.” Theology Today 44 (1987): 5-14.

Burns, John Barclay. “Why Did the Besieging Army Withdraw? (II Reg 3:27).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102 (1990): 187-94.

Carroll, R. P. “The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel.” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 400-15.

Childs, Brevard S. “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until This Day’.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 279-92.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “Does God Deceive?” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 11-28.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “The Polemic Against Baalism in Israel’s Early History and Literature.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1994): 267-83.

Coggins, Richard. “On Kings and Disguises.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 50 (1991): 55-62.

Cohn, Robert L. "Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V.” Vetus Testamentum 31 (1983): 171-84.

362Cohn, Robert L. “Reading in Three Dimensions: The Imperative of

Biblical Narrative.” Religion and Intellectual Life 6 (1989): 161-72.

Conroy, Charles. “Hiel between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha: 1 Kings 16:34 in its immediate literary context.” Biblica 77 (1996): 210-18.

Eaton, M R. “Some Instances of Flyting in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 61 (1994): 3-14.

Fensham, F. Charles. “A Few Observtions on the Polarisation Between Yahweh and Baal in I Kings 17-19.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 227-36.

Fensham, F. Charles. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21 (1962): 129-39.

Garcia-Treto, Francisco O. “The Fall of the House: A Carnivalesque Reading of 2 Kings 9 and 10.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990): 47-65.

Hamilton, Jeffries M. “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 649-63.

Heins, Barbara Doolan. “From Leprosy to Shalom and Back Again: A Discourse Analysis of 2 Kings 5.” OPTAT 2 (1988): 20-33.

Hobbs, T. Raymond. “2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose.” Studies in Religion 13 (1984): 327-34.

Hobbs, T. Raymond. “Man, Woman, and Hospitality—2 Kings 4:8-36.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 23 (1993): 91-100.

Holt, Else Kragelund. “ . . . Urged on by His Wife Jezebel: A Literary Reading of 1 Kings 18 in Context.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9 (1995): 83-96.

363Honeyman, A. M. “The Salting of Schechem.” Vetus Testamentum 3

(1953): 192-95.

Howard, David M. Jr. “Review Articles—The Case for Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets.” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 101-15.

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. “Elijah’s Self-Offering: 1 Kings 17:21.” Biblica 75 (1994): 74-79.

LaBarbera, Robert. “The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in 2 Kings 6:8-7:20.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984): 637-51.

Lasine, Stuart. “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6:24-33): Solomon’s Judgment in an Inverted World.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 50 (1991): 27-53.

Licht, Jacob. “Story-Telling in the Bible.” Immanuel 7 (1977): 21-24.

Long, Burke O. “Etymological Etiology and the DT Historian.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 35-41.

Long, Burke O. “The Social Setting for Prophetic Miracle Stories.” Semeia 3 (1975): 46-63.

Lundbom, Jack R. “Elijah’s Chariot Ride.” Journal of Jewish Studies 24 (1973): 39-50.

Lust, J. “A Gentle Breeze or a Roaring Thunderous Sound? Elijah at Horeb: 1 Kings xix 12.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 110-15.

Matthews,Victor H. “Hospitality and Hostility in Judges 4.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 21 (1991): 13-21.

McConville, J. Gordon. “1 Kings 8:46-53 and the Deuteronomic Hope.” Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 67-79.

364McConville, J. Gordon. “Narrative and Meaning in Kings.” Biblica 70

(1989): 31-49.

Miscall, Peter D. “Elijah, Ahab and Jehu: A Prophecy Fulfilled.” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 73-83.

Mullen, E. Theodore. “Crime and Punishment: the Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasuries.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 231-48.

Mullen, E. Theodore. “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 193-206.

O’Brien, D. P. “‘Is this the time to accept . . .’ (2 Kings 5: 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or an Ominous foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996): 448-57.

Pyper, Hugh S. “Judging the Wisdom of Solomon: The Two-Way Effect of Intertextuality.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 59 (1993): 25-36.

Rand, Herbert. “David and Ahab: A Study of Crime and Punishment.” Jewish Bible Quartely 24 (1996): 90-97.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “The Mock of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 414-17.

