The Characters of Elijah and Elisha and The Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 9780567679017, 9780567679031, 9780567679024

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

671 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, Susan Gillingham, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

THE CHARACTERS OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA AND THE DEUTERONOMIC EVALUATION OF PROPHECY

Miracles and Manipulation

Roy L. Heller

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2018 Paperback Edition first published 2019 Copyright © Roy L. Heller, 2018 Roy L. Heller has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. ix constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Heller, Roy L., 1963- author. Title: The characters of Elijah and Elisha and the deuteronomistic evaluation of prophecy : miracles and manipulation / by Roy L. Heller. Description: First edition. | New York : Bloomsbury Academic, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017024235 | ISBN 9780567679017 (hb) Subjects: LCSH: Elijah (Biblical prophet) | Elisha (Biblical prophet) | Bible. Kings–Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS580.E4 H335 2017 | DDC 222/.50922–dc23 LC record available at https:// lccn.loc.gov/2017024235 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7901-7 PB: 978-0-5676-8958-0 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7902-4 Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, volume 671 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

To Amy If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

—1 Cor 13:2

C on t en t s Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xi Chapter 1 Prophecy and Ambiguity A. The Question of Prophecy B. The Characters of Elijah and Elisha in Recent Research C. The Significance and Power of Ambiguity D. Deuteronomy and Prophecy 1. Deuteronomy 13:1–6 (ET 12:32–13:5) 2. Deuteronomy 18:15–22 E. The Ambiguous Character of Samuel F. The Question of Miracles Chapter 2 Narratives Focused on Elijah A. First Stories 1. Elijah Pronounces a Drought—1 Kings 17:1 2. Elijah Cared for by Ravens—1 Kings 17:2–6 3. Elijah Cared for by the Widow—1 Kings 17:7–16 4. Elijah Restores the Widow’s Son—1 Kings 17:17–24 B. Elijah and the Contest on Mount Carmel 1. Elijah’s Instructions—1 Kings 18:1–2 2. Elijah and Obadiah—1 Kings 18:3–16 3. Elijah and Ahab—1 Kings 18:17–19 4. The Contest on Carmel—1 Kings 18:20–40 5. Elijah and Ahab and the End of the Drought— 1 Kings 18:41–46 C. Elijah and the Theophany(?) on Mount Horeb 1. Elijah Flees from Jezebel—1 Kings 19:1–4a 2. Elijah Journeys Through the Wilderness—1 Kings 19:4b–9a 3. Elijah Complains to YHWH—1 Kings 19:9b–18 D. Elijah and the Meeting with Elisha—1 Kings 19:19–21 Excursus: Other Prophetic Stories at the End of 1 Kings

1 1 5 8 16 17 22 36 40 41 41 43 49 51 56 60 61 61 65 68 73 75 76 77 80 85 89

viii Contents

E. Elijah and the Vineyard of Naboth—1 Kings 21 F. Elijah and the Illness of Ahaziah—2 Kings 1:1–18 G. The Evaluation of the Prophet Elijah—A Review Chapter 3 Narratives Focused on Elisha A. Elisha and Elijah Separate 1. Elijah Attempts to Leave Elisha Behind—2 Kings 2:1–8 2. Elijah Is Taken Away—2 Kings 2:9–12 3. Elisha and Elijah’s Robe—2 Kings 2:13–14 B. Elisha’s Small Tales—2 Kings 2:15–25 1. Elisha and the Sons of the Prophets—2 Kings 2:15–18 2. Elisha and Jericho’s Water—2 Kings 2:19–22 3. Elisha and the Boys of Bethel—2 Kings 2:23–25 C. Elisha and the War Against Moab—2 Kings 3:1–27 D. Elisha as a Miracle Worker and Helper—2 Kings 4:1–6:7 1. Elisha and the Widow’s Oil—2 Kings 4:1–7 2. Elisha and the Shunammite Woman—2 Kings 4:8–37 3. Elisha and the Poisened Stew—2 Kings 4:38–31 4. Elisha and the Multiplying Food—2 Kings 4:42–44 5. Elisha and Naaman—2 Kings 5:1–19 6. Elisha and Gehazi—2 Kings 5:20–27 7. Elisha and the Axe—2 Kings 6:1–7 E. Elisha and Politics—2 Kings 6:8–9:13 1. Elisha and the Aramean Attack—2 Kings 6:8–23 2. Elisha and the Siege of Samaria—2 Kings 6:24–7:20 3. Elisha’s Fame and the Land of the Shunammite Woman— 2 Kings 8:1–6 4. Elisha and the Death of Ben-Hadad—2 Kings 8:7–15 5. Elisha and the Instigation of Jehu’s Coup—2 Kings 9:1–13 F. Elisha and Joash—2 Kings 13:14–19 G. Elisha’s Corpse and the Israelite’s Corpse—2 Kings 13:20–21 H. The Evaluation of the Prophet Elisha—A Review Chapter 4 Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy A. Deuteronomy and the Purpose of Prophecy B. The Characterization of Elijah, Elisha, and YHWH C. The Evaluation of Prophecy

94 101 106 110 110 111 116 119 121 121 123 125 130 138 138 141 148 148 151 156 159 161 162 165 175 180 187 198 204 206

216 216 220 227

Bibliography 232 Index of References 239 Index of Authors 248

A c k n owl ed g me nts

Works such as this do not come from individuals; rather, they spring up from relationships. In light of those relationships: I must express my gratitude to the administration, faculty, and staff of Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University, and in particular, to Dean William Lawrence and to Dean Craig Hill. Because of the support of this wonderful school, I was able to write, was encouraged to write, and was urged to write this book. It is a rare thing to love not only what one does, but also where one does it. I have been fortunate on both counts. I also would like to thank the clergy, staff, and parishioners of the Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration, Dallas, and in particular, to the Reverend Dr Casey Shobe, for their support—both emotional and spiritual—during the writing of this book. It is a rare thing to find people outside of biblical studies who are not only wise and intelligent but who, furthermore, actually care about the answer to the question, “What is your book about?” I must thank my mentor, Robert Wilson, who taught me not only about prophecy, but also about the complexity of the biblical texts that deal with prophecy. I also thank Ellen Davis, who taught me how to read narrative texts, and Danna Fewell, who taught me how to question narrative texts. I also thank my friends and colleagues, Rich Nelson, Carolyn Sharp, Mark Smith, and Jaime Clark-Soles who not only keep before me a high standard for scholarship but also remind me what it means to be a good, faithful, and true human being. Whatever is worthwhile about this book and about my ability to read and write is primarily due to all of you. I am extremely grateful for the encouragement and dedication of my editor, Andrew Mein, who has remembered me over the past decade and kept in touch about my “Elijah book” over the course of too many years. Thanks to you, this book is finally able to see the light of day and is far, far better than it once was.

x Acknowledgments

I also thank the students in my Hebrew Exegesis classes of 2014 and 2015: Jennifer Kelley, Mara Morhouse, David Schmersal, Courtney Schultz, Stephanie Staton, Jeffrey Weltman, Ian Liang, Kaela Patterson Burdge, Andrew Elrod, Clarence Ford, Clayton Karrer, Katie Newsome, Emily Robnett, Rebekah Rochte, and David Schones. You all read through these texts with me, questioned me, prodded me, laughed at my jokes, and provided numerous suggestions and comments that, consciously and subconsciously, have found their way into the text of this book. I am so pleased and proud to have had you as fellow travelers as this book was in its final stages of fermentation. And, of course, I thank my family, those whose relationships mean the most to me. Thanks, Mom and Dad, because it was you who taught me, originally, to read and write. Thanks, Barb and Don, because you regularly teach me what it means to be both a curious and careful thinker as well as a full human being and son-in-law. Thanks, Noah and Annie, because both of you teach me, every day, about the complexity of texts and the quirky, infinitely playful and wonderful thing that interpretation is. And, finally, thanks, Amy. I owe unbounded thanks to you for…well… just about everything.

A b b rev i at i ons

AB ABD ANET AOAT ARM ASV ATANT BBB BHS BN BR BZ BZAW CAD

CBQ Dtr ESV ET FB FOTL HALOT HSS ICC JBL JHS JNES JNSL JPS JSOT

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archives royales de Mari American Standard Version Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bonner biblische Beiträge Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Biblische Notizen Bible Review Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956–. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Deuteronomist(s) English Standard Version English Translations Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Harvard Semitic Series International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

xii Abbreviations JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JTISup Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplement KJV King James Version LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NAB New American Bible NASB New American Standard Bible NIV New International Version NJPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NRSV New Revised Standard Version OTL Old Testament Library POS Pretoria Oriental Series RB Revue biblique RSV Revised Standard Version SAA State Archives of Assyria SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1 P r op h ec y a n d A m bi gui ty

A. The Question of Prophecy The biblical texts that comprise the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament describe prophecy as a phenomenon by which the will of YHWH is revealed to human beings. This phenomenon, the converging of the divine world and the earthly, human world by the transmission of a message, almost always involves four elements. A. The deity, overwhelmingly in the Hebrew Bible, is identical with YHWH, the God of Israel. YHWH is, in prophetic occurrences, the initiator and source of the message.1 B. The knowledge or instruction that the deity wants known. This knowledge or instruction is usually understood by the biblical writers in logocentric language: the predominant phrase that is used to describe this knowledge or instruction is “the word of YHWH.”2 1.  In a few cases in the Hebrew Bible, individuals go to a prophet to inquire about YHWH’s will about a certain matter, or in order to obtain the truth about a particular problem (e.g., Jer 21:1–6; Ezek 20:1–3). In these and similar situations, the prophet does not perform the role of a prophet per se, but rather takes on the role of a divinatory priest (e.g., 1 Sam 23:9–11; 30:7–8). Moreover, note that in most other examples of this type of scene, the initiation of the divine word takes precedence over the inquiry by the humans. See, for examples, 1 Sam 9:1–9 (Saul asking Samuel about his father’s lost donkeys), but note vv. 15–17 (YHWH’s previous message to Samuel about Saul); 1 Kgs 14:1–4 (Jeroboam’s wife inquiring about the health of her child), but note v. 5 (YHWH’s previous message to Ahijah about him); 1 Kgs 22:1–18 (the king of Israel inquiring about the success of a military campaign), but note vv. 19–23 (YHWH’s previous message to Micaiah about it); and 2 Kgs 1:2 (Ahaziah’s inquiry about his injury), but note vv. 3–4 (YHWH’s previous message to Elijah about him). In all these cases, the inquiry actually occurs after the initiated divine word, which takes precedence over the inquiry. 2.  The phrase “the word of YHWH” appears in all of the books of the Latter Prophets, with the exception of Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. In these three

2

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

C. The prophet himself or herself, the bearer and speaker or performer of the divine message. Again, in the vast majority of cases, the prophet is called upon to pronounce vocally, or rarely by writing, the message of the deity. These messages are usually short and appear in oracular form, either in poetry (often in the Latter Prophets) or in prose. Sometimes the prophet may report a vision which YHWH showed him or her. In this case, the message may be considered the vision itself and the spoken word as that of the prophet who is reporting the message in a second-tier way. In some rare examples, the prophet may act out the message in a physical way. These type of “sign acts” may represent visually the type of judgment that is coming or, sometimes, may actually initiate or cause the judgment to come. In these cases, the message is the physical activity that the prophet performs. D. The fourth and final element is, of course, the hearers or observers of the message. This schema of prophecy as constituting the movement from the deity of a message through a prophet to a recipient was shared by practically all biblical writers. The representation is simple and straightforward. Yet, for all the putative clarity and simplicity of the above outline, the phenomenon of prophecy in the biblical texts is not always presented as a straightforward means by which YHWH’s will can reliably be known. A blatant example of this ambivalence toward prophecy, for example, appears frequently in the book of Jeremiah. Although Jeremiah was himself called to be a prophet by YHWH (Jer 1:4–10), many passages where “prophecy” and “prophets” are mentioned in the book present the phenomenon and the bearers of the message as false, deceptive means by which YHWH’s message is not proclaimed.3 Jeremiah often rails against the people of Jerusalem who have not listened to the prophets who have

books, the encounter is initially described using visual descriptions, either ‫“( חזון‬the vision of”) or ‫“( חזה‬he saw”). In Obadiah, however, the metaphor immediately turns to a logocentric one: “Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom” (1:1b). 3.  As an example, the word ‫נבאים‬/‫ נביא‬/ “prophet(s)” occurs 97 times in the book. Of these, 46 are positive (almost always found either in the phrase “the prophet Jeremiah” [31 times, mostly in Jer 34–51] or “my servants the prophets” [5 times]); 11 are neutral (simply mentioning the presence of prophets with no evaluation); and 40 of them are negative: 1:5; 5:13, 31 (×2); 6:13; 8:10; 13:13; 14:13, 14, 15 (×2), 18; 23:11, 13, 14, 15 (×2), 16, 21, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37; 26:8, 11, 16; 27:9, 14, 15, 16; 28:15, 17; 29:8, 15, 26; 32:32; 37:19.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

3

proclaimed YHWH’s true word, but then also complains that the majority of prophets who prophesy are not proclaiming YHWH’s message.4 This conflict is represented poignantly in the oracle: ‫כה־אמר יהוה צבאות‬ ‫אל־תׁשמעו על־דברי הנבאים‬ ‫הנבאים לכם‬ ‫מהבלים המה אתכם‬ ‫חזון לבם ידברו‬ ‫לא מפי יהוה׃‬ This is what YHWH of Hosts said: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets, the ones who are prophesying to you. They are the ones who are deluding you. They are speaking the vision of their own mind, not (the one) from the mouth of YHWH.” (Jer 23:16)5

Of course, the irony of the discourse is that it comes in the form of a prophetic oracle, but has content which warns against listening to pro­ phetic oracles or vision reports. Ambiguity, ambivalence, and unreliability

4.  The problem of “false prophecy” in Jeremiah is a common topic of scholarship in dealing with the book. A few recent studies include: Daniel Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets: True and False Prophecy in Jeremiah 23:9–29:32 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012); Seth B. Tarrer, Reading with the Faithful: Interpretation of True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah from Ancient Times to Modern, JTISup 6 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013); R. W. L. Moberly, Discernment and Prophecy, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Paul Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah,” Asia Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (2014): 4–13; Matthijs J. de Jong, “The Fallacy of ‘True and False’ in Prophecy Illustrated by Jer 28:8–9,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12 (2012): 1–29; and “Why Jeremiah Is Not Among the Prophets: An Analysis of the Terms ‫ נביא‬and ‫ נבאים‬in the Book of Jeremiah,” JSOT 35 (2011): 483–510; J. Todd Hibbard, “True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy,” JSOT 35 (2011): 339–58. Throughout this study, the perspective of Deuteronomy about prophecy will generally be the focus. For Deuteronomy, the question is not whether a specific example of prophetic activity is “true” or “false.” Instead, the question is whether or not it comes from YHWH. 5.  Since many of the biblical quotations throughout this study will be analyzed for their rhetorical texture, I will consistently format the quotation so that each of the “sense units” are printed on a separate line. This will aid in analyzing the structure and the rhetorical flow of the quotation.

4

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

is found at every turn in this little speech.6 Even though on the surface the issue seems simply to be a question about who is speaking the “true” word of YHWH (on the one hand, Jeremiah, or, on the other, the “false prophets”), at a much deeper level lurks the uneasiness about how to determine or discern the mind of YHWH at all by means of prophecy. This uneasiness is, furthermore, not limited to Jeremiah but, as will be seen, is present elsewhere in the Bible.7 The thesis of this study is that the stories of Elijah and Elisha, through their plotlines and in their characterizations of the two prophets, highlight the ambiguous nature of prophecy itself and have the effect of producing ambivalence on the part of the reader about the phenomenon of prophecy as a clear and always dependable means of discerning the will of YHWH. Moreover, this exploration will also show that this evaluation of prophecy matches very closely with the evaluation of prophecy provided in the book of Deuteronomy, particularly in 13:1–6 (ET 12:32–13:5) and 18:15–22. Before turning to an exploration of the fascinating and complex stories of the two prophets, the remainder of this chapter will provide information 6.  For the character of ambiguity and undecidability in the prophetic corpus, see particularly the very helpful chapter “The Irony of Prophetic Performance,” in Carolyn J. Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 125–86. Throughout this study the term “ambiguity” is used to describe a certain aspect of texts, that is, their undecidability of meaning between (usually) two different interpretations. Texts are ambiguous when they can be read, with integrity, as having two contrasting meanings. “Ambivalence,” on the other hand, is used to describe an aspect of a value judgment made by a person, usually the reader and, by analogy, sometimes by the narrator. A person is ambivalent when he or she is unable to determine if a phenomenon is positive or negative, if it has a good or bad quality, or if it has worthwhile or worthless outcomes. The ambivalence of the narrator can often be constructed through the ambiguity of the text, which, in turn, can produce an ambivalent attitude about the phenomenon on the part of the reader. 7.  The practical issue of discerning whether a particular instance of prophetic activity is “true” or is of a divine source is addressed in Moberly’s exploration, Prophecy and Discernment. Moberly attempts the ambitious project of working with the whole of the Christian canon in an attempt to provide criteria by which any specific example of someone speaking on behalf of “God” may be evaluated. The work is evocative, but ultimately seems lacking for failing to deal with the complexity of both the wide range of biblical texts’ views of the matter as well as the multitudinous different ways in which the phenomenon appears in contemporary society. See the reviews by Phillip Camp, “Review of R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment,” Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2007); and K. L. Noll, “Review of R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment,” Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2007).

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

5

that will guide the interpretations of Chapters 2 and 3, as well as provide a foundation for the conclusions of Chapter 4. First, I will provide a quick overview of the ways in which the texts focusing on Elijah and Elisha have been used and interpreted in the recent history of scholarship. Second, I will discuss the literary technique and power of ambiguity and explore possible reasons for its presence in texts. Third, I will explore the two passages in Deuteronomy that deal explicitly with prophecy and show how their rhetorical function highlights the ambiguous nature of prophecy itself. Fourth, I will review a previous study of mine in this series, which looks at the ambiguous character of the prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1–16; 28) and the ambivalent attitude toward prophecy that those texts produce. In conclusion, I will discuss how the present study builds upon this earlier work and goes beyond it, particularly because of the presence of miracles in the Elijah and Elisha texts. B. The Characters of Elijah and Elisha in Recent Research In the past twenty years, the biblical texts that feature Elijah and Elisha have been explored in several ways, which may—very broadly—be sorted into two different types of approaches. On the one hand, the texts have been seen as windows through which the reader may perceive how the phenomenon of prophecy was manifested in the first millennium BCE and, further, how the authors or editors of the stories understood prophecy itself.8 Methodologically, these approaches may broadly be 8.  The various approaches that employ the biblical texts in this very broad way include strict historical readings of the text, as well as tradition-historical, form, redaction, social-scientific, and certain types of rhetorical criticism. See Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes, eds., To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), especially 11–149. Scholars who will appear in Chapters 2 and 3 of this study who approach the text in these ways include John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970); Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007); Thomas W. Overholt, “Elijah and Elisha in the Context of Israelite Religion,” in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, JSOTSup 229 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 94–111; Victor H. Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 53–66; Hermann Gunkel, Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal, ed. and trans. K. C. Hanson (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2004); Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001); Rainer Albertz, Elia: Ein feuriger Kämpfer für Gott, Biblische Gestalten 13 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2006); Martin Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie : ein Beitrag zur religionsgeschichtlichen Rückfrage

6

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

termed “historical.” These methods of interpreting the texts follows a pattern in which a general understanding of prophetic activity as it occurred sometime during the first millennium (depending on when the interpreter sees the texts as originating) is propounded, and then the stories of Elijah and Elisha are employed to fill in gaps that remain in this general reconstruction of ancient prophetic activity. The method assumes a degree of analogy between ancient and modern history, as well as between ancient and modern societies.9 On the other hand, the stories of Elijah and Elisha have also been interpreted as if they were paintings, the various parts of the stories coming together in such a way that the reader may interpret various meanings of the stories. These approaches may generally be labeled as “literary approaches” and are represented by several scholars who look at Elijah and Elisha as literary characters.10 Generally, these literary interpretations either defend the prophets (particularly Havilah Dharamraj’s treatment of Elijah) as the best of the prophets or, more commonly, castigate them as negative characters who do not fulfill the role of prophets at all. Setting aside questions about the details of their ancient Near Eastern contexts, these approaches attempt to make sense of the narrative arc of the stories themselves, as well as the characters (and attendant characterizations) of nach dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben (New York: de Gruyter, 1999); Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics Against Baal Worship (Leiden, Brill, 1968). 9.  See J. Maxwell Miller, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach,” in McKenzie and Haynes, eds., To Each Its Own Meaning, 11–28. 10.  The various approaches that employ these more literary readings include structuralism, narrative criticism, reader-response, and post-structuralist approaches; see McKenzie and Haynes, To Each Its Own Meaning, 153–236, for an assessment and discussion of these various approaches. In Chapters 2 and 3, scholars who interpret the Elijah and Elisha texts in these ways include Havilah Dharamraj, A Prophet Like Moses? A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2011); Moshe Garsiel, From Earth to Heaven: A Literary Study of Elijah Stories in the Book of Kings (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2014); Else Holt, “ ‘…urged on by his wife Jezebel’: A Literary Reading of 1 Kgs 18 in Context,” SJOT 9 (1995): 95–96; Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, JSOTSup 224 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996); Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End of Prophetism, JSOTSup 286 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). A few scholars interweave historical and literary approaches in evocative and coherent ways, including Jerome Walsh, 1 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996); and Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987).

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

7

the two main prophets. These approaches reveal the depth and richness and complexity of the portrayal of the two prophets. Dividing the various methodologies and approaches in such a heuristic way is, of course, overly simplistic. Some scholars appreciate the strengths of all the approaches and attempt to interweave different methods into their overall interpretations. Labeling the various methods as either “historical” or “literary,” however, reveals the contrasting foundational presuppositions of both, while also noting what the different approaches do not focus on. Historical approaches particularly appreciate the ways in which the texts reveal the larger phenomenon of prophecy and the early writers’ or editors’ understanding and evaluation of it. On the other hand, often the characters of the prophets are assumed to be transparent ciphers for the pure and unadulterated prophetic experience. Elijah and Elisha’s actions and words are assumed to be reliable and trustworthy representations of the phenomenon of prophecy as it was understood sometime during the first millennium BCE. Literary approaches, generally, fill this gap and focus on the ways in which the characters of the prophets are portrayed. These characterizations are almost always seen as highly complex, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory in such a way as to produce a representation of a true-to-life person. The various literary elements of a narrative—setting, character, plot, complication, climax, resolution, etc.—are explored and combined to provide a coherent and, often, multifaceted interpretation of the narrative. On the other hand, literary approaches often leave the interpretation at the level of mere characterization. The prophets Elijah and Elisha are often little more than simply intriguing and evocative characters in their stories. Historical approaches appreciate the significance that textual details may have for understanding larger phenomena, but rarely appreciate the literary quality of complex characterization. Literary approaches appreciate multivalent and complex characterizations (as well as other literary features of a narrative), but they rarely question what those characterizations might say about the larger phenomenon of prophecy as a whole. The present study will be a thoroughgoing literary reading of the texts about Elijah and Elisha. It will, therefore, explore the various ways in which the two prophets are presented and will, therefore, show them to be complex and ambiguous characters. These are not simple, transparent individuals! As will be almost immediately clear from the beginning of Chapter 2, when Elijah proclaims a drought (1 Kgs 17:1–2), he is no mere cipher for a pure and clear form of prophetic activity. Elijah is, through and through, a complex and thoroughly ambiguous character, as will be true of Elisha following him.

