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. 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
vi 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
vii 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
viii 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
ix 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 x Plot Structure Sigla
• The first level of heading
† The second level of heading
‡ The third level of heading
xi 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
1 2 theology 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, 3 however, 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. 4 In 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. 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
5 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
nd limestone stele, dating back to the 2 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
st 36 in 1 century B.C. Palestine). 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. 25 narrative 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. 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-
26 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
22 pioneered in the development of rhetorical analysis, though such analyses are variously termed as literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, poetics,
23 narrative criticism, narratology, or even redaction criticism.
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. 38 according 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 Î Text Î 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 Ð Oral Tradition Ð Early Written Sources Ð 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. 48 drinking 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. 51 setting 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. 62 pronounce 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. 64 persistence. 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. 69 messengers’ 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. 72 speech (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. 77 4. 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. 80 Divine 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. 82 Repetition 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
( 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 ( 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. 91 finally 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. 94 Dramatic 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 95 Carmel 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. 99 solve 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. 102 biblical 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. 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. 102 103 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 nd of the 2 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. 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 125 126 single 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. 129 almost 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. 134 the 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. 139 protagonist. 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 140 Elisha; 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. 143 antagonist. 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. 145 Plot 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 † ‡ 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). 147 last 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. † ‡ 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. 151 To 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. 154 concept 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 Israel’s Apostasy Elijah’s Actions (1 Kgs 19:10b) The Israelites have Ahab and his father’s Elijah defeated the forsaken (bzu) your family forsook (bzu) prophets of Baal in the covenant, Yahweh’s contest. The Israelites commandment (1 Kgs prostrated themselves 18:18). When the and cried, “Yahweh— Israelites were asked to He is God. Yahweh— make a choice between He is God” (1 Kgs Yahweh or Baal, they 18:39). remained silent (1 Kgs 18:21). Their hesitation indicated that they had not kept their undivided loyalty to Yahweh. 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 The altar of Yahweh With 12 stones altars, was in ruin (1 Kgs representing 12 tribes of 18:30). Israel, Elijah built an altar for Yahweh (1 Kgs 18:31-32). . . . killed your Jezebel and Ahab were Elijah killed in return prophets with the in hot pursuit to kill the the 450 prophets of sword. prophets of Yahweh (1 Baal in the Kishon Kgs 18:4, 10, 13). Valley (1 Kgs 18:40). I, even I only, am left. Jezebel vowed to kill And they are seeking Elijah (1 Kgs 19:2). my life to take it away. 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). 158 There 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. 160 20:34). 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 ( 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 Josh 6:3-4 1 Kgs 20:29 days before battle was engaged. The wall collapsed. Josh 6:20 1 Kgs 20:30 The concept of ban ( 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. “ 34 It is like saying, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.” See NIV Study Bible, 1 Kgs 20:11 footnote. 162 engaged 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 ( 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 164 Yahweh 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. 166 and 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). 167 Two 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. 169 From 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 ( 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 181 deceiving 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. 186 His 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. 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 189 190 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. 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; 191 its 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 192 the 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. 193 Bears 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 Dialogue between Elisha and and Elisha 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- The transfer of prophetic office happened at Trans-jordan. 15a v. 15b- The sons of the prophets at 16 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 196 mountain 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. ‡ this term, double portion ( ‡ 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. ‡ 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, 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. 209 The 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 211 felled 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 212 food 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). 214 The 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 215 challenge 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) † Comparison of this miracle with the one performed by Elijah in 216 Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:7-16) shows close similarities: 217 Elijah Elisha Recipient A Gentile woman and her son, An Israelite widow and her who might not initially have two sons, bereft of her possessed a personal husband who had been the knowledge of Yahweh. servant of Elisha and who had feared Yahweh. The things A handful of flour in a jar and A jar of oil. that they a little oil in a jug. own Condition Faith in the word of Yahweh Faith in the word of Yahweh for the came from the mouth of the came from the mouth of the miracle man of God. Faith was shown man of God. Faith was by the act of the widow’s reflected by the number of giving to Elijah the little that jars that she borrowed from she had. her neighbors. † 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. 223 the 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 The son of an Israelite to a widow in Zarephath of woman, to whom this boy Sidon was given as a reward for her hospitality Process Elijah put the dead boy on his The Shunammite woman had bed, stretched himself out on placed her dead boy on the corpse three times, and Elisha’s bed. Elisha got on cried to Yahweh, “O Yahweh the bed and lay upon the boy, my God, let this boy’s life mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, return to him (v. 21)!” 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 sneezed seven times the boy’s life returned to him, and opened his eyes (v. 35). and he lived (v. 22). 