Rofé, Alexander. “The Vineyard of Naboth: the Origin and Message of the Story.” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 89-104.

Schniedewind, William M. “History and Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book of Kings.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 649-61.

Shields, Mary E. “Subverting a Man of God, Elevating a Woman: Role and Power Reversals in 2 Kings 4.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993): 59-69.

365Simon, Uriel. “Minor Characters in Biblical Narrative.” Journal for the

Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990): 11-19.

Smend, Rudolf. “Das Wort Jahwes An Elia, Erwägungen zur Komposition von 1 Reg. 17-19.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 525-43.

Smith, W Alan. “Naaman and Elisha: Healing, Wholeness, and the Task of Religious Education.” Religious Education 89 (1994): 205-19.

Sprinkle, Joe M. “Literary Approaches to the Old Testament: A Survey of Recent Scholarship.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32/3 (1989): 299-310.

Tangberg, Arvid. “A Note on Ba`al Zebub in 2 Kings 1,2.3.6.16.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6 (1992): 293-96.

Van Seters, John. “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Israelites.” Orientalia 50 (1981): 137-85.

Waldman, Nahum M. “Ahab in Bible and Talmud.” Judaism 37 (1988): 41-47.

Williams, James G. “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-Scenes.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 17 (1980): 107-19.

Wolff, von Hans Walter. “Das Kerygma Des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 171-86.

Wyatt, Nicolas. “Of Calves and Kings: the Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6 (1992): 68-91.

Ziolkowski, Eric J. “The Bad Boys of Bethel: Origin and Development of A Sacrilegious Type.” History of Religions 30 (1991): 331-58.

366

Dissertations and Theses Anderson, James Edward. “The Idolatrous Worship of Baal by Israel.” ThD

diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975.

Barré, Lloyd Milton. “The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion: An Examination of the Literary Features and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9-11 (Jehu, Athaliah, Jehoiada, Elisha, Propaganda).” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1983.

Corl, J. Banks. “Elijah and Elisha within the Argument of Kings.” ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

Cox, Howard Hunter. “A Religio-Historical Study.” ThD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1961.

Fredrichs, Ernest Sunley. “Elisha: A Problem in Legend and History.” PhD diss., Boston University Graduate School, 1957.

Granowski, Janis Jaynes. “Polemics and Praise: The Deuteronomistic Use of the Female Characters of the Elijah-Elisha Stories.” PhD diss., Baylor University, Waco, TX, 1996.

Gregory, Russell Inman. “Elijah’s Story Under Scrutiny: A Literary-Critical Analysis of 1 Kings 17-19.” Ph D diss., Vanderbilt University, 1983.

Ingalls, Alan Dean. “The Literary Unity of the Book of Numbers.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.

LaBreche, Pamela. “A Methodology for the Analysis of Characterization in Old Testament Narrative.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992.

367Moore, Rick Dale. “Didactic Salvation Stories in the Elisha Cycle: An

Analysis of 2 Kings 5; 6:8-23; and 6:24-7:20.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1988.

Moriarty, Robert King. “The Treatment of the Lord's Prophet: A Matter of Life and Death (3 KGDMS 17:17-24 as Hermeneutic Key to 3 KGDMS 17-18).” PhD diss., Marquette University, 1990.

Napier, Bunyan D. “The Historical Problem of Elijah.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1944.

Naugle, David K. “An Exegesis and Theology of the Deuteronomic Legislation of Holy War.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.

Perez, David Enrique. “The Abominations of the Canaanites as a Justification for Holy War.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980.

Roberts, Kathryn Lee. “Elijah and Ninth Century Israelite Religion.” PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996.

Smith, Richard G. “Jehu’s Revolt in Deuteronomic Perspective: A Literary-Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 8:25-10:36.” ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996.

Talbert, Samuel M. “Holy War in Ancient Israel.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.

Walsh, Jerome T. “The Elijah Cycle: A Synchronic Approach.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1982.

Yafé, Felipe Carlos. “The Case of Naboth’s Vineyard (1 Kings 21): An historical, sociological and literary study.” PhD diss., The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990.