8

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The present study, however, will not simply be another literary character study of the prophets. It will, instead, argue that Elijah’s and Elisha’s complex characterization is not merely a quaint and playful aspect of the story itself. It is true that Elijah and Elisha are both representatives of prophecy; however, their complexity and ambiguity reveal a larger evaluative attitude portrayed by the texts: prophecy as a means by which human beings come to know YHWH’s will, is, like the prophets themselves, deeply mystifying, multifarious, and ultimately ambiguous. The stories of Elijah and Elisha cast deep suspicion on the notion of the absolute and unassailable trustworthiness of these prophets and, by extension, of the absolute and unassailable trustworthiness of the phenomenon of prophecy itself as a means of discerning YHWH’s will. This deep suspicion is indicative of the ambivalence that the narrator portrays in the evaluation of both the prophets and of prophecy itself. Furthermore, as an effect of these texts, that ambivalence also raises suspicion on the part of the reader herself or himself. The ambiguity of these texts lies not only in how they represent the two prophets, but in how they, in a larger sense, render the phenomenon of prophecy as a whole. Ambiguity, furthermore, is not only a literary technique, but it also has effects and functions in the texts in which it is found. How exactly does ambiguity play a part in literature and what is its larger function, literarily and sociologically, when it appears in poetic and narrative texts? It is to this question that we now turn. C. The Significance and Power of Ambiguity Within the past century, the subject of ambiguity has been one of the most fruitful and exciting discussions in literary criticism. The modern discussion of literary ambiguity was launched by the work of William Empson, particularly by his book published in 1930, Seven Types of Ambiguity.11 This work stands as a hallmark in the history of English literary analysis and criticism. Empson defines “ambiguity” as “any verbal nuance, however slight, which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language,” but acknowledges in a footnote that the definition “is not meant to be decisive but [is given in order] to avoid confusing the reader.”12 While in ordinary usage, ambiguity is 11.  William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New York: New Directions, 1947). 12.  Ibid., 1. I find it ironic that Empson, perhaps playfully, writes that he is trying to define the term unambiguously. I also find it evocative that, for Empson, ambiguity

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

9

associated with equivocal, doubtful, or confused meaning, or, further, with carelessness, evasiveness, or deceit, as a literary term it signifies the very way in which creative, poetic language operates. In the book, as the title suggests, Empson examines seven different types of ambiguity in literature, each having its own chapter, and provides examples from English literature as well as extended discussions of each example. The types are: A. First-type ambiguities arise when a detail is effective in several ways at once. B. Second-type ambiguities arise when two or more alternative meanings are fully resolved into one. C. Third-type ambiguities arise when two apparently unconnected meanings are given simultaneously. (These generally are identical with or similar to puns.) D. Fourth-type ambiguities arise when the alternative meanings combine to make clear a complicated state of mind in the author, which is neither resolved nor is essential for the larger work. E. A fifth type is a fortunate confusion, as when the author is discovering an idea in the act of writing or is unable to hold the entire idea in his or her head at once. F. In the sixth type, what is said is contradictory or irrelevant and the reader is forced to invent an interpretation. G. In the seventh type, there is a full contradiction in the author’s mind, and this contradiction is represented in the text. This is the most effective and subtle of the seven types.13

was foundationally not about “alternative interpretations” but rather about “alternative reactions” to a piece of literature. While an interpretation is certainly a type of reaction, Empson’s definition highlights that there may be other responses to a text, including ambivalence. 13.  Empson is clear that these types should not be seen as distinct and mutually exclusive categories. Throughout the work, particularly at the beginning and ending of chapters, he will note how the difference is often of degree and that the categories often bleed into others. For helpful analyses of his work, see Rebecca R. Butler, “Seven Types of Ambiguity,” in Masterplots II: Nonfiction Series, ed. Frank N. Magill (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Salem, 1989), 1–4; Clara Claiborne Park, “Ambiguities, Complexities, Puzzles: A Late Encounter with William Empson,” Hudson Review 59, no. 1 (2006): 53–65.

10

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

There is, finally, a concluding chapter in which Empson discusses the value of ambiguity in literature, what conditions it requires, and the means of understanding and exploring it. His first few types show how the multiple meanings of an expression tend to support and enrich each other or resolve themselves into a unified, single meaning. In his latter types, however, the multiple meanings diverge, until in his seventh type the variety of meanings reflect contradictions or unresolvable tensions within the text. While he was himself not a New Critic in the literary sense, he did anticipate many of the concerns and insights of that movement. He argues that so much of the richness and subtlety of literary works results from ambiguity, so that ambiguity may be considered the defining characteristic of poetic language.14 The subtlety, density, and depth of meaning made possible by the use of ambiguity demonstrate that the “machinations of ambiguity are among the very roots of poetry.”15 This theoretical framework has led to fruitful discussions about both what ambiguity is and how it should be described, as well as the contexts and functions that it has or can have in literature.16 Scholars like Monroe C. Beardsley, Jan G. Kooij, and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan argue that ambiguity should only be applied to those utterances that have multiple, mutually exclusive interpretations and which, therefore, lead to an indecisiveness of meaning.17 Abraham Kaplan and Ernst Kris have suggested that Epson’s types are valid, but need to be thought of in larger categories: “disjunctive ambiguity,” for those examples of ambiguity in which their meanings are mutually exclusive; “additive ambiguity,” “conjunctive ambiguity,” and “integrative ambiguity,” for those kinds of ambiguity in which the separate meanings are related in one way or another; and “projective ambiguity,” for examples in which the “responses vary 14.  Joseph Childers and Gary Hentzi, et al., “Ambiguity,” in Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 9–10. 15.  Empson, Seven Types, 3. 16.  Fabian Gudas, “Ambiguity,” in New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 40–41. Note also the excellent article by Virginia Ramos, “Ambiguity,” in Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 43–45. 17.  Monroe C. Beardsley, Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958); Jan G. Kooij, Ambiguity in Natural Language: An Investigation of Certain Problems in Its Linguistic Description (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1971); Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, The Concept of Ambiguity: The Example of James (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

11

altogether with the interpreter,” that is, cases where different interpretations are not due to the properties of the text itself, but rather the subjectivities (e.g., social locations) of the readers.18 Concerning Empson’s seventh type of ambiguity (the type that I believe is present in the Elijah–Elisha narratives), some scholars have debated whether or not “ambiguity” should be extended to include those linguistic phenomena and literary concepts that deconstructionists call “undecidability” or “unreadability” or “dissemination” or “misreading.”19 In a century of discord and alienation, human uncertainty and ambivalence, some readers have developed a taste for the opaque and inscrutable, the labyrinth and the abyss. They delight in opportunities for “creative” reading; they study the interplay, or “free play,” of possible meanings previously unsuspected, or at least unvalued, in the masterpieces of the past. And some poets, particularly since Rimbaud, are composing “enigma” texts, poems deliberately written to frustrate the expectations of traditional readers for clarity and coherence. Because of the nature of lang[uage] and the complexities and unpredictability of human experience, clarity and coherence, it is said, are illusions. Lit[erature] can provide no answers; at best, it can only raise questions. The relations between a “poetics of a[mbiguity]” and a “poetics of indeterminacy” remain to be worked out.20

This way of understanding and defining the phenomenon of ambiguity places it squarely in the reader’s apprehension of the text and of the undetermined meaning of a text and, in the case of the wider field of semiotics, of any sign. In such a context, a positive and helpful way forward is for interpreters and theorists to abandon dogmatism and commit anew to pluralistic ways of reading texts. The basic concepts of literature, poetics, and signs should be considered open and essentially contested.21

18.  Abraham Kaplan and Ernst Kris, “Aesthetic Ambiguity,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8, no. 3 (1948): 415–35. 19.  For a general overview, see Vernon W. Gras, “Deconstruction,” in New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 277–82, which provides not only the relevant discussion but an essential bibliography. 20.  Gudas, “Ambiguity,” 41. See also the work of Marjorie Perloff, The Poetics of Indeterminacy: Rimbaud to Cage (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), for this aspect of ambiguity studies. 21.  The advantages of this appreciation and approach to hermeneutics and texts specifically has become foundational in postmodern criticism and was pointed out long ago in the work of I. A. Richards (Empson’s teacher): The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1936). See also M. H. Abrams, In

12

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

As such, ambiguity has also served as a basis for the hermeneutics not only of texts but also of human being itself and as a foundation for ethics.22 With these views, I have little quarrel. On the other hand, in this study, my goal concerning the ambiguous nature of the texts is much more restricted. In an attempt to limit my discussion at this point, and in order to move on to discussing other issues before looking at the Elijah and Elisha texts themselves, I will draw out two particular avenues that contemporary discussions of the concept of ambiguity have taken and then will leave this introduction, undoubtedly with much, much more that could be explored. First, a look at recent interpretations of literary characters who display a high degree of ambiguity. There have been literally hundreds of reinterpretations within the past 20 years of major literary characters within classics of Western literature. Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, the characters of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, those in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and in James’s Daisy Miller as well as his The Turn of the Screw, the title character of Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, and the figure of Gabriel in Joyce’s The Dead are just a few of the subjects of this exciting re-appreciation and rereading of classic texts. Moreover, Joyce A. Rowe has broadened the focus by looking at ambiguous endings in three classic American novels, The Scarlet Letter, Huckleberry Finn, and The Great Gatsby, and Paul Dixon has done similar work with the novels of Latin American authors Machado de Assis, Juan Rulfo, Gabriel García Márquez, and João Guimarães Rosa.23 Search of Literary Theory, ed. Morton W. Bloomfield (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972); Wayne C. Booth, Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979). 22.  See the fascinating reflections of Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1962). Note his poignant explication (§37): “When, in our everyday Being-with-one-another, we encounter the sort of thing which is accessible to everyone, and about which anyone can say anything, it soon becomes impossible to decide what is disclosed in a genuine understanding, and what is not. This ambiguity [Zweideutigkeit] extends not only to the world, but just as much to Being-with-one-another as such, and even to Dasein’s Being towards itself.” See also the seminal work of Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, trans. Bernard Frechtman (New York: Philosophical Library, 1949). 23.  Simon Marsden, Emily Brontë and the Religious Imagination (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014); Yoshiuiki Nakao, The Structure of Chaucer’s Ambiguity (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2013); Neil Heims, “Paradox, Ambiguity, and the Challenge to Judgment in The Great Gatsby and Daisy Miller,” in Critical Insights: The Great Gatsby (Ipswich, MA: Salem, 2010), 58–71; Michael Patrick Gillespie, Oscar Wilde and the Poetics of Ambiguity (Gainesville: University of Florida Press,

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

13

In the canon of Shakespeare, this reappraisal has been particularly fruitful. The characters of Othello, Desdemona, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Lady Macbeth among others have all received their due. In fact, there is scarcely a major character among the major tragedies and comedies who has not been reread through the lens of ambiguity. The character of Henry V has received a particularly interesting treatment. He is simultaneously pious (as shown in his private prayers) and skeptical; he is both morally responsible and yet repeatedly refuses to accept moral responsibility for attacking France. He is a complex and morally ambiguous character.24 Moreover, the complexity and ambiguity of Henry reflects the ambivalent attitude that Londoners had in 1599 (the date of its composition) toward an anticipated and threatened war with Ireland. In his thorough review of the history of the time, James Shapiro notes how the attitudes of England at the time were directly reflected in the unusual nature of the play Henry the Fifth and especially in its main character and namesake. The play succeeds and frustrates because it consistently refuses to adopt a single voice or point of view about military adventurism—past and present. Shakespeare was aware that on some deep level, as their brothers, husbands, and sons were being shipped off to fight in Ireland, Elizabethans craved a play that reassuringly reminded them of their heroic, martial past. What better subject 1996); Florence L. Walzl, Ambiguity in the Structural Symbols of Gabriel’s Vision in Joyce’s The Dead, Wisconsin Studies in Literature 2 (Oshkosh, WI: Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English, 1965); Joyce A. Rowe, Equivocal Endings in Classic American Novels: The Scarlet Letter, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Ambassadors, and The Great Gatsby (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Paul B. Dixon, Reversible Readings: Ambiguity in Four Modern Latin American Novels (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1985). 24.  Among the many treatments, the most recent include: N. R. Helms, “Conceiving Ambiguity: Dynamic Mindreading in Shakespeare’s ‘Twelfth Night’,” Philosophy and Literature 36, no. 1 (2012): 122–35; Yeeyon Im, “Poetics of Ambiguity: Reading Shakespeare’s Chronotope” (in Korean), Journal of English Language and Literature 56, no. 1 (2010): 3–23; Sofie Kluge, “An Apology for Antony: Morality and Pathos in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra,” Orbis Litterarum 63, no. 4 (2008): 304–34. See also the seminal essays: Francis Fergusson, “Macbeth as the Imitation of an Action,” in English Institute Essays, ed. Alan S. Downer (New York: AMS, 1952), 31–43; Maynard Mack, Everybody’s Shakespeare: Reflections Chiefly on the Tragedies (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993). The ambiguous nature of many of Shakespeare’s tragedies and comedies is a major theme of Marc C. Conner’s lecture, “How to Read and Understand Shakespeare,” in The Great Courses, Course 2711 (The Learning Company, 2013).

14

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha than the famous victories of Henry V?… But Shakespeare also knew that this same audience—already weary of military call-ups and fresh demands to arm and victual troops, and unnerved by frightful reports from settlers and soldiers returning from Ireland—were by the eve of Essex’s departure of two minds about the campaign… In responding to this audience’s mixed feelings, their sense that the war was both unavoidable and awful, Shakespeare fills the play with competing, critical voices… Much of the play, from beginning to end, is composed of scenes in which opposing voices collide over the conduct of the war. In truth, there’s not much else to the plot. Critics who complain that “a siege and a battle, with one bit of light love-making cannot form a drama” are not wrong as far as that goes. What they overlook is that all the debate about the war is the real story.25

This double-voiced attitude toward war is most especially found within the single character of Henry himself. He, in all his complexity and ambiguity, becomes the focus of the ambivalent attitudes that Elizabethans had about the coming war, and undoubtedly about warfare in general. In a similar way, this study will argue and discuss how the ambiguous nature of the prophetic characters of Elijah and Elisha reflect the ambivalence that the narrator has toward prophecy as a whole, an ambivalence that is provoked in the attitude of the reader while he or she encounters the stories.26 A second, and final, aspect that should be briefly explored is the avenue of culture and politics with regard to ambiguity in literature. A recent edition of the journal CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture is dedicated to the topic “Ambiguity in Culture and Literature.”27 The articles in the volume are an excellent introduction to the multiple (indeed, multitudinous) ways in which ambiguity has expanded and has become a subject on its own within the fields of literary criticism and philosophy. In the introduction to the volume, Paolo Bartoloni and Anthony Stephens describe cultural ambiguity and the social contexts in which it is most pronounced and clear: Cultural ambiguity often becomes most visible when a dominant, host culture protests against a real or imaginary “contamination” by minority cultures or when a culture that has been in subjection seeks to emancipate itself from cultural imperialism. The present debates in Europe and elsewhere about the meaning and desirability of “multiculturalism” and the 25.  James Shapiro, A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599 (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 91–92. 26.  Note my previous short discussion about the terms “ambiguity” and “ambivalence” in n. 6. 27.  CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 12, no. 4 (2010).

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

15

rapidly growing literature on postcolonialism illustrate this point. Even in everyday life, the fascination of the exotic and the appropriation of aspects of one culture by another often go unnoticed until a nerve is struck and there is a programmatic movement to restore the imagined “purity” of a dominant or supposedly “pristine” culture… It thus seems that ambiguity, or its lack, may be the entrance to different domains, determining in turn the possibility—which is also our potentiality—to move at ease between modalities of discourse and being.28

In the same volume, Vrasidas Karalis notes that “the sublime is always ambiguous since it encapsulates a moment in history when the present dominant perception is confronted with its own limitations, creating thus a cluster of meanings which can be interpreted in multiple ways.”29 This conflict of cultures and the desire of a minority culture to instantiate its own viewpoints and hermeneutical realities over against a dominant culture or worldview is one of the primary nexuses in which ambiguity, particularly literary ambiguity, comes to the fore. As an example of this phenomenon, Houston Baker, Jr., discusses the use of ambiguity in African American literature. He notes that sematic levels of meaning in African American letters are ubiquitous and emphasizes that when readers take African American literature at face value, they risk not getting to its communicative core. Literature produced in this environment is often particularly steeped in an ambiguous ethos and it is precisely the ambiguous nature of the literature that is the point, a point which is often missed by those who read only for “the” truth conveyed by the writing.30 In an analogous way, the Elijah–Elisha narratives themselves, whenever they were composed or edited together, portray their main prophetic characters with a high degree of ambiguity and, further, display and create in their readers unavoidable ambivalence toward the phenomenon of prophecy. None of the Elijah and Elisha narratives reject the possibility of valid prophetic activity, but they consistently reveal an awareness that the authority that people and societies regularly give to individuals who have persuasive speech, perhaps undergirded with miraculous signs, is a real danger. As such, prophecy is given its respectful acknowledgment, 28.  Paolo Bartoloni and Anthony Stephens, “Introduction,” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 12, no. 4 (2010): 1–2. 29.  Vrasidas Karalis, “Disambiguating the Sublime and the Historicity of the Concept,” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 12, no. 4 (2010): 2. 30.  Hazel Arnett Ervin, Handbook of African American Literature (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004), 139–42.

16

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

but these prophetic stories are told in a way that raises many questions and provides few reassurances about the supposedly godly and honorable nature of their protagonists. Although the Elijah and Elisha narratives may be read with a surplus of meaning and may be read differently by different readers (which is certainly the case and with which I have no argument), my own reading sees the portrayal of the characters of Elijah and Elisha as ambiguous characters explicitly in their role as prophets: as appearing in a more positive light in some episodes, more negative in other episodes, and thoroughly opaque in still other episodes. Are the prophetic figures of Elijah and Elisha trustworthy, and do they always know and speak and obey the word of YHWH—nothing more, nothing less, nothing else? Although the question is simple, the answer will be complex. It will be ambiguous. The ambiguity of prophecy as revealed in the Elijah and Elisha narratives has a very close congruence with the evaluation of prophecy in Deuteronomy, particularly in chs. 13 and 18. The congruence is so close, in fact, that it will be clear that the prophetic narratives reverberate with the issues and questions that the Deuteronomic texts raise. It would be difficult interpreting the stories of Elijah and Elisha without an awareness of the instructions about prophecy present in Deuteronomy.31 It is to those texts that we now turn. D. Deuteronomy and Prophecy Deuteronomy is unique in the legal corpora of the Hebrew Bible for having explicit laws addressing the phenomenon of prophecy generally and the status and significance of prophets individually.32 In two separate passages, 13:1–6 and 18:15–22, Deuteronomy addresses the situation of

31.  It is important to state that I am not making any historical argument about the origin of Deut 13 or 18 or the Elijah narratives or the Elisha narratives. I only note that the issues raised by both of the Deuteronomic texts and by the Elijah and Elisha narratives are very, very similar, if not identical. It is clear that the various texts have an interplay and produce a similar ambivalence about the status of prophecy as a means to know the divine will. 32.  It appears as if Deuteronomy is not as concerned about the phenomenon of what scholars have termed “false prophecy” as, for example, the book of Jeremiah. In Deuteronomy, the concern is less with the “truth” of a prophetic proclamation as it is with whether the proclamation originates from YHWH’s mouth. The distinction is an interesting, important, and provocative one.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

17

a prophet arising and pronouncing a message that seems to be from the deity. I will now turn to both passages and explore what each says about prophecy as a phenomenon and what strictures it places upon it.33 1. Deuteronomy 13:1–6 (ET 12:32–13:5) This passage occurs in a larger context concerning the centralization of worship “in the place that YHWH, your God, shall choose as a dwelling for his name” (12:11). The larger passage begins with instructions that the Israelites, once they cross over the Jordan and receive the land, should tear down all non-Yahwistic shrines (12:1–7). After this follows a command to search out “the place,” which will serve as the central site of sacrifice and festival for the Israelites (vv. 8–12). There then follows a longer passage outlining the various types of activities that should occur at “the place,” as well as a section that allows Israelites who live far from “the place” to eat meat in their own hometowns, with no need to slaughter animals for meat only at the sanctuary (vv. 13–27). After this is a short hortatory statement, encouraging the readers/hearers to do as the Deuteronomic Torah commands (v. 28). Having dealt with the centrality and importance of “the place,” the narrator reaches back and addresses the activities that occurred in the passage concerning the destroyed shrines of vv. 1–7. Simply because the shrines would no longer be standing does not mean that the activities that occurred there might not be repeated. The narrator, therefore, moves on to warn against performing non-Yahwistic religious practices in the name of YHWH (vv. 29–31). Up to this point in the text, the centralization of worship at “the place” has been the focus of the passage for a very good reason. In the larger rhetorical and ideological perspective of Deuteronomy, the unified worship of YHWH symbolizes and illustrates the unity and fidelity of the people as a whole toward YHWH as their sole deity. There is one deity, who is worshiped by one people, in one place.34 Anything that detracts or

33.  While I have outlined similar views about Deuteronomy’s understanding and critique of the phenomenon of prophecy elsewhere, it seems not only helpful, but also necessary to review it here again, with additional considerations that pertain to the narratives about Elijah and Elisha. See Roy L. Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy, LHBOTS 440 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2006), 21–33. 34.  Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 149. See also Moshe Greenberg, “Religion: Stability and Ferment,” in The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society, ed. Abraham Malamat, Vol. 4.2 of The World