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. 224 boy, 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. † † In each of these two subplots, the parallel phrase “pour out for the men, so that they may eat” ( Wlk@ay{w+ 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 ( 19), because in just one Hebrew word, the narrator said that he-was-a-leper (ur`x)m=, v. 1). This wholeness ( 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 ( word 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 Naaman started as a leper (ur`x)m=, v. 1), became clean (rh@f*, v. 14), and was pronounced whole ( 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. 236 Elisha 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 ( 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. 242 Yahweh’s favor was leaving Israel. Earlier in Elijah’s time, Yahweh had already pronounced the punishment of the ban ( “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. 243 There 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. 246 Setting 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 (EotB=, 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)! 247 The 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 248 as 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= 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,” 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 ( 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. 256 The 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. 258 servant (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 (2 259 Kgs 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 ( ( 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. 266 garments 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 267 for 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 268 of 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 Elisha and the elders of the innermost circle, in the Samaria were in the innermost city of Dothan. circle, in Elisha’s house inside Samaria. middle The Arameans surrounded the The king of Israel and his circle city of Dothan. officer surrounded Elisha’s house. outer circle The Arameans were The Israelites were surrounded surrounded by the Israelites by the Arameans whose camps in the city of Samaria. were surrounding the city of Samaria. deliverance The deliverance of the The deliverance of the Arameans in the middle circle Israelites in the middle circle was from the word of was from the word of Yahweh Yahweh uttered by Elisha uttered by Elisha from the from the inner circle. inner circle. feeding The Arameans in the middle The Israelites in the middle circle were fed by the circle were fed by the spoils Israelites of the outer circle. from the Arameans of the outer circle. 271 In 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. 273 horses 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). 274 Character 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 275 the 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. 276 Gehazi 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. 278 Hazael 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. 279 Ahaziah, 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 280 Jehu 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. 282 The 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?” ( 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 283 removed (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). 287 life 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 289 19:15). 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. 290 Here 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. 292 been 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. 296 Jehoash 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 300 commendable 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. 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 885-874 total reign 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. 300 301 1 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; Joram 12 years 852-841 2 Kgs 3:1-8:15 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 793-782 with Jehoash 41 years total 793-753 reign beginning of 782 sole reign 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 752-742 in Samaria 2 Kgs 15:23-26 Pekahiah 2 years 742-740 2 Kgs 15:27-31 Pekah overlapping 752-740 years in Gilead 20 years total 752-732 reign 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.), 302 paralleled 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 303 was 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 304 unfamiliar 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 305 prophets 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 306 compared 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. 308 The 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 309 antagonists 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 310 recovering 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” ( 6 Ibid. 313 the 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 ( 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- Divine Judgment on Ahaziah: Ahaziah failed to 2 Kgs 1:18 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. 317 recognize 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. 318 2 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. 319 The 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, 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. 323 Aram (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 324 land 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: Passage Defining Caring for Punishing the Rebellious the hero Yahweh’s (Establishing faithful and Testing Judgment Yahweh’s the needy representative) 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 • • 325 2 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 326 been 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 327 Israelites 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 ( 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. 329 The 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 ( 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. 331 had 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. 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. 332 333 form 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 The city of Jericho was unfruitful (2 28:18). Kgs 2:19-22). Drought would occur (Deut 28:23- There were 3 years of drought at the 24). 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 The Arameans laid siege to Samaria Israelite city (Deut 28:52). (2 Kgs 6:24). Under the siege, the women would The women in Samaria ate their own eat their own children (Deut 28:56- children during the Aramean siege (2 57). 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 334 failing 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. 335 Joshua 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. 338 When 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 339 Baal. 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. 341 when 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 343 and 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 344 prayers 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. 345 The 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. 348 Bergen, 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. 349 Childs, 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. 350 DeVries, 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. 351 Gottwald, 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. 352 Hobbs, 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. 353 LaSor, 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. 354 McConville, 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.] 355 O'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. 356 Robinson, 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. 357 Talmon, 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. 358 Wilson, 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. 359 Elliger, 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. 360 VanGermeren, 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. 361 Berlin, 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. 362 Cohn, 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. 363 Honeyman, 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. 364 McConville, 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. 365 Simon, 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. 367 Moore, 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.