18

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

undermines that unified vision—either actually or ideologically—has the real possibility of undermining the fidelity of the people toward God and must be stopped or repaired. It is here, precisely at the point where the question of how the people might be led away from their single-minded devotion to YHWH and be led either to the worship of other gods outright or to aberrant worship of YHWH, that Deut 13:1–6 introduces the topic of the influence of prophets upon the people: ‫את כל־הדבר אׁשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תׁשמרו לעׂשות לא־תסף עליו ולא‬ ‫תגרע ממנו׃‬ ‫כי־יקום בקרבך נביא או חלם חלום ונתן אליך אות או מופת׃‬ ‫ובא האות והמופת אׁשר־דבר אליך לאמר נלכה אחרי אלהים אחרים אׁשר‬ ‫לא־ידעתם ונעבדם׃ לא תׁשמע אל־דברי הנביא ההוא או אל־חולם החלום‬ ‫ההוא כי מנסה יהוה אלהיכם אתכם לדעת היׁשכם אהבים את־יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫בכל־לבבכם ובכל־נפׁשכם׃‬ ‫אחרי יהוה אלהיכם תלכו ואתו תיראו ואת־מצותיו תׁשמרו ובקלו תׁשמעו ואתו‬ ‫תעבדו ובו תדבקון׃‬ ‫והנביא ההוא או חלם החלום ההוא יומת כי דבר־סרה על־יהוה אלהיכם המוציא‬ ‫אתכם מארץ מצרים והפדך מבית עבדים להדיחך מן־הדרך אׁשר צוך יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫ללכת בה ובערת הרע מקרבך׃‬ Every single thing that I am commanding you is what you must be sure to do; do not add to it or take anything from it. When a prophet or a dreamer of a dream appears among you and gives you a sign or a miracle, and the sign or miracle occurs, then when he says, “Let us follow other gods” (whom you have not known) “and let us serve them,” you must not heed the words of that prophet or that dreamer of a dream; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. YHWH your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. But that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death for having spoken treason against YHWH your God—the one who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery—for turning you from the way in which YHWH your God commands you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

History of the Jewish People (Jerusalem: Massada, 1979), 119; Jeffrey Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996), 459–64; Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 129–34.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

19

The passage falls naturally into four parts. After an initial warning neither to add nor delete any single thing from the whole of what is being commanded (v. 1), the section deals with a prophet or “a dreamer” who, by means of signs or miracles, is able to persuade Israel to serve any god besides YHWH (vv. 2–4). After this comes a central affirmation about the unified nature of the devotion and worship which Israel is to give YHWH (v. 5). Finally, the subject of the errant prophet or dreamer is picked up again, with the command to put the traitor to death. In this way, “evil” will be eradicated from Israel’s midst (v. 6).35 Absolutely nothing in the text even hints that the default position of an Israelite should be to trust and believe prophets. There is no indication that the subject of the passage is rare or unusual or out of the norm, and no recognition that the vast majority of prophets are sent by God for the proclamation of the divine will, though there are a few “rotten apples” here and there that Israel must be on the lookout for. No, the passage—the first passage in Deuteronomy that speaks about prophets—from beginning to end sees prophets as problematic, as people who are able, through their words and through the miracles and signs that they are able to do, to seduce and delude and thrust Israel out of the way that they should walk. As I have noted elsewhere, if “prophet or dreamer of a dream” were replaced with the words “clairvoyant or necromancer,” the passage would be no more Deuteronomic in its outlook and the warning would be no less serious.36 Prophets here are contrasted, both before and afterwards, with the central assertion of v. 5. Whatever it may be that prophets are trying to do, Deuteronomy reiterates what Israel must focus on, which is clearly opposed to these particular prophetic pronouncements. The verse includes a list of six affirmations about the relationship that Israel has with YHWH and the rhetorical force of the list is highlighted with the fronting of either a prepositional phrase or a direct object at the beginning of each clause:

35.  For an analysis of how Deut 13:1–6 fits within the texts which follow it, see Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 23–24. See also Marti Nissinen, “Falsche Prophetie in neuassyrischer und deuteronomistischer Darstellung,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen, ed. Timo Veijola (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 182–93; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 99; Ernst Jenni, “Dtn 16,19: sarā Falschheit,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT 212 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 201–11. 36.  Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 22.

20

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha ‫אחרי יהוה אלהיכם תלכו‬ ‫ואתו תיראו‬ ‫ואת־מצותיו תׁשמרו‬ ‫ובקלו תׁשמעו‬ ‫ואתו תעבדו‬ ‫ובו תדבקון‬ It is after YHWH your God that you must follow! (Not these prophets!) It is him that you must fear! (Not these prophets!) It is his commandments that you must keep! (Not the words of these prophets!) It is his voice that you must heed! (Not the voice of these prophets!) It is him that you must serve! (Not these prophets!) It is to him that you must cling! (Not to these prophets!)

The list can be thought of as the central affirmation of Deuteronomy as a whole; it is Deuteronomic Theology in a nutshell. One might ask: if Israel is to keep the commands of YHWH and to heed YHWH’s voice, how are they to do so, unless they listen to the voice of prophets? And it is precisely here that Deuteronomy’s rhetorical force about the contrast between YHWH’s word and the word of prophets is so strong. Israel knows YHWH’s word because they can hear and read it within Deuteronomy itself. Anything that deviates, anything that adds, anything that subtracts from Deuteronomy’s unified vision of love and devotion to YHWH undermines the unified whole. And this warning of deviation, addition, or subtraction includes the words of prophets. Before turning our attention to the second passage in Deuteronomy that deals with prophets (this one a bit more positive), I must note the rhetorical or, perhaps, hortatory use of “signs or miracles” in the passage, because these will be important when the discussion turns to Elijah and Elisha in the next two chapters. As Jeffrey Tigay has noted, the use of signs in connection with the declaration of a divine message is a common motif in non-Deuteronomic passages; signs and miracles often function to authenticate the divine origin of the message: Hebrew ’ot [“sign”] and mofet [“miracle”] refer to portentous signs shown by the prophet to demonstrate that his message really comes from God. The terms refer to marvels beyond human capability, such as a staff turning into a snake, which could only have been brought about by supernatural power (Exod. 4:1–9). As indicated by verse 3 (“comes true”), such signs are usually announced in advance. God armed Moses with such marvels to convince the Israelites and Pharaoh that He had really spoken to him. Similarly, the altar at Bethel broke apart to authenticate the words of a prophet, and the shadow

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

21

on the steps of a sundial receded to authenticate a prophecy by Isaiah. Such signs are used only when those addressed by the prophet find it difficult to believe him or stubbornly refuse to do so.37

These are the ways in which signs or miracles function within non-Deuteronomic texts in regard to the words of someone who speaks on behalf of God. For Deuteronomy, however, their function is slightly different. Two elements of Tigay’s explication are important for Deuteronomy and for the later discussion about Elijah and Elisha. First, the motif of a “sign” or a “miracle/wonder” is common in Deuteronomy. However, in every other instance in the book, the phrase ‫ אות או מופת‬/ “sign(s) or miracle(s)” is tied only to the signs or plagues associated with the bringing of Israel out of Egypt (4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:8; 28:46; 29:2; and 34:11).38 It is never used elsewhere in Deuteronomy as a means by which one can be assured of the veracity of a divine message or the truthfulness of a prophet. In fact, the presence of the phrase in the prophetic legislation of Deut 13 seems to highlight the sham nature of any sign produced by a prophet; the prophet described by the legislation is underhandedly trying to become a new Moses, producing those miracles that only Moses could bring about in the redemption of Israel from their bondage. As such, Deuteronomy warns, signs and miracles are not reliable criteria for discerning YHWH’s message. Second, even if the sign did point to the validity of a divine message, the nature of the miracle performed by the prophet is not for its own sake. It is a means by which the hearers/observers can be lead into trusting the invitation of the prophet, either negatively (in the case of Deut 13:1–6) or positively (in the case of Deuteronomy’s portrayal of Moses in the tradition of the exodus from Egypt).39 In either case, the sign occurs 37.  Tigay, Deuteronomy, 129–30. 38.  The NRSV translation of 13:2 (ET 13:1) is very telling about the desire of the translators to minimize the cognitive dissonance which the text is clearly trying to create. As opposed to virtually every other major English translation (KJV, ASV, NIV, CEB, even the RSV) which read the phrase ‫ ונתן אליך אות או מופת‬as “and gives you a sign and a wonder,” the NRSV chooses the much more negative and speculative phrase, “and promise you omens or portents.” This phrasing seems to imply that the miraculous events are clearly less than wonderful. The NRSV translates the phrase elsewhere in Deuteronomy, when referring to Moses’ actions, always as “signs and wonders.” When referring to the results of disobedience in 28:46, it uses the phrase “a sign and a portent.” 39.  Signs seem to be the proof of the veracity of the entire ministry of Moses, including, perhaps, the giving of the Deuteronomic Torah itself in Deut 34:11–12.

22

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

before the hearers give their obedience or trust to the prophet; the sign is a means to motivate the people toward that obedience or trust. One can reconstruct a sequence of events in such a scenario: first the prophet appears; then the prophet gives a command or suggestion in the form of a divinely inspired message; the people are unsure about the source of the message (or are stubbornly resistant to the message); the prophet produces a sign; the people see the sign; and they then—on the basis of the sign—believe the prophet and obey his command or suggestion.40 In neither case is the miracle the “point” of the interaction between prophet and people. The sign only functions to inspire faith in the message or messenger. This is why the prophet in Deut 13 produces a sign; it is also why, in the traditions surrounding the liberation from Egypt, Moses performs signs. In the exodus materials, the people of Israel see the signs and then they trust that Moses is YHWH’s messenger; in Deut 13, the people of Israel see the signs and are tempted to worship other gods. Moreover, in neither case is the miracle dependent upon the trust or obedience of the people. Since the miracle is not the “point” of the interaction, it cannot serve as the conclusion of the interaction. Trust or obedience must follow the sign or miracle. These two points are important and will be brought up again in the exploration about the stories of Elijah and Elisha in Chapters 2 and 3. 2. Deuteronomy 18:15–22 In light of the previous discussion, it is surprising, perhaps, that Deuteronomy does not outlaw prophets in toto. Quite the contrary, Deuteronomy discusses the office of “prophet” in a central section of the law code which focuses on administrative offices within the Deuteronomic society, including judges (16:18–17:13), kings (17:14–20), and Levitical priests (18:1–8). These four offices are all held in a delicate balance of power, with the Levitical priests as the central executors. Interest focuses on how these officeholders are to be selected, their functions, the obedience owed to them, and mechanisms of succession. The appointment of judges is commanded, the choice of a king is allowed, priests are already in place but are to be centralized, while the prophet is 40.  For example, this seems to be the sequence planned in the scene at the burning bush when the three signs (rod into serpent, leprous hand, water in a jar turning to blood) are given to Moses (Exod 4:1–9). It is also the sequence in almost every other biblical story—outside of the Deuteronomistic History—where signs or miracles are used to motivate obedience. The sign-sequence seems to be inverted in Exod 3:12, where the sign of Moses being YHWH’s agent (Israel’s worship at Horeb) occurs after the liberation from slavery, but this is a rare, if not unique, use of a sign.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

23

promised by YHWH. Judges are a human choice, priest and prophet are divinely endorsed, while the king is designated by both YHWH and Israel. The “constitution” conceives of Israel as a unitary realm with centralized institutions and state power to enforce obedience… The result is a coherent constitutional system directed by the notion of check and balances.41

In the ideal Deuteronomic society these four offices—judges, kings, Levitical priests, and prophets—all have their place and function. While they may “check” each other, they are not, however, well-balanced. Judges and recorders, for example, may be appointed by the people as they see fit and may serve “throughout your tribes, in all your towns” (16:18).42 These judges are able to hear cases that are straightforward, as well as cases that involve worship of other gods or other illicit types of worship. These judges, however, are not given final authority in more serious, capital or corporal, cases. For these types of cases, as well as “difficult cases,” the Levitical priests are the final arbiter and interpreter of the law (17:8–13). In a similar way, the king is able to perform administrative roles, but must not imagine that his office is above other offices or people (17:20). While he may have a military, wives, and a treasury, all these must be limited and must not be multiplied (vv. 16–17). Since he cannot conduct large-scale warfare (no horses), conclude international treaties (not many wives), or regulate commerce (not much gold or silver)—the three primary functions of a monarch in practically all societies—what is the role of the king in an ideal Deuteronomic society? His role, in short, is to become the model (Deuteronomic) Israelite: reading, studying, and obeying the Torah, all in the presence of the Levitical priests, who, vigilant, stand ever ready to interpret the commands from which he must not turn aside “either to the right or the left” (v. 20). 41.  Nelson, Deuteronomy, 213. Note also the work of Norbert Lohfink, “Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18–18:22,” in Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Duane L. Christensen, SBTS 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 336–52. 42.  It is unclear what, exactly, the function of the ‫ ׁשטרים‬were. The word is translated as “official” in the NRSV. In light of other Deuteronomic texts, they seem to be associated with the military in some position, usually as those who keep a record of lists of those who are mustered, as well as those who are missing (1:15; 20:5, 8–9). They also are present when large bodies of Israelites present themselves on special occasions (29:9; 31:28). As such, it seems as if they might be those who are responsible for keeping lists of various groups. I have translated the word as “recorders” to reflect this function.

24

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

For both the judges and the king, their position is overseen by the Levitical priests, who have certain privileges and rights not accrued to other Israelites of whatever station or function. Their role seems to be the guarantors and guardians of the Deuteronomic Torah and the primary interpreters of it for the society. For example, while judges may freely mete out justice on a common level (16:18–20), it is the Levitical priests themselves who actually determine what “justice” means and how it is to be applied, particularly in “difficult cases” (17:8–10). Their word is to be followed exactly; “do not turn aside from the decision that they tell you, either to the right or to the left” (17:11), a phrase that essentially equates the role of the Levitical priests with that of the Deuteronomic Torah itself (5:32–33; 28:14)! Anyone who disobeys the word of the Levitical priest, either directly or as it is mediated through the judge, acts, in the terminology of Deuteronomy, ‫ בזדון‬/ “in arrogance” and must be put to death (17:12; note also 21:5). No other office and no other functionary is as closely aligned with Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic worldview as the Levitical priests. They seem to be the embodiment of what it means to be Deuteronomic.43 Can one, however, know YHWH’s will and direction, not just in the overarching and general perspective of single-minded loyalty to YHWH, but in particular circumstances? Can YHWH make his desires known to particular people for particular purposes? Deuteronomy answers, “Yes, of course!” But not without qualifications. First, certain means of discerning YHWH’s will are absolutely illicit. Deuteronomy 18:9–14 provides a list of functionaries that are abhorrent and that may not be engaged to determine the desires of God: 1. One who causes a son or daughter to pass through fire.44 2. One who divines by the manipulation of either arrows or sticks. 3. One who divines either by clouds or by causing spirits to appear.

43.  As such, their presence in the book probably functions as a cipher for the proponents of Deuteronomy themselves. 44.  While occasionally performed as a sacrifice, usually the burning of offspring was done as a means of divination, as in 2 Kgs 17:17 and 21:6. It has been suggested that the survival or death of the child would indicate a yes or no answer to a question. The burning of children may also have functioned in conjunction with necromancy (‫)דרׁש אל־המתים‬, so that one could receive messages from the recently killed child, over which the inquirer would, post mortem, still have parental authority to inquire and receive honest answers. If so, then the first and final types of divination, both consisting of inquiring of the dead, in the list form an inclusio.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

25

4. One who divines by observing the surface of either oil or water in a cup. 5. One who divines by the practice of magic, probably understood as the manipulation of physical objects to produce various effects. 6. One who divines by the pronouncing of magic spells. 7. One who divines by the asking of questions of spirits or of familiars (“knowers”). 8. One who seeks answers from the dead.45 These various means of ascertaining the mind and will of YHWH (or of other deities) are considered to be outside prescribed boundaries (‫)תועבה‬ and are precisely the reason why YHWH dispossesses the inhabitants of the land (18:12, 14). As an alternative to these functionaries, Deut 18:15–22 proposes the office of prophet for proclaiming YHWH’s will to particular individuals. ‫נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמני יקים לך יהוה אלהיך אליו תׁשמעון׃‬ ‫ככל אׁשר־ׁשאלת מעם יהוה אלהיך בחרב ביום הקהל לאמר לא אסף לׁשמע‬ ‫את־קול יהוה אלהי ואת־האׁש הגדלה הזאת לא־אראה עוד ולא אמות׃‬ ‫ויאמר יהוה אלי היטיבו אׁשר דברו׃‬ ‫נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי בפיו ודבר אליהם את כל־אׁשר‬ ‫אצונו׃ והיה האיׁש אׁשר לא־יׁשמע אל־דברי אׁשר ידבר בׁשמי אנכי אדרׁש מעמו׃‬ ‫אך הנביא אׁשר יזיד לדבר דבר בׁשמי את אׁשר לא־צויתיו לדבר ואׁשר ידבר בׁשם‬ ‫אלהים אחרים ומת הנביא ההוא׃‬ ‫וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את־הדבר אׁשר לא־דברו יהוה׃ אׁשר ידבר הנביא‬ ‫בׁשם יהוה ולא־יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא הוא הדבר אׁשר לא־דברו יהוה בזדון דברו‬ ‫הנביא לא תגור ממנו׃‬ A prophet—from your midst and from your relations––one like me, will YHWH your God raise up; you shall heed him. This is what you requested of YHWH your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: “If I hear the voice of YHWH my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.” Then YHWH replied to me: “They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from the midst of their relations. I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. But any prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet shall die.”

45.  Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 25–26.

26

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha Perhaps, you may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that YHWH has not spoken?” When the prophet speaks in the name of YHWH but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by him.

Many scholars see this “Law of the Prophet” as being very different and having a very different quality as that promulgated in ch. 13. Here, it might seem, the office of the prophet is elevated to a status that is similar to that accrued to the Levitical priests throughout the larger section of Deuteronomy. In ch. 13, prophets (and by extension the phenomenon of prophecy as a whole) were treated with suspicion as a source of rebellion against YHWH. Here, many scholars hold, the raising up of the Prophet like Moses, the Mosaic Prophet, is the climax of all the Deuteronomic society’s political offices: The portrait of Moses sketched in Deuteronomy reaches its climax in the portrayal of him as the model for any future prophets (18:15, 18) and as the greatest of all prophets (34:10–12). In some sense Moses’ role as prophet incorporates the other characteristics emphasized by Deuteronomy… All of these are in some way found in the life and work of prophets… But one can expect that the Lord will raise up a prophet (or prophets) who, like Moses, will faithfully convey God’s word to the people and in so doing represent God’s rule in the new order being created by God in and through this people.46

This picture of the Mosaic prophet is very rosy and clear: God speaks through the mouth of the prophet in a lucid and straightforward way. All Israel must do is simply obey the words of the prophet, which are, of course, identical with the words of YHWH. On the other hand, a few scholarly discussions note that in its discussion of the Prophet like Moses, Deuteronomy often comes out looking rather naïve and, for some scholars, downright foolish. The description of prophecy in Deut 18 is sometimes seen as evidence that the Deuteronomists are immature, with no awareness of the nuances of political power that prophets might exercise in reality. Other scholars believe that the Deuteronomists had little awareness of prophecy as a real institution; their evaluation and understanding of it, as depicted here in Deut 18, is usually seen as simpleminded, unsophisticated and, ultimately, unhelpful:

46.  Miller, Deuteronomy, 154–55.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

27

[Deuteronomy] operated with a simplistic model of prophecy as a predicting of events that could be checked off a list as they occurred. However prophecy as it appears in the prophetic traditions was essentially a preaching for a decision type of activity. To have asked for a suspension of judgment until the catastrophe had happened would have vitiated the whole prophetic endeavor… This inadequate and unrealistic criteriology was probably due to a combination of the writers’ lack of experience of prophecy in action, lack of serious reflection on the subject, part of their ideological approach to the subject and the great difficulty of clearly establishing adequate criteria for determining prophetic authenticity.47

So prophecy as an institution in Deuteronomy is seen by some as simplistic and lacking in depth and, simultaneously, is seen by others as the consummate Deuteronomic politico-religious office. While clearly different, these two positions are not mutually exclusive and, rather, might be thought of as two ends of an ideological spectrum, the midst of which might reflect the complex views which Deuteronomy holds concerning prophets and prophecy. It is clear that ch. 13 portrays prophets as individuals who are able, through signs and miracles and persuasive speech, to thrust Israel away from the good and right way that they should walk, a way centered on exclusive loving loyalty to YHWH (13:5). Does the law of ch. 18 set up a conflicting and opposite scenario, which unabashedly holds up prophecy as completely trustworthy and always leading to inspiring devotion in Israel? 47.  R. P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses in the Old Testament Prophetic Traditions (London: SCM, 1979), 186. Note also Jeffrey Tigay’s comments: “Verse 22 [of ch. 18] answers that the false oracle is one that does not come true… Understood literally, this answer is puzzling. It seems too obvious to need stating, and not very useful. The people could hardly suspend judgment about the authenticity of every prophecy until its outcome was clear” (Deuteronomy, 177). For other arguments in this vein, see Hans M. Barstad, “The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy,” SJOT 8 (1994): 236–51 (who sees Deuteronomy as having a negative evaluation toward prophecy); K. Jeppesen, “Is Deuteronomy Hostile Towards Prophets?,” SJOT 8 (1994): 252–56 (who sees Deuteronomy as somewhat, but not completely, negative toward prophets); E. Otto, “ ‘Das Deuteronomium krönt die Arbeit der Propheten.’ Gesetz under Prophetie im Deuteronomium,” in Ich bewirke das Heil under erschaffe das Unheil (Jesaja 45,7), Forschung zur Bibel 88 (Würzburg: Echter, 1998), 277–309 (who sees Deuteronomy as undercutting the legitimacy of prophecy). Many of these scholars, based on their assumption that the Deuteronomists have no real experience with prophecy as a phenomenon in society, argue that this law (or the entire larger passage of political functionaries) were very late additions to the text, after prophecy as an active force in society had died out.

28

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

It does not; ch. 18 also has certain doubts about prophetic activity and does not see it as on par with the truth of the Deuteronomic Torah. In fact, it provides a rhetorically complex and layered exploration of the phenomenon of prophecy itself, attentive to both the theoretical/theological validity of God’s using the prophetic experience to keep Israel centered upon its love and devotion to their deity, while simultaneously revealing and laying bare the real dangers of prophecy as a phenomenon that can easily sidetrack Israel and lead it to rebellion and apostasy. This combination is exactly the rhetorical resolution of the law of the prophet. In the same way in which Deuteronomy simultaneously validates and severely limits the power of judges and kings, the law of the prophet here in Deut 18 accomplishes the same feat for prophets: validation and limitation. The Deuteronomic legislation about “the prophet” is rhetorically complex and has several layers, both textual and rhetorical. Structurally, the passage comprises five sections, each of which rhetorically accomplish a particular goal: A. B. C. D. E.

It promises that a prophet will come from Israel, and will be like Moses (v. 15); It provides an etiology for the institution of prophecy from the Deuteronomic tradition about Horeb (vv. 16–17); It acknowledges the seriousness with which prophecy should be understood (vv. 18–19); It provides a theoretical criterion for when a prophet does not speak the word of YHWH (v. 20); and It tries to deal with the problem of the undecidability of the validity of any particular prophetic experience (vv. 21–22).48

Each of these elements are extremely important for building up the complex rhetorical edifice that houses Deuteronomy’s evaluation of the phenomenon of prophecy. I will discuss them individually in sequence, one by one:

48.  Nelson, Deuteronomy, 234. I have slightly amended Nelson’s schema by separating out the focus on the “presumptuous prophet” in v. 20 and the question and answer focusing on the response of Israel in vv. 21–22.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

29

A. It promises that a prophet will come from Israel, and will be like Moses (v. 15) ‫נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמני יקים לך יהוה אלהיך אליו תׁשמעון׃‬ A prophet—from your midst and from your relations––one like me, will YHWH your God raise up; you shall heed him.

In most English translations, the focus of the sentence seems to be on the fact that it will be YHWH who will raise up the prophet. For example, the NRSV translates the verse as, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet.” In this configuration of the phrases, it would appear in the first clause that that YHWH’s appointing or raising up of the prophet is important; what is less important is the fact that the prophet is like Moses, and what is least important is that the prophet is one of the Israelites. This is, however, due to the fact that normal English syntax requires the subject to come first, then the verb, then any objects or phrases or dependent clauses later in the sentence. Normal Hebrew syntax for a clause often requires the verb to come first, then the subject, then the object or other parts of the clause. Here, however, the syntax is inverted in an effort to “front” or highlight the most important aspects of the clause and place them first, then have other elements fall in behind.49 In the case here (and awkwardly represented in my own English translation), it is not the appointment of the prophet by YHWH that is most important. Rather, the most important things that this first line of the law of the prophet states are the fact that, in order: • the prophet comes from the midst of the people of Israel, that he comes from the family relationships within Israel (lit. “from your brothers”), • that he is like Moses, and • that he is appointed “for you” by YHWH your God. These three characteristics of the Prophet like Moses each have further ramifications.

49.  For the topic of “fronting” in Hebrew syntax, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 500–505.

30

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The mention of the family relationships within the midst of Israel is closely paralleled by the previous law of the king in ch. 17. In describing the Deuteronomic vision of the king, the text states that: ‫מקרב אחיך תׂשים‬ ‫ עליך מלך‬/ “from the midst of your relations (lit. ‘brothers’) you shall set a king over you” (17:15). One of the first stipulations concerning who may be a king is that he should come, not only from Israel, but from “your midst.” The significance of this quality is brought up again at the end of the law of the king: the king must read and memorize and live out the Deuteronomic Torah with the result that he ‫לבלתי רום־לבבו מאחיו ולבלתי‬ ‫ סור מן־המצוה‬/ “does not exalt himself over his relations, and does not turn aside from the commandment” (17:20). The phrase is meant to emphasize the commonality and equality of the king with other Israelites. And so it is with the Deuteronomic view of the prophet: the prophet is not an exalted person who is somehow separate from Israel. The most important quality of a prophet, Deuteronomy declares, is that he is “from your midst.” This is also emphasized later in the clause with the prophet being raised up not “over you” but rather ‫ לך‬/ “for you.” Thus the office of the prophet, like the office of the judge and the office of the king, is not a hierarchical office over the other institutions or people of Israel, but rather functions within the set of mutual relationships of those other offices, as well as the family relations within Israel. Moreover, even the designation of the prophet as being “like me,” that is, like Moses, is not meant to convey the superiority of the prophet over other Israelites or other offices. As the epilogue of the book makes very clear, there has never “arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face” (34:10). If the point of the comparison is to exalt the status of prophets, it fails miserably: no prophet can match Moses. With Moses, there was objective, verifiable evidence of his validity which everyone knew: Moses had a face-to-face relationship with YHWH. As such, the comparative “like me” is not one of importance or even quality, but rather similarity of content. When the Mosaic prophet speaks, he will inevitably sound like Moses—as Moses is represented in Deuteronomy, of course. The importance of prophecy could not be denied, but its haphazard and random appearance meant that it had to be treated with great care. It is for this reason that this legislation allows prophecy a place in the religious and public life of Israel, but hedges it about with restrictions. Prophets must be “like Moses,” by which it is intended to affirm that their teaching must accord with the words and spirit of Moses as Israel’s unique leader.50 50.  Ronald E. Clements, “The Book of Deuteronomy,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 2, ed. Leander Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 429.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

31

While it is broadly true that the Mosaic prophet’s words “must accord with the words and spirit” of Moses, in fact, those words must be none other than Moses’ words as they are recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. Nothing more is permissible; nothing less is acceptable; nothing else is possible. As the judges produce their decisions completely in accordance with the law—as it is interpreted by the Levitical priests—not turning either to the right or to the left, even so, the promised Mosaic prophet must pronounce oracles that not only uphold, but in fact repeat, the Mosaic, Deuteronomic Torah, without adding or subtracting from it (13:1).51 B. It provides an etiology for the institution of prophecy from the Deuteronomic tradition about Horeb (vv. 16–17) ‫ככל אׁשר־ׁשאלת מעם יהוה אלהיך בחרב ביום הקהל לאמר לא אסף לׁשמע‬ ‫את־קול יהוה אלהי ואת־האׁש הגדלה הזאת לא־אראה עוד ולא אמות׃‬ ‫ויאמר יהוה אלי היטיבו אׁשר דברו׃‬ This is exactly what you requested of YHWH your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly: “If I hear the voice of YHWH my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.” Then YHWH replied to me: “They are right in what they have said.”

While the raising up of the prophet will be accomplished by God, as with the king in ch. 17, the impetus and origin of the prophetic office actually comes from the people themselves. Because the people could not bear hearing the divine word directly, with its accompanying manifestations of sound and fire, they asked for another means of hearing it. God replies that their request was appropriate and, in fact, is productive. Their request has the effect of “doing or producing something good.”52 In light of Deuteronomy as a whole, the primary effect of their request is, in fact, the manifestation of the book of Deuteronomy itself: Moses (as the primary 51.  Although it is outside the purview of this particular discussion, this is exactly the view of prophecy that is assumed in 2 Kgs 17:13 in the midst of the explanation for the fall of Samaria: “Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, ‘Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.’ ” This summative, reflective statement sees the works of the Mosaic prophets as pointing Israel back to Deuteronomy, reminding them to remain faithful. Whether, however, the prophets who are recounted in the History actually do this consistently is another question. 52.  This is the usual meaning of √‫ יטב‬in Deut 1:23; 4:40; 5:16, 28; 6:3, 18; 8:16; 9:21; 12:25, 28; 13:15; 17:4; 18:17; 19:18; 22:7; 27:8; 28:63; 30:5.

32

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

literary voice within the book) becomes the intermediary and the true interpreter of YHWH’s word. Secondarily, another effect of their request is the institution of the office of prophet with, of course, its restrictions. C. It acknowledges the seriousness with which prophecy should be understood (vv. 18–19) ‫נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי בפיו ודבר אליהם‬ ‫את כל־אׁשר אצונו׃‬ ‫והיה האיׁש אׁשר לא־יׁשמע אל־דברי אׁשר ידבר בׁשמי אנכי אדרׁש מעמו׃‬ “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from the midst of their relations. I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak everything that I will command him. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.”

The law next reiterates the initial statement about YHWH raising up the prophet, here fronting the divine action of the raising, and also noting again that the prophet is on par with all other Israelites (“from the midst of your brothers”). Moreover, YHWH will place his words “in the mouth of the prophet” who will “speak everything that I will command him.” This description of the role of prophets has a two-fold implication. In accordance with the view of the office of prophecy as working within a set of administrative relationships, the phrases used to describe the work and function of the prophet are important. Unlike the view of prophecy that is promulgated in the Latter Prophets—where the prophetic experience is very unlike that experienced by Israel as a whole—Deuteronomy describes the role of the prophet using phrases that parallel the experience of all Israel. The prophet, while exercising a special responsibility, is also described as fulfilling a role that is incumbent upon every member of Israelite society. All Israelites are to have the divine words continually in their mouths (30:11–14; 32:46), speaking them during all waking hours (6:6–7; 11:18–23). Thus the prophet, in a sense, does what everyone is expected to do: pronouncing and repeating God’s word, that is, the Deuteronomic Torah. A second implication of this description is that the prophet, according to Deuteronomy, is seen as the perfect messenger, one who hears the divine word and speaks “everything that” he hears, without adding or subtracting anything from the message.53 53.  In his study of The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), Samuel A. Meier notes that, methodologically, it is improper to equate the

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

33

The law also raises the stakes about the seriousness about obeying the words that YHWH places in the mouth of the prophet. Any disobedience will be met with an accounting directly from God. This statement in the law provides the impetus for all the following theoretical possibilities and provides the foundation for all the rhetorical responses in the following two sections. If obedience is absolutely necessary when YHWH speaks through a prophet, then what criteria are there for determining when that is, in fact, the case? How does one know? D. It provides a theoretical criterion for when a prophet does not speak the word of YHWH (v. 20) ‫בׁשמי את אׁשר לא־צויתיו לדבר ואׁשר ידבר‬0 ‫אך הנביא אׁשר יזיד לדבר דבר‬ ‫בׁשם אלהים אחרים ומת הנביא ההוא׃‬ “But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.”

The law next describes two situations in which Israel can know that YHWH is not speaking through a prophet. In the discussion of Deut 13, it was clear that if a prophet encouraged Israel to worship other gods, then that prophet is, ipso facto, not speaking a word from YHWH. Here the situation is broadened into two additional possibilities. First, if a prophet speaks in the name of other gods, then that prophet is, clearly, not speaking on behalf of YHWH. This is not only objectively and logically true, but also, because of Deuteronomy’s insistence upon single-minded and focused devotion and love for YHWH, it is also theologically true. It is YHWH’s words that Israel must keep; it is YHWH’s voice that they must obey (13:4). It is quite beside the point whether other gods actually might be able to speak through prophets, or whether prophets may role of “prophet” and “messenger” simplistically and use the former to define the latter; the methodological movement, if it is taken at all, should go from literal (“messenger”) to metaphorical (“prophet qua messenger”). In Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History, and prophetic works influenced by Deuteronomic theology such as Jeremiah, prophecy is, likewise, primarily seen in terms of speaking accurately a message that has been heard from YHWH. A primary metaphor in Deuteronomistic texts for a prophet is “servant,” but it is clear that this type of servant is one who speaks on behalf of the one who sends the servant. The notion of “servant” here may, therefore, be understood as a “messenger”; e.g., Deut 18:18; 1 Sam 3:17–18; 1 Kgs 14:18; 2 Kgs 14:25; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Jer 7:25–26; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4. Note, by comparison, 2 Sam 11:22.

34

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

sincerely believe that they are proclaiming messages from other ancient Near Eastern gods. For Deuteronomy, this is all beside the point. Any prophet who proclaims what another god has said is, in the Deuteronomic society, worthy of death, because it borders on deflecting from the unified vision of devotion to YHWH alone. By removing non-YHWH prophets from the realm of possible means to hear YHWH’s word, this possibly opens the door to any prophet to speaks in the name of YHWH. • Is it true that any prophet who speaks in the name of YHWH is always speaking YHWH’s word? ° Certainly not! According to Deut 13, even if a YHWH prophet encourages the worship of other gods (theoretically in addition to YHWH), Israel must not listen to that YHWH prophet. • Is it true, therefore, that if a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH and does not encourage the worship of other gods, then his message is always YHWH’s word?54 ° Certainly not, Deuteronomy answers: the Mosaic prophet only speaks what YHWH has commanded; a YHWH prophet only speaks the words that YHWH has placed in his mouth (v. 17). The Mosaic prophet does not interpret, add to, subtract from, or change the divine word. He speaks only the word of YHWH— nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. But this, rhetorically, causes the reader/hearer to come to a critical point. The question of reliability or verifiability arises. It becomes an epistemological issue: “How can we know…?” And the law, finally, picks up the gauntlet and deals, in its own way, with the question. E. It addresses the problem of the undecidability of the validity of any particular prophetic experience (vv. 21–22) ‫וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את־הדבר אׁשר לא־דברו יהוה׃ אׁשר ידבר הנביא‬ ‫בׁשם יהוה ולא־יהיה הדבר ולא יבוא הוא הדבר אׁשר לא־דברו יהוה בזדון דברו‬ ‫הנביא לא תגור ממנו׃‬ Perhaps, you may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that YHWH has not spoken?” When the prophet speaks in the name of YHWH but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by him. 54.  A situation that is paralleled in Jer 28 with the words of Hananiah the prophet.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

35

The question “How can we know…?” comes to the fore, and it is the question that has been lurking in the background of both sections dealing with prophecy, Deut 13 and 18. And here, at the climax of the discussion, the law makes a surprising and rhetorically sophisticated move. Rather than asking, “How can we know a word that YHWH has spoken?” and answering with a clear and definitive criterion, thus solving all problems and putting to rest all further questions about prophets and the phenomenon of prophecy, the law asks the opposite question: “How can we know a word that YHWH has not spoken?” And the answer that it gives is, on the surface, blatantly (and I might argue intentionally) simplistic: if a word from a prophet does not come true, then it is a word that YHWH did not put in the prophet’s mouth. What does this mean? Does this mean: if a prophet (1) speaks in the name of YHWH, and (2) does not encourage the people to worship other gods, and (3) predicts a sign that comes true, then he is ipso facto the true Mosaic prophet? Does this further mean that any prophet who does so will always and everywhere speak the word of YHWH thereafter? Although the law of the prophet, in its explanations and its criteria, in its rhetorical layers and line-upon-line statements, leads the reader to these inevitable questions, and although this question is, in fact, the only one that truly matters, Deuteronomy (and, further, the narratives of the following Deuteronomistic History) does not—and, perhaps, cannot— answer it. Deuteronomy does not condemn prophecy like it does the other possible types of divination prevalent in the ancient world. On the other hand, it clearly does not validate it wholeheartedly. It is here thoroughly ambivalent about it as a means of discerning the word of YHWH. This criterion about words that YHWH did not speak, in its profound simplicity, reveals not just the difficulty with “false prophecy” alone but also the serious problems with the ideology of prophecy itself as an institution within the life of Israel. How may Israel recognize a word that YHWH has spoken? Deuteronomy is unnervingly silent. Whenever the laws of Deut 13 and 18 were written, whether during the mid- or late-monarchy or during the exile or during the Persian period, it is highly unlikely that their authors had little or no real-life experience with prophecy. Prophecy and prophets were ubiquitous throughout the ancient Near East during the first millennium BCE.55 Furthermore, while the laws 55.  The evaluation of ancient Near Eastern materials dealing with prophecy has, until recently, primarily focused on the Mari texts, which date to the late second millennium BCE. See, in particular, J.-M. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1,

36

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

of Deut 13 and 18 seem on their surface to be naïve and one-dimensional, as examples of rhetorical persuasion they actually set up the questions and concerns and suspicions about prophecy as an institution in the minds of their readers. These questions and concerns will, furthermore, be played out, over and over, throughout our discussions of the Elijah and Elisha narratives. Although they may be viewed as simplistic on a literal level, rhetorically the Deuteronomic laws about prophets actually press the reader to a more nuanced view of prophecy by showing the complexity and ambiguous aspects of the phenomenon of prophecy as a whole, aspects that play out in all their intricacy and difficulty in the stories of these two prophets in the History. Before finally turning to the stories, one additional piece of background material needs to be discussed, because Elijah and Elisha are not the first major prophetic characters that one sees in the History. That place is given to the prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1–16; 28). His story and characterization is very similar to those of Elijah and Elisha. In certain ways their stories will parallel his in their complexity and ambiguous characterization. On the other hand, the stories of Elijah and Elisha will go further and address the critical question of the role of signs and miracles in the evaluation of a prophet. But first, let us look briefly at Samuel. E. The Ambiguous Character of Samuel In a previous volume in this series, I examined the stories about Samuel the prophet and examine the ambiguity of his character.56 From his miraculous birth (1 Sam 1), to his serving in the holy precincts under the

ARM 36 (Paris: Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1988). Recently, however, various Neo-Assyrian texts, which are more contemporaneous with many of the biblical materials, have been made very accessible by S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), and the parallel study by Martti Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources, SAAS 7 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998). For a succinct comparison of the various perspectives, see Hans M. Barstad, “Comparare necesse est? Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy in a Comparative Perspective,” in Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives, ed. Martti Nissinen, SBLSymS 13 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 3–11. 56.  Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy. The overview which I provide here is only the basic thesis of the work. The argument, interpretation, and evaluation of the details of the text of 1 Samuel are fully presented in the work itself.

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

37

priest Eli (2:18–21), to his contrast with Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phineas (2:22–26), to his receiving an oracle from YHWH about the destruction of Eli’s house (3:1–4:1), to his rescuing Israel from an immanent attack by the Philistines (7:3–17), Samuel is portrayed in the first seven chapters of the book as a wholly positive character, much like his mother, Hannah. However, starting with 1 Sam 8:1–3, Samuel, now an old man, appears in a very different light: ‫ויהי כאׁשר זקן ׁשמואל ויׂשם את־בניו ׁשפטים ליׂשראל׃‬ ‫ויהי ׁשם־בנו הבכור יואל וׁשם מׁשנהו אביה ׁשפטים בבאר ׁשבע׃‬ ‫ולא־הלכו בניו בדרכיו ויטו אחרי הבצע‬ ‫ויקחו־ׁשחד ויטו מׁשפט׃‬ When Samuel became old, he installed his sons as judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beer-sheba. Yet his sons did not follow in his ways, but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice.

Just as with Eli before him, Samuel is old, he has sons who do evil, and (from both the witness of silence within the text and from the mouths of all Israel in 8:4) Samuel has done nothing effective to restrain his sons from their wickedness. From this point forward throughout the narrative, Samuel does not appear in the purely positive light in which he stood so solidly during the stories of his youth. At every turn and in every story, the question of the character of Samuel—his internal motivations, designs, and plans—are hidden from the reader and only his actions and words, and the results issuing from his actions and words, are portrayed. And those results are often complex. In short, the prophet Samuel, from ch. 8 forward, becomes an “ambiguous character.” While all literary characters are, in some way, ambiguous, Samuel is consistently ambiguous precisely in the question of whether he is a faithful or unfaithful prophet to the word of YHWH. What I mean by this phrase is this: when Samuel proclaims a word that he claims to have received from YHWH, or performs an action that he claims to have been directed to do from YHWH, the reader is almost never able at the time of the speech or action to know whether, in fact, the speech or action was actually “from YHWH.” The history of scholarship about Samuel most often sees him in positive terms, as a “faithful priest” or as “the Prophet like Moses.” This perspective is succinctly stated by George W. Ramsey, a view which is held by most historical-critical interpreters of the book as well as most literary interpreters:

38

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha The chapters surrounding the inauguration of the monarchy (1 Samuel 8–12) may be read as an account of a very human and ambivalent Samuel who is pressed into service as a kingmaker against his will. Out of loyalty to the kingship of God (1 Sam 10:18–19; 12:12) Samuel resists the move to human kingship but finally yields to the instruction of God (8:7, 9, 22; 9:16–17) and makes Saul king. When God repents of making Saul king, Samuel again exhibits ambivalence: he shows sympathy for the king (1 Sam 15:11, 35; 16:1) and, instead of delivering a frontal accusation, gives Saul a chance to supply an explanation for his disobedience (15:19). Exemplifying his own declaration that a human may repent though God will not (15:29), Samuel yields to the importuning of the repentant Saul (15:31) and continues to grieve (16:1) over the fallen king.57

Such a portrayal reveals a human, but simultaneously positive character, a prophet who consistently acts and speaks in accord with the word of YHWH, or at least intends to do so consistently. To maintain such a view of Samuel, however, most biblical interpreters often must glide quickly over certain portions of the story or treat lightly certain aspects of the narrative in order to arrive at that unswerving interpretation. On the other hand, recently some scholars have seen Samuel in negative terms. These interpreters believe that there is much in the biblical texts about Samuel that reveal him as a character who is “imperceptive, insensitive, self-seeking, and manipulative…petulant, truculent, and ungracious.”58 According to these scholars, Samuel is, from beginning to end, a dull and imperceptive man of God, who cunningly maneuvers both earthly scenarios and the divine messages he (as well as the reader) hears in order to control the people, acquire political power for himself, and 57.  George W. Ramsey, “Samuel (Person),” ABD 5:956. Note also the treatments in P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980); Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Nashville: Nelson, 1983); Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1990). Note also, in a similar vein, the evaluation provided by Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 503–15. 58.  Ramsey, “Samuel,” 5:956–57. For other interpretations in this vein, see Martin Buber, The Kingship of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story, JSOTSup 14 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1980); Lyle M. Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12 (Decatur: Almond, 1985); and Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). See also Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), and The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999).

1. Prophecy and Ambiguity

39

selfishly secure his own place in the center of Israel’s religious and social life. While the reader expects him to be the “faithful priest” for whom God would build an “enduring house” (1 Sam 2:35), Samuel consistently shows himself to be unworthy of the title and, ultimately, is seen as expressly unfaithful both to God and to Israel. The basic proposal of my previous work is that both of these readings of the character of Samuel are, in a sense, valid and important and that both of them are absolutely essential for the meaning of the narrative and its portrayal of the prophet. It is clear that Samuel is presented as fulfilling the role of the “Prophet like Moses,” one who functions as a messenger bringing the message of YHWH to the people. And yet, unlike those sympathetic, wholly positive readings, it is also clear that there is much about Samuel which is conflicted and manipulative. He is not an unambiguously positive or negative character. Samuel has an extremely complex personality and is, starting in ch. 8, a thoroughly morally and prophetically complex character. Through the way in which the narrator tells the story of his interactions with Israel and with Saul, the reader is able clearly to see the hidden motives and agendas which lie beneath the surface in Samuel’s words and deeds. Yet these agendas and motives are never explicitly brought out and evaluated as either positive or negative. The story—and the character of Samuel—can simultaneously be interpreted in two very different ways. This causes his character—both as a literary character and as an indication of his motives and morals—to be thoroughly ambiguous, which is, I believe, the foundational function of the stories. Consistently, Samuel’s motives and actions seem most in question in those scenes when he is explicitly claiming to be speaking on behalf of YHWH or acting at the behest of YHWH. As such, the ambiguity of the character of Samuel parallels and illustrates and coheres with an attendant ambivalence and suspicion about prophecy as a primary means of knowing YHWH’s will. The texts’ portrayals of Samuel bespeak their evaluation of the phenomenon of prophecy itself. In and through these stories, the character of Samuel, in all his complexity, embodies everything that is both valid and troubling about the phenomenon of prophecy as an institution that claims immediate access to the divine mind and will. Samuel represents, from beginning to end, the inherent ambiguity and danger of prophecy as a religious office that, even theoretically, rivals simple and faithful adherence to the objective teaching of the Deuteronomic Torah (cf. Deut 13:1–6).59 59.  Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 44.

40

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

As such, the rendering of the character of the prophet produces the larger assessment of the phenomenon of prophecy. And that assessment is ambivalent, and it further affects an ambivalent attitude toward prophecy on the part of the reader. F. The Question of Miracles It is my intention, in this volume, to explore the similar depictions of the characters of Elijah and Elisha. These two major prophetic figures rival that of Samuel within the History in importance and complexity. I hope to show that, as with Samuel, the stories about Elijah and Elisha also reveal the ambiguous nature of prophecy as a phenomenon and the ambivalent evaluation which the narrator ultimately levels against it, an evaluation that is congruent to the one which is presented in Deuteronomy. Furthermore, the narratives of Elijah and Elisha are further complicated by an element in the stories largely missing from the Samuel narratives: the question of the purpose or function of miracles as signs as validation of the prophet and as means that draw those involved into a closer relationship with YHWH. As discussed above in connection with Deut 13, the question of whether signs produced by prophets should be evidence of their faithfulness to YHWH and YHWH’s word is critically important. While Samuel often is able to know things other characters do not, only one scene portrays Samuel himself bringing about a miracle (1 Sam 12:17–18). Contrasting with this, miracles will be ubiquitous in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, along with the fearful or joyous response of those who witness them. From the very first scene of 1 Kgs 17:1–2, this difference with Samuel will be palpable in the stories of these two prophets. Do miracles produced by Elijah and Elisha consistently lead Israel toward a more faithful devotion to YHWH? On the other hand, do they manipulate their witnesses to a fearful subjugation to the prophetic figure? Or do they rather simply provide help in dangerous situations, with no further purpose? Are they the result of Israel’s faith in YHWH, or are they the impetus for Israel trusting YHWH even more? The warnings and questions of Deut 13 and 18 will arise time and time again, providing the theological background and ideological setting to the stories of these two prophets who do great and terrible wonders. To the stories of these great prophets we now turn.

Chapter 2 N ar r at i ves F oc us ed on E li jah

A. First Stories As enigmatic as Elijah will appear throughout the narratives that focus on him, the scenes where he first appears portray him in a most opaque way. Elijah is, almost all readers will admit, unusual in the characterization of his actions and words, compared with other prophetic figures in the History. For example, Thomas Overholt has noted that the uneven portrayal of Elijah in the stories, from one perspective sometimes reflects assumptions compatible with the Deuteronomistic ideology which dominates the books of Kings: Yahweh has control over nature and history…when disaster strikes, it is interpreted as a punishment for human misbehavior…and the prophets are Yahweh’s spokesmen, confronting kings and announcing his intentions. For another, the narratives contain references to religious beliefs and practices which appear to be at odds with the Deuteronomistic view of Yahweh religion as the theological basis for the nation’s existence. They tell how these men of God cure the sick and resuscitate corpses, how they are called upon to render assistance in the daily affairs of ordinary people, and how their (sometimes capricious; cf. 2 Kgs 2.23–25) displays of power were both a source of comfort and of anxiety.1

Elijah, particularly in these early stories, is a troubling, opaque figure. Interpreters who are troubled by Elijah, of course, very often assume from the first that the stories about Elijah have, as a predominant motif, the heightening of the credibility of the prophet, a seminal feature of which is his identification with YHWH, whom he claims to serve (1 Kgs 17:1). 1.  Overholt, “Elijah and Elisha in the Context of Israelite Religion,” 95. Overholt’s larger point in the article is to show that it is difficult differentiating between “official” and “popular” religion in the Elijah–Elisha narratives, a point that I heartily agree with.

42

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

As such, many studies will try to “play it both ways.” On the one hand, they will note that the eccentric nature of Elijah in many of the stories is due to the composite nature of the underlying texts.2 On the other hand, they will simultaneously overlook various smaller details within the texts which seem to belie Elijah’s strict identity with and submission toward YHWH. As such, scholars, almost across the board, will interpret and explicate these initial stories with an eye toward seeing Elijah as fitting (or will consciously force him) into a standard mold of what biblical prophets should be and do. The explanation of John Gray serves as a case in point. Elijah’s proclamation in 17:1 is not simply a case of foretelling… The prophet cites it as a token of the wrath of God to Ahab, who, probably as much out of respect to his Canaanite subjects as through the influence of Jezebel, favoured the cult of Baal, whom the Canaanites…regarded as the power of providence in nature and the giver of rain. Elijah is to emerge again at the end of the drought to proclaim that Yahweh, and not Baal (it is implied) will give rain (18.1).3

In a similar fashion, Marvin Sweeney also introduces Elijah in a way that makes his appearance fit the pattern of most other prophets in the History: The text is demarcated by the notice of Elijah’s statement in v. 1 concerning YHWH’s vow that no rain would fall upon the land… The citation of Elijah’s statement concerning YHWH’s vow signals the major concerns of both the immediate context and the Elijah–Elisha cycle at large—that is, opposition to the influence of Baal, the Canaanite/Phoenician god of rain, storm, and fertility, and the house of Omri, which was allied with the Phoenicians by Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel.4

2.  This is the general methodological move made by older studies, or those based on a strictly historical-critical approach. For a review of these types of studies, which often postulate a pre-existing “Prophetic Record,” see Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (New York: T&T Clark International, 2005), 152–55; Antony F. Campbell and Mark O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 391–404. A similar approach is also made by Matthews, Social World of the Hebrew Prophets, 53–66. 3.  Gray, I & II Kings, 378. 4.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 208–9. Although almost 40 years separate Sweeney’s and Gray’s commentaries on 1 and 2 Kings in the Old Testament Library, their views on this initial statement by Elijah are quite similar.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

43

Most commentaries and other studies follow a similar scenario for placing this initial scene in a traditional, Yahwistic—or even typically understood Deuteronomistic—framework. Elijah, a prophet called by God, castigates the house of Ahab, particularly Ahab’s Phoenician wife Jezebel, for its worship of Baal and pronounces a judgment oracle from YHWH, declaring that YHWH will not allow rain to fall upon the earth because of the apostasy of Israel.5 And yet, this is not at all what appears in 1 Kgs 17:1. If the text is “read forward” instead of inserting data and information which occurs in following chapters back into this context, the characterization is much more ambiguous. In other words, the portrayal of the prophet Elijah here is exactly in line with the Deuteronomic views of prophecy that were drawn in Chapter 1. The first appearance and first action by Elijah is very important for establishing his character and the evaluation that the narrator gives both to him and to prophecy in general; almost every word is important and there are no unnecessary words are phrases in this initial scene. As such, this analysis will unpack this first verse of this first chapter of Elijah’s activity carefully, after which, we may pick up the pace and see how this initial rendering of Elijah’s character is both continued and overturned in the subsequent stories. 1. Elijah Pronounces a Drought—1 Kings 17:1 …‫ויאמר אליהו התׁשבי מתׁשבי גלעד אל־אחאב‬ And Elijah the Tishbite from the settlers of Gilead said to Ahab…

Most commentators note that the introduction to Elijah is particularly jarring and sudden.6 His hometown, Tishbe, is unknown, despite a long history of scholarly attempts in trying to find it.7 The mention that he is 5.  Similar scenarios are given in Gunkel, Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal, 9–14; Iain W. Provan, 1 & 2 Kings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 132–33; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 109–14; Cogan, 1 Kings, 424–33; Albertz, Elia, 115–22; Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie, 99–106; Raymond B. Dillard, Faith in the Face of Apostasy (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1999), 15–22; Overholt, “Elijah and Elisha,” 94–111; Matthews, Social World, 54. 6.  E.g., Nelson, First and Second Kings, 109: “Elijah is introduced as a figure of mystery. He appears suddenly out of nowhere; his background is described in an obscure way.” Matthews, Social World, 54: “Elijah bursts on the scene without so much as a formal story of his call or even an introduction.” 7.  Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha, 19; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 210–11; Gray, I & II Kings, 377–78.

44

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

among the “settlers” (‫ )תׁשבי‬of Gilead is also very strange, since the word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for people who are not residents, but are rather sojourners or foreigners who are living in a region.8 There is, moreover, not a mention at all of what role this character plays. In the Deuteronomistic History, many prophets are introduced explicitly by the title of “prophet”; Elijah, however, is simply introduced geographically.9 Since this is seen as an unusual feature for such a prominent and positive figure, Cogan suggests that “the single opening verse, 17:1, was probably preceded by a scene of confrontation between the two protagonists, now suppressed. (This conjectured scene may also have included more of an introduction to Elijah than the note that he was a Gileadite…).”10 Of course, no such hypothetical scene is present, either in the Masoretic text or in any available version. The abrupt introduction of Elijah need not necessarily point to a disjunction within the text. The introduction of Elijah in this way can easily be seen as a subtle convention by which the narrator thrusts Elijah upon Ahab, whose reign began at the end of the previous chapter (16:29–34) and who is the sole addressee of the following speech. Moreover, if Elijah is, in a much larger scheme, a representative for the phenomenon of prophecy as a whole, his abrupt, cryptic introduction is exactly what we, as readers and as the original hearers or readers of the text, would have experienced: an individual who appears with little warning, with no known background, produces signs and miracles, and who also claims to declare YHWH’s own intentions (Deut 13:1–5). In such a contemporary context, there would be no objective markers for who did or did not truly speak or perform YHWH’s word. As such, Elijah’s mysterious introduction precisely sets up a scenario aligning with what we have seen as the Deuteronomic attitude toward prophets: hesitancy and suspicion, until proven otherwise. …‫חי־יהוה אלהי יׂשראל אׁשר עמדתי לפניו‬ “YHWH’s life! The God of Israel, before whom I stand!…”

8.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 211. 9.  In an attempt to deal with the supposedly truncated introduction of Elijah, LXX adds “the prophet” after his name: καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου ὁ προφήτης. For other cases of the introduction of a prophet being explicitly noted in the History; see: Gad (1 Sam 22:5); Nathan (2 Sam 7:2); Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29); Jehu ben Hanani (1 Kgs 16:7); Jonah (2 Kgs 14:25); Isaiah (2 Kgs 19:2); Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14). 10.  Cogan, 1 Kings, 431.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

45

Elijah’s speech takes the form of an oath. Oaths in the Hebrew Bible, and in the History in particular, always occur in contexts where an addressee is either doubtful or reluctant to believe the statement of the speaker. In an attempt to overcome the doubt or reluctance on the part of the hearer, the speaker swears by something that would be cursed or destroyed if the following statement proves to be false or does not come to pass. As such, characters do not swear by something that is changeable or fleeting. The most common items by which individuals in the History will swear are YHWH’s own life or the life of a king, or, in the case of self-imprecations, the speaker’s own existence—the implication being that if the oath proves to be false, then severe and universal consequences will be the result.11 After the initial declaration of what is being sworn by, the speaker then makes the statement, usually introduced by either ‫ אם‬/ “if,” if the statement is being negated (i.e., “X will not occur!”), or ‫ כי‬/ “surely,” ‫אם־‬ ‫ לא‬/ “if not,” or ‫ כי אם‬/ “except/unless” if the statement is being assured (i.e., “X will surely occur!”).12 These types of assurances of destruction or devaluing are intended to overcome the hesitancy on the part of the hearer to believe the speaker’s statement or to overcome the reluctance to do what the speaker commands. A fascinating aspect of the Elijah and Elisha narratives is that oaths occur with more frequency in these stories than almost anywhere else in the History.13 The characters of Elijah and Elisha, as well as those with whom they deal, rely on oaths in order to convince their hearers of the veracity of their statements. This aspect of the stories has an important corollary: doubt abounds in these stories, doubts of people about the prophets, and doubts of the prophets about the people with whom they 11.  For the meaning of oaths, see Manfred R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92. For the syntax of oaths, see Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, rev. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), §§93aa, 149a, c; also, Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §40.2.2. The translation “As the LORD lives…” weakens the force of the oath by making it a simple simile: “My statement is as certain as the life of God.” Yet this is not truly an oath, but merely a comparison. An oath requires something to be sworn upon, the importance or value of which will be undermined if the statement proves to be false. See Cogan, 1 Kings, 425. 12.  The relationship between the two parts of the oath are clear from the linking particles: “X (will be destroyed) if Y occurs” = “Y surely will not occur!” “X (will be destroyed) if Y does not occur” = “Y will surely occur!” “X (will be destroyed) except/unless Y occurs” = “Y will surely occur!” 13.  1 Kgs 17:1, 12; 18:10, 15; 2 Kgs 2:2, 4, 6; 3:14; 4:30; 5:16, 20. The interposed story of the prophet Micaiah son of Imlah also has an oath in 1 Kgs 22:14.

46

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

deal. It seems as if, from Elijah’s very first words, we are given a clue about the doubt and suspicion which, according to Deuteronomy, do (and should) accompany such figures. It is, furthermore, important that Elijah’s statement here is neither an oracle nor a statement pronounced on behalf of God.14 Elijah is simply declaring his own future action, an action that would naturally produce reluctance or hesitancy on behalf of Ahab.15 If prophets exist so that 14.  Sweeney attempts to get around the fact that Elijah does not pronounce an oracle by arguing that the oath is from God’s own mouth: “Elijah’s initial statement employs the oath formula hay-yhwh, ‘by the life of YHWH,’ which typically serves as a form of self-curse to bind the party taking the oath to a specific course of action. Elijah speaks on behalf of YHWH, who is bound not to provide rain until the prophet states otherwise. Such an oath reinforces the contention that YHWH controls the elements of creation, including the rains attributed to the rain god Baal in Canaanite/ Phoenician culture” (I & II Kings, 211). When the deity pronounces a self-curse elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, however, the oath is always simply announced: “Lord YHWH swears by his holiness…” (Amos 4:2); “I hereby swear by my great name…” (Jer 44:26); “YHWH Ṣaba’ot swears by himself…” (Jer 51:14); and, most parallel with Elijah’s statement: “My life!…” (Ezek 17:19). In these cases, of course, YHWH does not pronounce the oath using a third-person reference. Moreover, the phrase “before whom I stand”/“whom I serve” indicates clearly the source of the oath. As such, the oath of 17:1 is not divine speech; Elijah’s oath is made purely from his own initiative; it is not, implicitly or explicitly, an oracle. 15.  Another important aspect of these stories of miracles is the assumption in the ancient world of the possibility of magic or miraculous phenomenon being produced by human beings without the aid of a deity. In our contemporary, Western, postEnlightenment context, supernatural events must be occasioned by a supernatural agent, but this was clearly not true in the world of the ancient Near East, nor clearly in the world of this text. Elijah, of his own volition and by his own power, is able to initiate and conclude a drought over the land. Note the similarity of this scene to the definition of magic given by Emmett H. Carroll: “Such magic implies automatic, supernatural forces that give to the human who knows how to manipulate them— that is, to the magician—a power over people and nature. The magician depends not on God but only on his or her own manipulation of supernatural forces,” in “A Biblical Encounter with Magic in Literature,” Christianity and Literature 50, no. 4 (2001): 703–14 (703–4). The topic of magic in the ancient world has produced much scholarship. See, particularly, the recent work of Ann Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria (New York: Brill, 1996); “Magic and Divination in Ancient Israel,” Religion Compass 1, no. 6 (2007): 628–42; “Magic from Before the Dawn of Time: Understanding Magic in the Old Testament: A Shift in Paradigm (Deuteronomy 18:9–14 and Beyond),” in Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment, ed. Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 123–32. See also the

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

47

YHWH’s word and intentions can be faithfully announced, it is important to note that Elijah does not do so in this initial salvo toward Ahab: …‫אם־יהיה הׁשנים האלה טל ומטר‬ …there will be neither dew nor rain these years…

Elijah’s statement seems on the face of it to be the announcement of a coming drought. Although not a part of the History, a similar scene might be Joseph’s prediction of the seven lean (lit. “evil”) years after seven years of abundance (Gen 41:25–36), a prediction which eventually comes to pass (vv. 53–57). The seer is able, through supernatural means, to know future events of an unprecedented and destructive scale.16 Unlike Joseph’s prediction, however, Elijah gives no timetable for the drought. How long will it last? “These years,” Elijah responds without a number. The absence of the length is significant because the purpose of the speech is not what it initially appears. This is no mere announcement of a seer about the future. It is something far worse, as the end of the declaration shows. ‫…כי אם־לפי דברי‬ …except according to my word.

The final four words (in the Hebrew) of the declaration are, in a way, the most important of the entire speech. They reveal that the previous statement about the drought is not simply a prediction or an announcement of something that will or must happen. The drought is being brought about purely by Elijah’s own permission and power, and its conclusion, likewise, will only come about when and if he allows it. We might expect, if Elijah is truly a prophet in the Deuteronomic mold, that the word of work of Solomon A. Nigosian, Magic and Divination in the Old Testament (Portland, OR: Sussex Academic, 2008); Todd E. Klutz, Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (New York: T&T Clark International, 2003); Brian Schmidt, “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 242–59; Athalya Brenner, “Gender in Prophecy, Magic and Priesthood: From Sumer to Ancient Israel,” in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel, ed. Deborah W. Rooke (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 3–18; Emmanuel O. Nwaoru, “Magic in the Ancient World and African Culture,” in Labahn and Peerbolte, eds., Kind of Magic, 20–40; Alfred Marx, “Le miracle dans l’Ancien Testament,” Foi et Vie 108, no. 2 (2009): 35–43. 16.  This is precisely what will seem to occur in the story of Elisha’s advice to the widow of Shumen in 2 Kgs 8:1–2.

48

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

YHWH would be preeminent. It is YHWH’s word that “the Prophet like Moses” was supposed to speak: nothing more, nothing less, nothing else (Deut 18:18, 20). Yet at the end of the speech, it is not YHWH’s word that is driving the action, but rather “my word,” Elijah’s word. Are they the same? At this point it is difficult to know, which is precisely the point.17 Before we leave this introduction of the character of Elijah, two additional remarks are in order. First, prophetic figures in the History are generally not reluctant to make perfectly clear where apostasy occurs and are often very garrulous about reminding other characters about their own failures to live up to the Deuteronomic standard. Prophetic speeches are common in the History; in fact, it is one of the consistent things that prophets do.18 Here, immediately after the narrator’s denouncement of Ahab and his syncretistic religious practices (16:31–33), a perfect opportunity presents itself to emphasize and make clear, again, the Deuteronomic standard by which all characters in the story—kings and commoners alike—are being called.19 Yet the connection between the drought and the political and religious context is left unstated here. Why is Elijah causing the drought? Is it because, as Deuteronomy eloquently says, if Israel forsakes their deity, then ‫יתן יהוה את־מטר ארצך אבק ועפר‬ ‫ מן־הׁשמים ירד עליך עד הׁשמדך‬/ “YHWH will change the rain of your land into powder and dust. From the sky it will come down upon you until you are destroyed” (Deut 28:24)? The narrator’s reticence to underscore the connection, at this point, highlights and questions the hidden agenda of Elijah, the ambiguous prophet. Second, commentators consistently write that the overall purpose of the Elijah–Elisha narratives is to promote the truth that YHWH is in charge of all things: the weather, the nation, and the people. This is, of course, 17.  For a discussion about the identification of the “word of YHWH” with the “word of” a prophet, in this case Samuel, see Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 70–71. 18.  For just a few cases of significant and relatively lengthy speeches by prophetic figures against unfaithfulness; see: the “man of God” against Eli (1 Sam 2:27–36); Samuel against Israel and Saul, three separate occasions (1 Sam 10:17–19; 12:1–17; 15:17–23); Nathan against David (2 Sam 12:7–12); Ahijah against Solomon (1 Kgs 11:31–39); Ahijah against Abijah (1 Kgs 14:6–16); Huldah against/for Josiah (2 Kgs 22:15–20). 19.  Recall Cogan’s belief that a lost scene preceded 17:1 in which Elijah castigates Ahab for his apostasy (I & II Kings, 431). Such a scene, of course, is not—and assuredly never was—a part of the tradition. The point of Elijah’s introduction and initial statement is to complicate his character so that he, from the very beginning, is ambiguous.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

49

one of the central tenets of Deuteronomy itself. It is YHWH, and YHWH alone, that Israel must focus on and live their lives toward. But, as has consistently been the case with the kings in the History, just because the overall message of the History is centered upon the power and dominion of YHWH, this does not mean that all characters in the History reflect or acknowledge or live according to that viewpoint. Here, at the very beginning of the entire cycle, we hear, from Elijah’s own mouth, a very different purpose: Elijah is the one who is in charge of the situation and he is willing to destroy everything—Israel, Ahab, and YHWH’s own life— with a drought to assure his own place. 2. Elijah Cared for by Ravens—1 Kings 17:2–6 It is surprising, after the carefully crafted and singular statement by Elijah in 17:1 ending with the resonant “my word,” that the narrator introduces the divine word in the very next verse. We left the first verse assuming that Elijah, the “probable magician” and “perhaps prophet” from an unknown town, numbered among an unclear group of people, was merely solidifying his own status by using a miraculous deed (about which Deut 13 warns). With the second verse, and throughout the following scene, our expectations are overturned. It is, in fact, YHWH who is speaking to Elijah, directing him and protecting him. “Go from here and turn eastward and hide yourself at the Wadi Cherith,” YHWH commands him by the divine word (v. 2). At this point, it is unclear why Elijah is commanded to hide; the action introduces an air of danger or threat into the story.20 God also has a plan to care for Elijah and sustain him: “You will drink from the wadi, and I’ve commanded ravens to provide for you there” (v. 4) This command has the effect of assuring us, the readers, that Elijah truly is a divinely sent messenger, as opposed to what the first verse led us to believe. Furthermore, not only does God’s plan make sense, but Elijah, the messenger of God, obeys it in good Deuteronomic fashion: ‫וילך ויעׂש כדבר יהוה וילך‬ ‫ויׁשב בנחל כרית אׁשר על־פני הירדן‬ He went and did according to the word of YHWH! He went and dwelt at the Wadi Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. (v. 5)

20.  Cogan, I & II Kings, 431. The theme of “hiding prophets” will be picked up later in Elijah’s meeting with Obadiah, where the threat will become explicit.

50

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Finally, Elijah is not the only character who perfectly obeys the word of YHWH: the ravens themselves continue to bring him bread and meat both every morning and every evening. The scene is a perfectly designed statement about the blessing and bounty that obedience brings, a scene which works against the abrupt, jarring, self-centered introduction of v. 1. Commentators also note that here Elijah appears to follow in the footsteps of Moses, his prophetic predecessor. Havilah Dharamraj notes that the stream that sustains Elijah over his stay in the desolate country “before” (perhaps, east of) the Jordan reminds of Israel’s experiences in the desert beyond the Jordan of miraculous provision of water in times of great need, namely, the sweetening of the bitter water (Exod. 15:22ff) and the water from the rock (Exod. 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13). Strengthening this resonance is the food parallel set up with Exod. 16 (cf. Num. 11). The food arrives from an unexpected direction; in Elijah’s case, birds bring it to him out of the sky, and in the case of Israel, the sky rains it down… In response, the LORD promises, “At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread,” and without delay delivers as promised (Exod. 16:12–13; cf. v. 8)… Elijah’s menu and the times of the delivery of his meals recall Israel’s supply, for Elijah too gets bread and meat in the morning and in the evening (1 Kgs 17:6).21

It would seem that Elijah truly is the “Prophet like Moses,” and resembles the greater leader and prophet of Israel. And yet, it is not just “birds” that bring Elijah his food in the morning and evening; it is specifically ‫ ערבים‬/ “ravens” who are the obedient servants of YHWH. And, undoubtedly, the “meat” that they bring is not freshly slaughtered beef or goat or mutton, but rather scraps from the carcasses of animals who died in the area. These birds and their provisions are both considered unclean by Deuteronomy itself. After listing those birds considered unclean because of their associations with carrion, including the raven, Deuteronomy concludes by noting “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (Deut 14:21). This scenario, while divinely directed, sets up one small discordant note within the otherwise beautiful and balanced scene of Deuteronomic obedience and Moses-like provision. As the conclusion of Deuteronomy (34:10–12) 21.  Havilah Heller, A Prophet Like Moses? A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2011), 11–12. See also Sweeney, I & II Kings, 212.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

51

states emphatically: any subsequent prophet who is compared with Moses (as Elijah clearly is in this passage) will, of necessity, be found wanting because of the comparison. Nevertheless, with this small aberration, the story of Elijah at the Wadi Cherith is a redemptive scene which overturns the harsh and selfish portrayal of the prophet in the first verse. God supports him, and water, ravens, and the prophet himself follow along in obedient harmony. It would seem at this point that YHWH truly is the one in charge of all nature and all is well in the world of the divinely sent messenger. 3. Elijah Cared for by the Widow—1 Kings 17:7–16 But, in this story whose central driving force is ambiguity, if we trusted in the homely beauty of the previous scene we would be, again, disappointed. YHWH seems to be in charge of all nature, as commentators note again and again.22 The opening of the next scene, however, reveals that control is not as sure as we might expect: ‫ויהי מקץ ימים וייבׁש הנחל כי לא־היה גׁשם בארץ׃‬ It happened after a period of time, the wadi dried up because there had been no rain showers on the land. (v. 7)23

The opening of the scene sets up the contrast between the two “words” that have been in operation in the previous scenes: the word of Elijah, which causes a drought, and the word of YHWH, which provides sustenance and care. With the opening of v. 7, it would seem as if Elijah’s word wins out, and deprivation is the new reality. Having now set up the “back and forth” movement of the narrative’s portrayal of the character at its center, the narrator will start to play the ambiguity of the story even more deftly. Immediately after the introduction of the scarcity of the effects of Elijah’s drought, YHWH’s word again comes on the scene, seeming to overturn the lack and again provide for Elijah: 22.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 209, 212; Gray, I & II Kings, 377; Cogan, 1 Kings, 431–32; Bronner, Stories, passim. 23.  The scene begins with v. 7, not as the NRSV formats the text, with v. 8. The closing of the previous scene portrays a positive and supportive setting; v. 7, a negative situation, contrasts with it in a way that parallels the juxtaposition of v. 1 (negative) with vv. 2–6 (positive). For temporal ‫ ויהי‬as a marker for a new paragraph, see Roy L. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSS 55 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 432–35.

52

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha ‫קום לך צרפתה אׁשר לצידון‬ ‫ויׁשבת ׁשם‬ ‫הנה צויתי ׁשם אׁשה אלמנה לכלכלך׃‬ Get up! Go to Zarephath which belongs to Sidon! Dwell there! I’ve commanded a widowed woman there to provide for you. (v. 9)

The parallel with the previous command in vv. 3–4 is unmistakable: YHWH commands Elijah to leave where he is, go somewhere else, stay there, and describes a plan for some entity “to provide” (‫ )לכלכלך‬for Elijah “there” (‫)ׁשם‬.24 And as before, we expect Elijah to obey and to receive provision. And, as before, Elijah does obey, finally arriving at the city of Zarephath. “There” (‫ )ׁשם‬is a widowed woman gathering sticks and Elijah assumes that this must be the widowed woman that YHWH spoke to him about (v. 10). At the wadi, Elijah had drunk water, so it must be included in the same situation here. He commands her to get a ‫ מעט־מים‬/ “little water” in a vessel so that he can drink. And, as the obedient ravens before, she goes to get it (v. 11a). When, however, he presses and commands her to bring some bread (as the ravens had brought him) in her hand, the story begins to go awry. She balks at the command to provide food by using an almost identical oath as Elijah had used to bring the drought. Before, Elijah’s oath had denied food to Ahab and, by extension, to Israel and the surrounding land, as well. Here, the widow’s oath denies food to Elijah himself: Elijah:

YHWH’s life! The God of Israel, before whom I stand! There will be neither dew nor rain these years, except according to my word! (v. 1)

Widow:

YHWH’s life! Your god! There is not a crumb for me, except a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug! (v. 12a)25

The irony is surely not lost on Elijah. His own oath had brought about the situation that has condemned this woman and her child to death, as well as his own demise. At least with the ravens at the wadi, he got several days of sustenance! Here, things seem doomed even before they start, and all because of his own oath. Moreover, just as YHWH’s word had given both a command and a plan for provision, the widow also has a plan, one 24.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 212. 25.  Moshe Garsiel explicates the parallel and the irony of the two oaths in a very convincing way in From Earth to Heaven, 38–39.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

53

that ends with her death and her child’s death (v. 12b). Elijah’s response to her sad, tragic plan is to give her a command not to fear, and to provide her a new life-giving plan: an oracle from YHWH that promises her that her flour and oil would not cease. This sequence of the reassuring word and the resulting plenty should cause the story to highlight the abundant provision of YHWH, the truthfulness of the prophet Elijah, and the fearless trust of the widow.26 Yet, as we have seen throughout the story thus far, these are not the only motifs at work in the narrative. The plot and the intentions of the characters are much more ambiguous than a simple tale of provision would allow. The story is also crucially intent to show that Elijah himself is a conflicted, ambiguous character, reflecting the narrator’s ambivalent evaluation of prophets and prophecy as a whole. Elijah proclaims: ‫אל־תיראי‬ ‫באי עׂשי כדברך‬ ‫אך עׂשי־לי מׁשם עגה קטנה בראׁשנה והוצאת לי‬ ‫ולך ולבנך תעׂשי באחרנה׃‬ ‫כי כה אמר יהוה אלהי יׂשראל‬ ‫כד הקמח לא תכלה וצפחת הׁשמן לא תחסר‬ ‫עד יום תת־יהוה גׁשם על־פני האדמה׃‬ Do not be afraid! Go! Do as you said! However, make for me from there a little loaf first and bring it to me. Then for you and for your son do so afterwards. Because this is what YHWH, the God of Israel, said: “The jar of flour will not cease and the jug of oil will not stop until the day when YHWH brings rain upon the ground.” (vv. 13–14)

Elijah does not simply provide the oracle from YHWH and provide the sign of the replenishing flour and oil, he also makes the abundance dependent upon the widow’s submitting to give her last bit of food to him first, and then, with whatever might remain, to make something for herself and her son afterwards.27 Deuteronomy is explicitly clear about the status of widows and orphans and the responsibility of Israel in providing food and other forms of 26.  This sequence is often the only one that many commentators see, free from the complicating and conflicting details that follow in the discussion above. See Cogan, 1 Kings, 432–33; Provan, Prophet Like Moses?, 13–15; Gray, I & II Kings, 380–81. 27.  Even Sweeney, who otherwise sees Elijah as a positive character, notes that this request “seems entirely impertinent given the drought” (I & II Kings, 213).

54

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

sustenance to them. It is YHWH who freely and especially cares for the widow and orphan (Deut 10:18) and it is the special responsibility of Israel to provide for them as well, with no hesitancy or conditions whatsoever (14:28–29; 16:11, 14; 24:19–21; 26:12–13) and to never withhold generous justice from them (24:17; 27:19).28 Elijah’s demand for the widow’s last meal for himself seems, on the face of it, to work against the spirit of the Deuteronomic Torah. Moreover, in the discussion of Deut 13 in the previous chapter, I note how Deuteronomy understands the place of signs or miracles in establishing the veracity of a prophet’s words and motivating the hearers to obedient, faithful adherence to Deuteronomy’s unified vision of the love of YHWH. Signs and miracles are never meant to be the point of an encounter with a prophet; the sign precedes obedience and therefore, cannot be dependent upon it. The sequence found in Deut 13 follows this order: first the prophet appears; then the prophet gives a command or suggestion in the form of a divinely inspired message; the people are unsure about the source of the message (or are stubbornly resistant to the message); the prophet produces a sign; the people see the sign; and they then—on the basis of the sign—believe the prophet and obey his command or suggestion. With the interaction between Elijah and the widow, on the other hand, the sequence is: first the prophet appears; then the prophet gives a command (to bring him food); the widow is resistant to the message; the prophet then gives another command (to bring him food first) with the promise of a sign (abundant flour and oil) only if the command is obeyed. In this scenario, it is the miracle—rather than trust in YHWH—that is the ultimate outcome of the story. When the widow does acquiesce and obey Elijah’s command to make him a loaf first, the narrator is explicit that she is obeying the “word of Elijah,” even in spite of the fact that, just previously, Elijah had said the command was dependent upon the word and promise of YHWH, the God of Israel. The narrator also subtly twists the knife by noting that, after her obedience, ‫ ותאכל‬/ “and she ate,” as a feminine singular verb, but when the subject of the verb is made explicit, as with the original command, Elijah is first in the line: “and she ate: he and she and her household for days.”29 28.  It seems antithetical to the spirit of Deuteronomy to insist that these stipulations only apply to “Israelite” widows and would not be incumbent upon any Israelite dealing with non-Israelite widows, particularly those at the point of starvation. 29.  Both the qere (‫ )ותאכל היא־והוא וביתה‬and the LXX (ἤσθιεν αὐτὴ καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς) smooth out the syntax: “and she ate: she and he and her household/ son.” Such a move “fixes” the syntax, but also removes the point of the derogatory fronting of Elijah in the sequence.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

55

Just when we, the readers, think that Elijah has manipulated the widow the story ends with the tables turned one final time. The summation of the story appears in v. 16: ‫כד הקמח לא כלתה וצפחת הׁשמן לא חסר‬ ‫כדבר יהוה‬ ‫אׁשר דבר ביד אליהו׃‬ The jar of flour did not cease and the jug of oil did not stop according to the word of YHWH, which he had spoken through the power of Elijah. (v. 16)

The oracle had been from YHWH; the provision for the widow had truly been from YHWH’s hand; and, as the plan had been from the beginning, the widow is now providing for Elijah, the prophet of YHWH.30 The story seems to end happily. Yet two additional points must be made before we close out this episode. First, as was just stated above, the point of signs and miracles for Deuteronomy is never simply the performance of the miracle itself, nor is it merely the highlighting of the credibility of the prophet. The ultimate goal for any sign is the acknowledgment and confession by those who witness it that YHWH, and YHWH alone, is the true God of Israel; signs must lead to a pledge of devotion to YHWH. This should be the true climax of any miracle story: signs lead to confessions.31 Here, however, the miracle of the jar and jug is the climax and the end of the story, happy as it may first appear. It is true that the widow and her son and her entire household do not starve. This is, of course, a positive outcome of the story. However, the miracle does not lead to the widow’s acknowledgment of YHWH’s sovereignty, which is a missing component of the episode. Second, if the point of the story were merely to highlight the providence of YHWH, the veracity of Elijah, and the obedience of the widow, the story could have been told much more simply and straightforwardly. This is a quality of many of the stories about Elijah and Elisha: scenes, phrases, details are often included in the story that undermine a straightforward, simplistic reading that attempts to see the text in light of “good 30.  For a discussion of the tension between the word of YHWH and the word of Elijah in this story, see Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 41. 31.  The plot sequence of a miracle leading to a confession about YHWH appears in climactic stories of each of the prophets in the cycle: Israel confesses to Elijah on Mt. Carmel (18:39) and Naaman confesses to Elisha after his cleansing (2 Kgs 5:15). The widow will also make a confession in the following story (17:24), but her confession is ambiguous.

56

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

characters” and “bad characters.” The twists and turns, the ambiguous allusions and disjunctions, the hidden motives of Elijah, all of which are woven throughout this short narrative, as well as the following ones, provide a much more textured story. But they also provide a story that hides as much as it reveals about the character of Elijah—both the literary character of the person, as well as the moral or spiritual character of his intents and motivations. Even with the happy ending, we are still left not fully knowing where Elijah’s commitments consistently lie, with himself or with YHWH, or whether his focus is on the God of Israel or on heightening his own importance in the eyes of others. And lastly, if we think that the happy ending is, indeed, the uncomplicated end of the story, we will, again, be disappointed, for we are not finished with the widow quite yet. 4. Elijah Restores the Widow’s Son—1 Kings 17:17–24 The final scene in these initial stories about Elijah begins with an ominous phrase: ‫ ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬/ “And it happened after these things.” When this expression occurs in the Hebrew Bible it always signals the beginning of a narrative passage in which a turn of events will include a possible drastic change of fortune, which is realized or unrealized.32 We therefore expect that the narrative tension will be incredibly high in the following story. The happy, domestic scene of Elijah and the widow and her household of vv. 15–16 is, possibly, about to be undone. The narrator, instead of simply saying that the son of the widow died or drew close to death, provides a relatively long glimpse of his progressive weakening. Verse 17 reads: ‫ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬ ‫חלה בן־האׁשה בעלת הבית‬ ‫ויהי חליו חזק מאד‬ ‫עד אׁשר לא־נותרה־בו נׁשמה‬ And it happened after these things, the son of the woman, the mistress of the household, was sick. His sickness became very severe, until it was the case that there was no longer any breath remaining in him.33 32.  The near-sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1), the accusation of Potiphar’s wife against Joseph (Gen 39:7), the dreams of the butler and baker of Pharaoh (Gen 40:1), and the conspiracy of Jezebel against Naboth (1 Kgs 21:1). 33.  Sweeney helpfully notes that many commentators see the boy as dead, but provides an argument that he is near death (I & II Kings, 215). Nelson explicates the question and arrives at the central point: “The boy is as good as dead” (First and Second Kings, 111).

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

57

The drawing out of the progression of the sickness is telling: during the progress, where was Elijah? The child does not develop this case of “breathlessness” overnight or suddenly. Does Elijah intervene? Does he use his miraculous powers to aid the boy? Clearly not, which leads to the understandable and logical accusation by the boy’s mother: ‫מה־לי ולך איׁש האלהים‬ ‫באת אלי להזכיר את־עוני‬ ‫ולהמית את־בני׃‬ “What do I and you have to do with each other, Man of God? You came to me in order to punish me for my guilt and to kill my son!” (v. 18)34

It is evident that she now interprets Elijah’s presence with her no longer in terms of abundance and provision; he is there for his own manipulative purposes, she implies. If she is reluctant and does not submit to his purposes, her hesitancy will be punished, even up to the murder of her son by miraculous means! If Elijah can perform signs and miracles, then in Elijah’s presence anything out of the ordinary becomes a sign for something: never ending flour and oil pots signal YHWH’s providence; a boy’s slow decline and death must signal a punishment for sin. Elijah’s actions after this accusation are multifaceted. Instead of Elijah simply using his power to revive or resurrect the boy, the narrative becomes a detailed sequence of actions and speeches by Elijah that are formally very tight: A. Elijah commands the woman (v. 19a). B. Elijah takes, ascends, and lays the boy on his own bed (v. 19b). C. Elijah “cries out to YHWH and says” something, which gets no response (v. 20). D. Elijah stretches himself upon the boy three times (v. 21a). C′. Elijah “cries out to YHWH and says” something, which gets a response (v. 21b–22). B′. Elijah takes, descends, and gives the boy to his mother (v. 23a). A′. Elijah commands the woman (23b).35

34.  The Hebrew idiom ‫ להזכיר את־עון‬/ “to remember guilt” is consistently used to indicate the resultant punishment of sin or guilt, either directly or by association (Num 5:15; Pss 79:8; 109:14; Isa 64:8; Jer 14:10; 31:34; Ezek 21:28–29; 29:16; 36:31; Hos 8:13; 9:9). 35.  A very similar outline is provided by Nelson, First and Second Kings, 111.

58

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Through this closely patterned story, the readers are allowed, in a sense, “behind the curtain” and are able to see Elijah in a way that he has not appeared in the previous scenes. Elijah first commands the woman to ‫ תני־לי את־בנך‬/ “Give me your son” (v. 19a). In light of her accusation, it is no surprise that she does not obey his command; instead, he must ‫ ויקחהו מחיקה‬/ “take him from her breast.”36 He takes the boy up to his own upper room where he was staying and places him on his bed. Elijah’s first speech to YHWH is extremely insightful into Elijah’s character, and only heightens the ambiguous, conflicted nature of it. Elijah, it is clear, has no idea what is happening: ‫יהוה אלהי‬ ‫הגם על־האלמנה אׁשר־אני מתגורר עמה‬ ‫הרעות להמית את־בנה׃‬ “YHWH, my God! Is it truly against the widow, with whom I have been residing? Did you do evil by killing her son?” (v. 20)

Although he claims to do as YHWH commands, and although he claims to speak for YHWH, and although he claims to know YHWH’s will and intention, Elijah here cries out from his ignorance. And he gets no answer; he gets only silence. Perhaps in an attempt to work a sign or a miracle, he stretches himself out upon the boy. Nothing happens. He tries again. Nothing happens. He tries a third time. Again, nothing happens. The mighty wonder-worker and oracle proclaimer of earlier scenes is here confronted with his own ignorance and powerlessness. From that position of weakness, he simply attempts to ask YHWH to remedy the situation: ‫ יהוה אלהי תׁשב נא נפׁש־הילד הזה על־קרבו‬/ “YHWH, My God! May this boy’s life return into him!” (v. 21). This, finally, causes YHWH to do something. “YHWH listened” (‫ )ויׁשמע יהוה‬is the first time a verb has been associated with YHWH since the beginning of the chapter. Much has happened in the previous scenes—miraculous things, pedestrian things, much talking and many speeches—but through it all YHWH has never actually acted directly in the narrative. We have come to see the actions of ravens, or the unending flour or oil in a pot, or, perhaps, the ever-present drought as somehow connected with YHWH’s intentions or will. But nowhere in the narrative has the narrator explicitly told us that YHWH acted. Here, finally, YHWH hears and, exactly as Elijah’s words had spoken, ‫ ותׁשב נפׁש־הילד על־קרבו‬/ 36.  Garsiel, From Earth to Heaven, 46, makes a similar point.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

59

“The boy’s life returned into him” and he lived (v. 22). Elijah then reverses his earlier actions and takes the boy from the bed, descends with him, gives him to his mother, and tells her to do something. The final few lines of the scene are both reassuring and troubling. What might we expect Elijah to tell the woman happened upstairs? What might his speech entail? The prophet who was so loquacious when it came to her making a meal for himself and promising, through an oracle, a miraculous, never-ending supply of flour and oil (vv. 13–14), what might he say to this once-bereaved mother on the occasion of receiving her son back from death? How will this prophet use the sign that YHWH has performed? He says three words: ‫ ראי חי בנך‬/ “Look! Your son is living!” From the woman’s perspective, she saw her dead or near-dead son taken from her by Elijah, who went upstairs with him. After a period of time, Elijah came down with the boy, who was now alive. Who, therefore, is responsible for the resuscitation of the child? The answer is clear: Elijah, the same person who proclaimed that the pots never to be empty. Elijah was, is, and remains the focus.37 According to Deuteronomy, signs and miracles that are produced by prophets function to support the veracity and status of a prophet, whether that be to support the claims of a prophet who leads Israel astray (as ch. 13 warns about) or one who reports to Israel the words of YHWH, as Moses did. But signs, even helpful signs, are never the end in themselves. For a true Deuteronomic prophet, a Prophet like Moses, the ultimate purpose of any sign or miracle always corresponds with the larger intent and purpose of Moses and of the Deuteronomic Torah: to cause the hearers of the prophet and the witnesses of the sign to a more centered devotion to YHWH alone (Deut 13:5). 37.  Provan (1 and 2 Kings, 134) makes a similar point: “In a way the story has a strange ending. The widow’s response to this raising of her son from the dead is faith—but faith that is focused upon Elijah rather than upon God himself. It is Elijah’s credentials as a man of God (v. 24) that have been validated by the miracle, rather than God’s ability to act.” Provan sees this as a positive aspect of the story; I see it differently. Dharamraj, likewise, notes the distinction between where the widow does, and should, place her faith: “The woman’s experiences of the God of Israel are completely mediated by Elijah; as far as she sees, it is at his word that the food does not run out, and it is at his hands that she receives the lad revived. She is excluded from the knowledge that the LORD had designed that she should feed Elijah just as much as she is excluded from the event in the upper chamber. It is only reasonable then, that Elijah is the focal point of the expression of her faith” (Prophet Like Moses?, 17). Dharamraj also sees this as proof that Elijah is clearly portrayed as the Mosaic prophet; I see it differently.

60

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

At the close of this final scene of these introductory stories, the Phoenician widow makes a confession. Her confession, however, does not address her own devotion or loyalty to YHWH. Instead, her confession centers in Elijah: ‫עתה זה ידעתי‬ ‫כי איׁש אלהים אתה‬ ‫ודבר־יהוה בפיך אמת‬ “Now, I know this: You are surely a man of God and the word of YHWH is truly in your mouth!” (v. 24)38

At the end of the story, as at the beginning, it seems as if Elijah has secured his place, at least in this Sidonian outpost, through his oaths, his pronouncements, his signs, and even through his association with divine, live-giving miracles. If, however, we assume that we understand his character and can safely dismiss him as a manipulating humbug (albeit a humbug with power), we should think again. Ambiguity works both ways: those whom we assume to be true may turn out to be false; on the other hand, those whom we assume to be humbugs (perhaps for very good reasons) may, in fact, turn out to be the one who, like Moses, turns Israel back to YHWH. And this is precisely what we, ourselves, witness in the following chapter. B. Elijah and the Contest on Mount Carmel The story of the contest on Mount Carmel is, perhaps, the most wellknown of all the stories about Elijah, with the possible exception of his departure accompanied by a flaming chariot and horses in 2 Kings. It is no surprise to see why. The narrative of the defeat of the prophets of Baal through a miraculous rain of fire has not only great dramatic appeal, but its 38.  Cogan sees the widow’s confession as resembling “Naaman’s declaration that ‘there is no God in all the world except in Israel’ ” (I & II Kings, 432). I, of course, see them as, if not diametrically opposed, contrasting; one highlighting Elijah’s status and position, the other highlighting the unity and devotion toward YHWH. Gray’s argument that the Hebrew word ‫ אמת‬/ “truth” here should be understood adverbially (“really”) makes sense of the clause in general: “If the woman admitted that the word of God was in Elijah’s mouth she would not gainsay the truth of it” (Gray, I & II Kings, 383). In other words, it adds nothing to the clause to say that YHWH’s word in Elijah’s mouth “is true.” It accords with the larger sense of the clause to say that YHWH’s word is “truly” in Elijah’s mouth.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

61

central message is fully centered within the foundational Deuteronomic theology that forms the basis upon which all the stories of these prophets are built. As such, the ambiguity that we have seen surrounding Elijah in 1 Kgs 17 will, eventually and temporarily, be resolved in the middle part of this episode; he will appear, at last, as the “Prophet like Moses” with a degree of clarity. The narrative itself is divided into five scenes, which alternate between three short scenes (comprising less than seven verses each) and two longer scenes (comprising 13 and 20 verses each). 1. Elijah’s Instructions—1 Kings 18:1–2 At the end of Elijah’s sojourn in Zarephath, after three years, the word of YHWH comes to him for a third time (17:2, 8), now directing him, not away from Israel and not into hiding, but toward Israel in order to meet King Ahab himself: ‫לך הראה אל־אחאב ואתנה מטר על־פני האדמה‬ Go, appear before Ahab so that I will send rain upon the ground!39

As opposed to Elijah’s initial pronouncement that he, and his word alone, would bring an end to the drought (17:1), YHWH here makes clear that three years is long enough: if Elijah will not do it, then YHWH will. It would appear, from this simple and straightforward command that only two things will occur: Elijah will appear before Ahab and the drought will end. What is not clear is how those two events will be related to each other.40 Immediately after receiving this divine word, Elijah obediently heads out to appear before Ahab. The scene ends with a notice that the famine was severe in the capital city of Samaria, a fact that sets up the beginning of the next scene. 2. Elijah and Obadiah—1 Kings 18:3–16 Because of the severity of the drought in the capital city, King Ahab and his chief steward, Obadiah, are searching in the countryside for a little grass for their horses and donkeys. After the widow of ch. 17, Obadiah 39.  Walsh notes the second clause as expressing the purpose for the first command (1 Kings, 237). See also Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 175: “Purpose can also be expressed by an imperative with a simple prefixed waw conjunctive.” In this case, a cohortative takes the place of the imperative described by Arnold and Choi. 40.  Walsh, 1 Kings, 237.

62

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

is the second major character to appear in the story. His introduction, ambiguously, places him squarely in the court of Ahab, which might lead the reader to view him in a negative light. This, however, proves to be a wrong; he is, instead, a devoted worshipper of YHWH. It would seem as though, from this information about Obadiah, that YHWH devotees could serve in the court of the king of Israel. The question surrounding the story of the rest of the chapter is not, as is so often assumed: which deity—YHWH or Baal—does one serve? It will be clear that the majority of Israelites (including Ahab) are YHWH worshipers— who also worship Baal. The religion of most of the characters in this chapter is a syncretistic, inclusive one.41 This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the unified vision of exclusive devotion to YHWH alone that lies at the heart of Deuteronomy. The question for Deuteronomy is not: does one serve YHWH? The question is: does one serve YHWH exclusively? Anything less than exclusive devotion to YHWH is apostasy and idolatry.42 Obadiah, we are told, is one of the minority: he is a “great” or exclusive worshiper of YHWH (v. 3b). In fact, the narrator affirms as evidence of his devotion that during a recent extermination of YHWH prophets by Jezebel, he hid 100 prophets in a cave and sustained them with food and water (v. 4). In light of the previous episodes focusing on Elijah, Obadiah’s actions are remarkable. Whereas Elijah fled the country, Obadiah remains. Whereas YHWH commands Elijah to hide in the wadi, Obadiah himself takes the initiative and hides prophets in a cave. Whereas God commands ravens and a widow to sustain (‫ )לכלכלך‬Elijah, Obadiah himself takes the

41.  Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 23: “Faithful Israel rather than the ambivalent Israel at Carmel, whom Obadiah and his hundred prophets represent, cowers in caves and under cloaks of anonymity.” 42.  As Bronner points out, “It was often contended by Wellhausen, Ewald and others, that Elijah was not a monotheist…but he was like the mass of the people of his time in regarding YHWH as only the God of Israel, a local God and believing that every other nation had its own deity. It is affirmed that Elijah was a ‘Henotheist’… But Elijah’s lofty conception of God virtually excludes all other objects of worship and makes all the god idols” (Stories, 25; see also Julius Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah [London: Black, 1891], 64–70; Heinrich Ewald, The History of Israel [London: Longmans Green, 1878], 4:68–72). What, obviously, Wellhausen and Ewald assumed was the identification of the belief-system of a putatively historical eighth-century Israelite and the belief-system of a literary character created much later. Since the “Elijah” we deal with is the latter, it is no surprise that he is a fervent devotee of the “YHWH alone” theological camp.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

63

initiative and sustains (‫ )כלכלם‬100 prophets of YHWH. Whereas YHWH provides bread and water to Elijah through the widow, Obadiah provides the same to 100 prophets. Whereas Elijah has merely been the recipient of YHWH’s provisions, Obadiah has actually provided. His devotion is not merely in word, but clearly also in deed! The meeting between Elijah and Ahab is prefaced by a rather extended meeting between Obadiah and Ahab, who have gone into the countryside to search for grass, in order, Ahab says, that ‫ונחיה סוס ופרד ולוא נכרית‬ ‫ מהבהמה‬/ “we can keep the horses and donkeys alive and not have to kill some of the animals” (v. 5). Ahab’s statement expressing compassion for the animals only undergirds the viciousness of his wife Jezebel; the same word ‫“( הכרית‬kill/exterminate”) is used in both clauses: what she does to the prophets of YHWH and what he does not want to do to the animals.43 In an effort to find grass more quickly, Ahab and Obadiah go their separate ways (‫ ;בדרך אחד לבדו‬v. 6).44 When Elijah appears in the story, it is not to Ahab, but rather Obadiah. Obadiah recognizes Elijah and asks, deferentially, ‫ האתה זה אדני אליהו‬/ “Are you truly my lord, Elijah?” Elijah acknowledges that Obadiah is correct and orders him to ‫ לך אמר לאדניך הנה אליהו‬/ “Go, speak to your lord: ‘Elijah is here!’ ” (v. 8). Based on the larger narrative of the previous chapter and thus far in this one, we would expect Obadiah to obey. In fact, throughout the larger Elijah–Elisha traditions and in this particular larger story, obedience is a major motif. But here, just as with the widow when Elijah commands her to bring him something to eat, Obadiah resists Elijah’s command in what is the longest sustained speech anywhere in the Elijah–Elisha narratives (vv. 9–14; 95 separate lexical units). Obadiah does not simply disobey Elijah’s word; he argues against his obeying the command. His resistance to the command springs from his fear of Ahab and the repercussions that might happen if the king is disappointed because Elijah has disappeared. Obadiah’s speech falls into five parts:

43.  Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 56; Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 22; Walsh, 1 Kings, 239. 44.  Garsiel sees in the separation of the “ways” that the two take a reflection of their two separate “ways of life”: “The story cycle at issue contains many more instances in which deeds or facts are pregnant with other meanings, symbolic or metaphoric enrichment of the text” (Earth to Heaven, 57). On a more literary level, their separation is reflected in the “either/or” nature of much of the following story and the rhetoric and plan of Elijah.

64

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

A. B. C. D. E.

A question about Elijah’s motives, ending in ‫ להמיתני‬/ “to kill me” (v. 9). A review of Ahab’s actions in searching for Elijah, introduced with an oath (v. 10). A fearful statement beginning with ‫ ועתה‬/ “So now…” and ending with ‫ והרגני‬/ “…and he will kill me” (vv. 11–12). A review of Obadiah’s own actions in rescuing the 100 prophets of YHWH, introduced with a rhetorical question (v. 13). A fearful statement beginning with ‫ ועתה‬/ “So now…” and ending with ‫ והרגני‬/ “…and he will kill me” (v. 14).

Many commentators have little to say about this long speech, most finding it beside the point.45 Of those who do discuss it, most see it as merely heightening the tension of the story, making clear the ruthlessness of Ahab and the violence that is now a part of the kingdom.46 While it certainly does highlight Obadiah’s fears, it also ties those fears directly to the motives of Elijah in the very first clause: ‫מה חטאתי כי־אתה נתן את־עבדך ביד־אחאב להמיתני׃‬ How have I sinned, that you are giving your servant into the hand of Ahab, in order to kill me?

For Obadiah, it is not only Ahab that he fears, it is Elijah himself.47 Elijah, Obadiah declares, might be setting him up so that Ahab, frustrated when Elijah does not appear as Obadiah has reported, turns and kills the servant since he cannot kill the prophet. For Obadiah, Elijah is not trustworthy. 45.  E.g., Gray (I & II Kings, 389–92) discusses details of the encounter (“royal chamberlain,” “cave,” royal stables, etc.) but never discusses the larger significance of the conversation; Cogan says nothing about the scene in his discussion of the overall significance of the chapter (1 Kings, 436–48). Walsh, by contrast, provides a nuanced reading of the speech (1 Kings, 240–42). 46.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 115–16; Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 21–24. See also: Burke O. Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature, FOTL 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 192; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 136–37; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 225–26. 47.  Nelson alludes to this tension: “At the same time, space is created for Obadiah to object to Elijah’s commission (mentioned three times: vv. 8, 11, 14) with his fear of death (also three times: vv. 9, 12, 14). Here Obadiah encounters the ambiguity about Elijah’s presence already experienced by the widow (17:18) and soon to be felt by Ahab (v. 17)” (First and Second Kings, 18). Long also hints at Obadiah’s uneasiness with Elijah by seeing his speech as boiling down to: “Elijah wants to have me slain by catching me up in his devious escape from Ahab’s net!” (1 Kings, 191).

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

65

Obadiah tries to disobey Elijah’s command by stating clearly that he does not trust him, by rehearsing Ahab’s own obsession with Elijah, by stating his own doubts about Elijah’s sincerity, by rehearsing his own righteousness for the prophetic cause, and by stating, again, his doubts about Elijah’s veracity. By the end of the speech, Elijah can only make an oath as a means to overcome Obadiah’s doubts and fears (v. 15). Such an episode is not an unambiguous endorsement of Elijah’s genuineness and reliability. It is no wonder that most commentators do not know what to do with the scene. From this point forward in the narrative, however, this episode serves in a contrasting function. From this initial scene of distrust, the narrator will portray Elijah as more and more faithful to the Deuteronomic vision of what a prophet should be and do. Elijah in his confrontation with Ahab, with the people of Israel, and with the prophets of Baal will look, more and more, like Moses and will behave, more and more, as the Prophet like Moses depicted in Deut 18.48 Ironically, because the context and other individuals are more ambivalent in their characterization, Elijah becomes less so.49 By using his rhetorical skill, comparable to that of Moses throughout the speeches of Deuteronomy, Elijah will not only win the contest against the prophets of Baal, he will also win the hearts and minds of ambivalent Israel back to his—and, more importantly, YHWH’s—side. 3. Elijah and Ahab—1 Kings 18:17–19 Up to this point, Ahab has, himself, been portrayed in an ambiguous light. Most commentators see him as bloodthirsty, cruel, vindictive, and a rabid Baal worshiper.50 If this were the case, however, there would be no need to bring in his wife, Jezebel, at the mention of the murder of the prophets of YHWH, both by the narrator and by Obadiah in the previous episode. If the murders were state-sponsored, then Ahab would naturally be blamed; they are, however, consistently mentioned as her handiwork. Also, it is not clear whether Ahab himself might know about Obadiah’s 48.  Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 28–30. 49.  The primary purpose of this study is to interpret the story of Elijah in such a way that it highlights the way in which his character is portrayed ambiguously. Garsiel, in his book From Earth to Heaven, also attempts to do this, but from a psychological and personality-type perspective. The work is extremely provocative and interesting. In his discussion of the Carmel episode, however, he asks many questions that attempt to frame Elijah in this scene as ambiguous as well. His questions here, however, strike me as largely picky and his explanations often do not lead to larger issues, as they usually do in other parts of his book. 50.  Walsh, 1 Kings, 242–43.

66

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

rescue of the 100 prophets.51 If this is true, then clearly the king has hidden the secret from his wife and supports the work of Obadiah, which would also explain his close association with him. This does not discount the king’s anger toward Elijah because of the drought; Elijah, at this point in the story, merely seems to be a miracle worker who has brought a drought upon the land with no explanation whatsoever (17:1). Ahab may not even know that Elijah is a prophet, nor what the relationship between the politics of the nation and the drought have to do with each other. This is not to say that Ahab is a positive character. By no means! He is not by any definition a righteous Deuteronomic king (Deut 17:14–20), particularly in the fact that he has married a foreign wife who has, as Solomon’s before him (1 Kgs 11:1–8), turned his heart away from exclusive, focused devotion toward YHWH (Deut 7:3–4).52 He is weak.53 While he may know about Obadiah’s rescue of the prophets, Ahab has done nothing to stop the slaughter of the others. He is divided in his loyalty toward YHWH. He is, like many others that we will see on Carmel, a worshiper of YHWH and Baal, a lifestyle that Elijah, point by point, will deftly undermine throughout the following story. On their meeting, Ahab accosts him with a phrase similar, yet opposite, to Obadiah’s initial question upon meeting Elijah: ‫האתה זה אדני אליהו׃‬ Is that really you, my lord Elijah? (v. 7)

51.  Who is Obadiah’s “lord” who was told about the rescue, which he mentions in v. 13? The majority opinion is that he is referring to Elijah (i.e., “Was it not to my lord [you]…?”). Walsh, e.g., seems to assume this (1 Kings, 242). This is often based on Obadiah’s initial query, “Is that really you, my lord Elijah?” (v. 7b). However, in the speech itself, Obadiah consistently refers to Elijah, his addressee, as “you,” either as a pronoun or with a pronominal suffix (vv. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14). He refers to Ahab either by name or by using Elijah’s circumlocution “your lord.” When, therefore, he says that news of the hidden prophets was told to “my lord” it is very possible that he refers to Ahab, not Elijah. 52.  Again, the issue is not whether Ahab worships YHWH; at issue is whether he worships YHWH alone, which he clearly does not. This is the problem with him from both Elijah’s and the narrator’s perspective. 53.  This characteristic of Ahab, even at the end of the story, will still be true, as will be evidenced in the following chapter. Cogan notes that, even in the initial scene of ch. 18, the first thing we see Ahab doing is menial: “The portrayal of the king is rather pitiful; the king was in such straights that he himself undertook to scour the countryside for leftover stubble” (1 Kings, 437). See also Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 61.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

67 ‫האתה זה עכר יׂשראל׃‬

Is that really you, troubler of Israel? (v. 17)

While Obadiah’s question is meant to show deference, Ahab’s is meant to show contempt. Elijah’s response is masterful. He might have accepted the epithet and explained why he had called the drought beforehand. What he does is to set up an either/or choice: ‫לא עכרתי את־יׂשראל כי אם־אתה ובית‬ ‫ אביך‬/ “I haven’t troubled Israel, but rather you [have] and your ancestral house!” (v. 18a). Elijah forces Ahab to choose mentally between two scenarios; one of them—but not both of them—is the cause of trouble for Israel. Ahab must decide which one it is. Elijah, furthermore, explains the problem with Ahab’s royal house in classic Deuteronomic language: ‫…בעזבכם את־מצות יהוה ותלך אחרי הבעלים‬ …when you all abandoned the commands of YHWH and you (yourself) followed the Baals. (v. 18b)

Elijah now, finally, lays out the putative purpose of the famine which he so stridently brought about (without explanation to Ahab) before. The House of Omri, Ahab’s ancestral house, has abandoned the command of YHWH, which is identical with exclusive devotion. Following the Deuteronomic Torah is the first and, essentially, only requirement for a Deuteronomic king.54 And since they refused to follow the command of YHWH, they naturally began to follow after something else. In the conclusion of his explanation, Elijah claims that they are now following “Baals,” or “masters.” Their error is in their plurality, instead of their exclusivity.55 Nelson makes the argument brilliantly: 54.  “And it will be, as soon as he sits upon the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah in a text in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be beside him and he shall read in it all the days of his life in order that he may learn to fear YHWH his God, by keeping all the words of this Torah and these statutes to do them. This is done so that he will not think of himself as higher than his family (lit. ‘brothers’) and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may enjoy a long reign in Israel over his kingdom” (Deut 17:18–20). 55.  The point is not, as a few commentators try to argue, that the various local manifestations of Baal are being alluded to (Gray, I & II Kings, 393; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 137). The name “Baal” will appear in the singular throughout the rest of the story. Only here is it in the plural. Elijah rhetorically marks the true issue for Ahab

68

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha Ahab is accused of following the local baals. Whether the context to follow is with the Canaanite high god Baal (Hadad), the local baal of Carmel, or the foreign god imported by Jezebel (Melqart or Baal Shamem) is totally immaterial in this context. Apostasy is apostasy no matter what the details. Indeed, the narrative’s refusal to be precise is itself testimony to the worthlessness of all other gods. They are lumped together and dismissed. To specify precisely which Baal failed at Carmel would dilute the sweeping condemnation of them all. Israel is gathered to witness the contest (vv. 19– 20), for it is their exclusive loyalty to Yahweh that is at stake (v. 21).56

And Elijah shows his hand to Ahab right at the beginning of the contest. 4. The Contest on Carmel—1 Kings 18:20–40 Elijah commands Ahab to gather all Israel and the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah to Mount Carmel. Remarkably, Ahab complies perfectly. It would seem that he, already, is being persuaded of the reality of the situation and, in the decision between obeying and not obeying, chooses to obey. Elijah’s opening address to all Israel hits the primary issue full force: ‫עד־מתי אתם פסחים על־ׁשתי הסעפים‬ ‫אם־יהוה האלהים לכו אחריו‬ ‫ואם־הבעל לכו אחריו‬ How long will you be limping upon two crutches?57 If YHWH is the God, follow after him! If Baal, follow after him! (v. 21)

right at the beginning: the issue is that Israel (including Ahab) are worshiping more than one god. 56.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 116. 57.  The phrase “limping upon two crutches” is a conjecture (argued by Gray, I & II Kings, 396). The word ‫ סעף‬usually means “sticks” (Ezek 31:6, 8; the verbal form, Piel of ‫סעף‬, means “to cut off branches,” Isa 10:33). The image may also refer to a bird hopping between two branches (Cogan, I & II Kings, 439), or someone hopping between two rocks with a crag between (Garsiel, From Earth to Heaven, 71). The metaphor is usually translated rhetorically into English as “limping between two opinions” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV), but this seems to miss the point. The question for the people is not “Which deity should we serve?” They are quite happy to serve both and they do not see this as a problem! The point of the metaphor seems to be that, in fact, they are limping, and that they must limp because they are relying on two different supports and this is precisely the problem. He skillfully uses the metaphor to change their preconception of what they are doing in their non-exclusive worship.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

69

The people, however, respond with silence, revealing their inability to see the two deities as incompatible.58 Elijah, in true Mosaic style, is not to be undone. He notes that although the prophets of Baal number 450, he, alone, is left as a prophet for YHWH. This opening rhetorical move may, at first, sound deceptive because he knows of Obadiah’s 100 prophets hiding out in the cave (v. 13). His point here, however, is not how many prophets of YHWH there are in the country, but rather to note the plurality of prophets on the side of Baal, and to note the singularity of himself, a prophet of YHWH.59 This opening address already begins to set up the concepts in the minds of his hearers rhetorically: plurality versus singularity. And acknowledging that the prophets of Baal and the prophet of YHWH are separate entities, already starts to tip the scales in his favor. He sets up a contest (vv. 22–24a). Two calves will be presented. The priests of Baal will choose one, butcher it, place it on an altar, but not light it.60 Elijah, likewise, will do the same with the remaining calf on his altar. At this point in his explanation, he drives the wedge further. Instead of continuing the instructions by saying that the prophets of Baal will call upon their gods, he directs the command to the people of Israel themselves. He draws them personally, and accusingly, into the scene: ‫וקראתם בׁשם אלהיכם‬ ‫ואני אקרא בׁשם־יהוה‬ You all will call on the name of your gods And I will call on the name of YHWH. (v. 24)

His ordering of the people to align themselves with the prophets of Baal forces them, again, to make a choice.61 After Elijah’s explanatory plan, the people, this time, actually do choose: “The word is good!” they reply. 58.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 121. 59.  Later, when he complains to YHWH at Horeb, his statement that “I alone am left” does not make this rhetorical move (1 Kgs 19:10, 14). In that case, he is attempting to be deceptive, a fact that YHWH disabuses him of in the response, “I have still reserved 7,000 for myself” (v. 18). 60.  The fact that the prophets of Baal, themselves, must choose one of the bulls reinforces the rhetorical theme of choosing. 61.  Of course, when the actual contest is underway, by that point, it is only the prophets of Baal who participate. By that point, Israel is already well on their way to choosing YHWH by their choosing “not Baal.” Note Cogan: “The subject can only be the people whom Elijah was addressing (v. 22)… Has the address to [the priests of Baal] in v. 25 inelegantly been transferred to the present verse…? More likely is Elijah’s identification of the wayward people with Baal” (1 Kings, 440).

70

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

When he explains the contest to the prophets of Baal, however, he makes an important change. He tells them that, after they have chosen their calf, they should go first “because you are many” (v. 25). Elijah suggests here that because of their great numbers, they will require more time and so should go ahead first. Again, the fact that they are so many appears at first to be a strike in their favor, but Elijah, by “allowing” them to go first, will also allow Israel to be singularly and exclusively focused upon their actions, instead of having to split their attention between them and him. As soon as the contest is underway in v. 26, in the very first clause the narrator relates: ‫ויקחו את־הפר אׁשר־נתן להם ויעׂשו‬ They took the calf that he gave to them and prepared it.

He had told Israel and the prophets themselves that they would choose the calf, but when all was said and done, their choice is a non-choice. They actually choose the calf that Elijah gave them. This is exactly parallel to what has been happening in the larger story: Elijah has rhetorically set up a situation in which a people who did not see the need to choose are being led, step by step, to make a choice, and the choice that they almost necessarily will make is the choice that Elijah has already chosen for them, a choice for YHWH. The prophets call out to Baal all morning, “O Baal, answer us!,” and they themselves begin to “limp” even upon the altar. At noon, Elijah begins to mock them, telling them to cry louder because Baal might be away or indisposed or, perhaps, sleeping.62 And they obey him, crying louder; they begin to cut themselves with swords and lances until their blood runs as, they think, in an attempt to perform a mourning ritual, but proleptically foreshadowing their eventual fate.63 As noon passes they continue their prophetic rituals until the time of the evening sacrifice. By this time, not only is there no sound and no answer (as earlier in v. 26), but now there is no sound, no answer, and no one is even paying attention (v. 29). Now, at the end of the day, Elijah calls Israel to him, and they dutifully obey. His preparatory actions are all centered on one image: unity. He repairs (lit. “heals”) the altar of YHWH that had been demolished. He 62.  The ancient Near Eastern background of his taunt is dealt with in many commentaries; see Matthews, Social World, 55. 63.  Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 31.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

71

does so by using twelve stones, representing the twelve tribes of Israel; the stones, once separate, now form a single altar. He forms a trench around the altar, arranges the wood, slaughters the calf, and places the calf on the wood. The scene is unified. He then calls for four jars of water to be poured upon the sacrifice three times. The twelve jarfuls of water that were once separate now flow into the trench and become unified again. In v. 36, immediately before his prayer, the narrator calls Elijah “the prophet Elijah.” People will call Elijah “prophet” throughout the larger narratives and Elijah will call himself a prophet in several places, but this is the sole instance that the narrator will give him that designation. Remarkably the designation does not come in the context of pronouncing an oracle or, even, performing a miracle. Elijah is most like a prophet— most similar to “the Prophet like Moses”—when he prays for Israel using images and wording directly from Deuteronomy.64 ‫יהוה אלהי אברהם יצחק ויׂשראל‬ ‫היום יודע כי־אתה אלהים ביׂשראל‬ ‫ואני עבדך‬ ‫ובדברך עׂשיתי את כל־הדברים האלה׃‬ ‫ענני יהוה ענני‬ ‫וידעו העם הזה כי־אתה יהוה האלהים‬ ‫ואתה הסבת את־לבם אחרנית׃‬ O YHWH, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel! Today let it be known that you are God in Israel and I am your servant. and according to your word I have done all these things. Answer me, O YHWH! Answer me! May this people know that you, YHWH, are the God, And that you have changed their minds.65

64.  Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 79. 65.  The final line of the prayer has caused much controversy among scholars. Cogan notes the two contrary possibilities: “You have caused them to be backsliders” and “You brought them back to their allegiance” (1 Kings, 443). See also Nelson, First and Second Kings, 118. Jerome Walsh supports the former option: “The underlying theological principle is that since Yahweh is the only God of Israel, all that happens to Yahweh’s people is ultimately his responsibility” (1 Kings, 252–53). While (as Cogan notes) such an idea is at home in Second Isaiah, it is foreign to the theology of Deuteronomy, in which YHWH constantly attempts to persuade and warn Israel about apostasy, not covertly try to lead them into it.

72

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The prayer is steeped in Deuteronomic language and imagery.66 The ancestors are recalled, but the name of Jacob is changed to Israel, representative of the people who are standing before Elijah. YHWH is not only the God of Israel; YHWH is also, quite simply, “the God.” Elijah, himself, is not “the prophet of YHWH” in his prayer, but rather the servant of YHWH. Finally, the God of Israel, the God of the people standing there on Carmel, has already started to change their minds. They have already come to see that divided loyalty is no loyalty at all. Depending on Baal and YHWH is trying to stumble along using two supports, which only impedes and hinders. They are already choosing, and that fact signals an end of the contest. All that remains is the sign. When the sign comes, it does so in one quick verse: ‫ותפל אׁש־יהוה‬ ‫ותאכל את־העלה ואת־העצים ואת־האבנים ואת־העפר‬ ‫ואת־המים אׁשר־בתעלה לחכה׃‬ The fire of YHWH fell. It ate up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, and the dust. It licked up even the water that was in the trench. (v. 38)67

It is almost over before it begins. But this is how it should be because signs and miracles are never the point in prophetic stories. They merely point the way toward devotion to YHWH, which is the natural response of Israel: “YHWH, he is the God! YHWH, he is the God!” (v. 39).68 And, in true Deuteronomic fashion (Deut 13), Elijah captures the non-YHWH prophets and slaughters then in the nearby Wadi Kidron.69 66.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 118; 67.  For the eating imagery present in the fire, see Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 33. 68.  See Gunkel, Elijah, 21. 69.  The slaughter of the prophets of Baal has, understandably, been disconcerting for some. James A. Montgomery and Henry Snyder Gehman (The Books of Kings, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951], 406) as well as Volkmar Fritz (1 & 2 Kings, trans. Anselm Hagedorn, Continental Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 194) see the slaughter as an overreach of an essentially violent man. It is, however, simply the carrying out of the clear instruction of Deut 13:1–5 and 18:20. While we, as contemporary readers, may be troubled by the scene, it must be acknowledged that it lines up with the Deuteronomic Torah and is the natural outcome of the contest. There may, however, be a meta-critical critique of the slaughter by the excessive numbers being slain by Elijah by himself (hyperbolic excess?), as well as the aligning of Elijah with Jezebel in the next chapter: both are willing to do absolutely

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

73

From beginning to end, Elijah has moved Israel from a state of syncretism to a state of unified loyalty to YHWH through giving them a choice. Nelson states the significance of Carmel so splendidly: The story of faith does not begin with verses 38–39, but with verse 24b. At first the people are simply unwilling to make any choice at all. Their silence in verse 21b rejects Elijah’s insistence that they cannot serve both Baal and Yahweh. In verse 24b, they have moved to a willingness to choose. They accept the incompatibility of divided loyalties. To accept a contest is to acknowledge that there will be a winner and that the winner is to be the object of exclusive faith. To be willing to choose is in some sense an act of faith in itself. To opt for a decision in place of syncretism, apathy, or agnosticism is really to opt for the God of the Bible… Although the people did not know it yet, the scales that were equally balanced in verse 21 have begun to tip toward Yahweh in verse 24. In verses 38–40 they tip all the way.

The story of Carmel is, as T. Fretheim puts it, “a dramatized form of the First Commandment.” I might add that it is, in fact, a playing out of the entirety of Deuteronomy, particularly ch. 6 and, for Elijah’s part, a representation of Deut 18, the purpose and significance of the Prophet like Moses. As opposed to the troublesome and ambiguous view of Elijah in ch. 17 and during the conversation with Obadiah at the beginning of ch. 18, for the most part, Elijah during the Carmel episode conforms to the vision that Deuteronomy has for the Prophet like Moses. 5. Elijah and Ahab and the End of the Drought—1 Kings 18:41–46 Where has Ahab been throughout this whole story? He has been right there with the rest of Israel, silent, then choosing, then witnessing, then hearing Elijah, then seeing the sign, and finally confessing his own unified and singular devotion to YHWH. He is not the cruel, vicious Baal-worshiping king any longer, if he ever had been.70 He, like Elijah, conforms here to the vision that Deuteronomy has for the king of Israel, one who follows the Deuteronomic Torah and confesses YHWH, alone, to be God. This

anything––including murder and even genocide—to further their religion. As such, perhaps the hyperbolic killing of the prophets (both by Jezebel and by Elijah) is subtly being used ironically to acknowledge the terror of the text. 70.  See Dharamraj (Prophet Like Moses?, 37–39) for an excellent discussion of the sympathetic view of Ahab. He also notes further literary evidence that the Omrides generally were not completely unfaithful. Ahab, he notes, is similar to Ahaz and Zedekiah, “good kings too lacking in backbone to do as counselled by their respective prophets.” See also Holt, “ ‘…urged on by his wife Jezebel,’ ” 95–96.

74

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

change explains why Ahab appears as he does in the dénouement of the episode and why Elijah responds to him in the positive and honorable way that he does. As a response to the confession of “all the people” that “YHWH is the God! YHWH is the God!” (v. 39) the judgment on the land is reversed and the drought is ended. Elijah tells Ahab, in particular, to join in the post-sacrifice celebration of eating and drinking because “there is a sound of rain” (v. 41), which Ahab obeys (v. 42a). Elijah, having ascended to the top of Carmel, takes on a posture of prayer and sends his young servant to look out over the Mediterranean to see if there is any sign of the coming storm.71 The servant responds, “there isn’t anything at all” (v. 43) and Elijah sends him to check seven times in succession. On the seventh ascent, the servant reports seeing a “little cloud like a human hand coming up from the water,” supposedly having drawn up water which it would then pour upon the land. Even though the cloud is small, Elijah takes it as a sign of the coming tumult and orders Ahab, through the servant, to head out because of the coming storm: “Do not let the storm hinder you!” (v. 44). Once the storm hits, Ahab is riding in his chariot and heads toward the nearest city, Jezreel. Elijah, for his part, under YHWH’s power, runs ahead of Ahab’s chariot as his messenger, heading toward Jezreel, as well.72 It is remarkable that the supernatural miracle of fire from the sky was passed over in one verse, but the anticipation and occurrence and result of rain from the sky, a natural occurrence, takes up an entire scene. The turn from judgment to blessing is the real point of this story. 71.  The presence of the servant, who has not appeared before this, has troubled some commentators. Nelson sees it as a narrative necessity for Elijah to remain in a position of prayer and, therefore, someone else to witness the coming rain (First and Second Kings, 119). This minor figure here will expand in later chapters as first Elisha becomes Elijah’s servant, then Elisha himself takes on servants in both the characters of the “sons of the prophets” and of Gehazi. The servant/messenger character will be a major motif in the Elisha narratives. 72.  Sweeney notes the “messenger motif” here: “Elijah deliberately shows respect for the king by joining the escort that normally accompanies a king’s chariot (see 2 Sam 15:1; 1 Kgs 1:5)” (I & II Kings, 230). Garsiel opines: “The author here employs an extraordinary expression to emphasize that the Lord is behind Elijah’s efforts of reconciliation, instructing him and strengthening him to perform such a tiring run. God not only approves of the reconciliation, but prods His prophet to do it as an honorable token of goodwill toward the king. The readers wonder whether a new era of peace and understanding between the king and the prophet is now beginning” (Earth to Heaven, 82).

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

75

This final scene is one of hope and relief.73 It seems as if everything has turned around. Through the verbal skill of the Prophet like Moses, Elijah has been able, by signs and symbols and rhetorical ability, to unify Israel, to turn their devotion to YHWH alone, and, in Deuteronomic singlemindedness, to rid the country of those voices which would cause Israel to divide their loyalty between YHWH and anything or anyone else. The nation is brought together, the king has begun to conform to his role of the model Israelite who obeys the Deuteronomic Torah, the judgment has passed, the drought is over, and Elijah—no longer concerned about this own status and his own power alone—is able to serve both the people and the king as a messenger bringing the good news of the favor of YHWH. Unfortunately, this unambiguous, hopeful vision will not last long at all. C. Elijah and the Theophany(?) on Mount Horeb The next episode sees Elijah as not only very unlike the Prophet like Moses, but actually impudent and rebellious against YHWH.74 It is one of the most spectacular reversals in the Hebrew Bible. The one who so eloquently and bravely addressed all of Israel and symbolically defeated the prophets of Baal even before the fire fell from the sky is reduced to a petulant and manipulating character right in the holiest of all places, Horeb, the mountain of YHWH.75

73.  Gunkel, Elijah, 22. 74.  The usual description of Elijah as “despairing” or “frustrated” is accurate, but too weak. He, like Jonah, appears in this chapter as an “anti-prophet,” seeing himself as indispensable and, simultaneously, as impotent. 75.  The disjunctions between this chapter and the previous two chapters seem to signal the independence of the two traditions in the history of the development of the text. (B. P. Robinson, “Elijah at Horeb, 1 Kings 19:1–18: A Coherent Narrative?,” RB 98 (1991): 513–36; Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 196; Walsh, 1 Kings, 264; Gray, I & II Kings, 405.) Even so, it is at least plausible that the retreat of Elijah and the events at Horeb could have been excised and the success of Elijah on Carmel would lead, naturally, to his choosing a successor in Elisha (19:19–21). In this way the character of Elijah as the Prophet like Moses would have been retained, his personal fortitude and leadership would be heightened, and Elisha would be seen as a Joshua-like status. As it stands now, however, Elijah’s ambiguity is retained, his fortitude and leadership are questioned, and Elisha becomes, himself, an ambiguous character, both Elijah’s replacement and ongoing servant.

76

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The narrative of this episode comprises three scenes. The first is a short scene built around a speech of Jezebel (19:1–4a). The second scene is a very active scene with only a few short bits of dialogue (vv. 4b–9a). The third, and longest, scene is mostly built upon speeches by Elijah and YHWH (or the “word of YHWH” or a “voice”), with little action. By the end of this scene, Elijah is sent on a task, but it is unclear whether he accepts or rejects that task or whether he has a new sense of understanding either his role as prophet or YHWH’s larger purpose. 1. Elijah Flees from Jezebel—1 Kings 19:1–4a In the aftermath of the contest on Mount Carmel, Ahab returns home to Samaria and reports to Jezebel two details about Elijah: “all that Elijah did, and all that he killed—all the prophets—with the sword” (v. 1).76 Most commentators assume that Ahab reported this out of rage or revenge but the text reveals no such intent behind his reporting. In light of his actions both on Carmel and afterwards going to Jezreel, it is probable that Ahab, as all Israel, was won over to the worship of YHWH alone by Elijah. If this is true, then his report to Jezebel could be seen as an announcement of her being bested by both the prophet Elijah and by Elijah’s deity, YHWH. Unfortunately, Ahab’s newfound devotion does not extend to deposing Jezebel of her status as queen, even in spite of the turnaround that had occurred religiously in the nation. She remains, at this point at least nominally, as queen of Israel, and Ahab reveals himself to be weak as always. For her part, Jezebel does something remarkable. Instead of simply sending an assassin to kill the prophet, she sends a messenger to give him a communication.77 Her proclamation to the prophet takes the form of an oath. As we have seen before, oaths are made in contexts when the addressee has reason to doubt the veracity or sincerity of the speaker about the subject of the following speech. It is likely, in the context of post-Carmel Israel, that Jezebel knows that Elijah has the upper hand both religiously and politically and she knows that he must assume that she, as well as her now ragtag Baal-only movement, is powerless. In light of her assumptions, she pronounces an oath of self-imprecation: she herself will suffer by the gods if, within the space of a day, Elijah is not killed in the same manner as her prophets were (v. 2). The message, however, shows her hand: she can no longer simply order his death, as she did with 76.  Walsh, 1 Kings, 235: “The triple repetition of ‘all’ put a great deal of emphasis on the detailed completeness of Ahab’s report.” 77.  Ibid., 265–66.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

77

the prophets of YHWH before (18:4). The fact that she can only threaten Elijah with death at this point should reveal to the prophet that she is powerless, at least in an official capacity.78 Unfortunately, Elijah can see none of this. Instead of taking advantage of his recent victory and rallying Israel to overthrow the wicked queen and, perhaps, to depose her weak, vacillating husband, Elijah runs for his life (v. 3).79 He flees all the way to Beer-Sheba, where he leaves his servant. Elijah continues going into the desert for a day’s journey. Walsh beautifully notes: “In a series of abandonments, he gradually removes himself from his own kingdom, Israel, to enter Judah, then from settled land to enter the wilderness, and finally from all human companionship.”80 Outside of his context, even outside of the “word of YHWH,” there are no ravens, no widows, no seeming support, at least for a while. 2. Elijah Journeys Through the Wilderness—1 Kings 19:4b–9a A day’s journey in the Judean desert, Elijah sits ‫ תחת רתם אחת‬/ “under a single broom tree” (19:4a); the image indicates desolation and aloneness.81 Like Jonah, another pitiable prophet who sat under a plant, Elijah reveals that his circumstances lead him to wish for death: “Enough! Now, YHWH, take my life!” (v. 4b; note Jonah 4:3).82 Like Jonah, however, the death wish seems disingenuous. If Elijah truly wanted to die, then he should have remained in Israel and let Jezebel carry out her impotent threat. The statement, rather, indicates his deep sense of self-judgment because it is tied directly to the fact that “I am not better than my ancestors” (v. 4b). 78.  Contra Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2000), 234: “The fugitive is on the run, because the crown is playing hardball.” Of course, as will be clear in ch. 21, she still has operatives within Israel and can still bring about her will covertly. But this fact, again, shows that her official status and power are gone. 79.  Dharamraj explores the possibility that the flight is not out of fear, but rather is a calculated retreat. If it is calculated, however, it is a miscalculation, based upon an inability to see the weak position of the queen. The question is based on the reading of the first word of 19:3, ‫וירא‬, as meaning either “and he saw” or “and he feared.” The LXX understands the verb to imply fear: καὶ ἐφοβήθη. Dharamraj settles on the meaning “he feared” and sees the flight as being a panicked escape. See also Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 144; Walsh, 1 Kings, 266. 80.  Walsh, 1 Kings, 266. 81.  Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 49; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 126; Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 89–90. 82.  The parallel with Jonah is discussed by Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 144–45; Sweeney, 1 and 2 Kings, 231.

78

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The comparison is evocative; who are the “ancestors” with whom he is comparing himself? Former generations of Israelites? Former prophetic figures? Is he, perhaps, comparing himself to Moses, the prophet sine qua non? If he despairs because he cannot be greater than Moses, then his selfimportance is truly out of bounds. One fact remains clear: no prophet has ever been greater than Moses (Deut 34:10–12). Elijah, because he cannot be the greatest, despairs and, eventually, sleeps under the broom tree. Suddenly, a messenger strikes him! Who is this? One of the messengers from Jezebel (v. 1) carrying out her plan to kill him? The verbal force of the participle ‫ נגע‬/ “touching/hitting/ striking” is ambiguous. Is the touch a nudge to awaken Elijah from his sleep, or is it a slap to awaken him from his self-focus, or it is a stroke to injure him? It is even unclear at this point whether the messenger is really there or is a figure in a dream.83 The following events find close parallels with the plot of the previous two chapters. It may be that, if he is dreaming, Elijah’s dream weaves together images from previous episodes. The messenger’s order to ‫ קום אכול‬/ “Get up! Eat!” is reminiscent of Elijah’s order to Ahab after the victory at Carmel: ‫ עלה אכל‬/ “Arise! Eat!” (18:41). Elijah ‫ ויבט‬/ “looked/noticed” exactly as his servant had looked over the Mediterranean to search for a cloud (18:43). “At his head” / ‫ מראׁשתיו‬recalls Elijah’s ascent‫אל־ראׁש‬ ‫ הכרמל‬/ “to the top of Carmel” to intercede for rain. His provisions, the ‫ עגת‬/ “cake” and ‫צפחת‬/ “jar” of water parallel the provisions provided by the widow: ‫ עגה‬and ‫( צפחת‬17:12–13). His eating and drinking reflect his experience at the Wadi Cherith, where ravens brought him food and he drank from the wadi (17:6). And his ‫ ויׁשכב‬/ “lying down” is verbally similar to his own ‫ ויׁשכבהו‬/ “laying down” of the widow’s boy upon his own bed (17:19). The parallels consistently point out the provision of YHWH in the past, a provision that led him to Carmel and that were tied directly to the end of the drought immediately afterwards. Elijah, however, does not see this. He returns to his sleep. So the messenger must return a second time, this time simply and straightforwardly without the complex, dream-like sequences before. And, also, this time the narrator is clear who this messenger is: it is the messenger of YHWH! Finally, the messenger’s second order to Elijah to eat has an explanation about the purpose of the meal: “Get up! Eat! The 83.  The participial and extremely short clauses of vv. 5b–8a are reminiscent of dream sequences in other scenes of the Hebrew Bible: Jacob’s dream at Bethel in Gen 28; Joseph’s dream reports in Gen 37; the Butler and Baker’s dreams in Gen 40; and Pharaoh’s dream of the cows and corn in Gen 41 all have similar verbal sequences. See Heller, Narrative Structure, 114–22.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

79

journey/way/lifestyle is more than enough for you!” (v. 7). Walsh notes that many English translations miss the point of the speech by simply saying that the “journey is too much for you”: The Hebrew construction is idiomatic… In Hebrew the first word after the conjunction “for” is rab, “enough”––the word with which Elijah began his prayer in verse 4. By this allusion to Elijah’s earlier speech, the messenger of Yahweh makes it clear to the prophet that this is the divine answer to his request. God refuses Elijah’s plea to die and sends him on a journey instead. Yahweh has little patience with a complaining prophet.84

The journey, or rather, “the way” for which YHWH’s messenger fortifies Elijah and on which he sends him is, as will be clear, not to Horeb. It is back to Israel, undoubtedly, to deal with Jezebel and to enforce the Deuteronomic Torah that had been reinstituted on the top of Carmel. In other words, Elijah needed to get back to being the Mosaic prophet, leading Israel in their single-minded devotion to YHWH. Elijah, however, ignores his mission and continues on his way to Horeb to confront YHWH directly. The references to Elijah’s walk to Horeb taking forty days and forty nights, all the time sustained miraculously, and his arrival at “the cave” are clearly meant to evoke a parallel to Moses, who not only wandered with Israel for forty years in the desert because of Israel’s disobedience (Deut 1:3), but, according to Deuteronomic tradition, stayed twice on Horeb for forty days and nights without food or water (Deut 9:9, 18).85 Of course, the parallels with Moses are meant to highlight Elijah’s difference.86 Whereas Moses’s fasting was meant to intercede for Israel, to seek YHWH’s mercy so that they would not be destroyed, Elijah’s trip to Horeb is only meant for his own sake, to express his own anger and frustration. Whereas Moses received the remarkable sign of seeing YHWH while in a “split in the rock” which led to a renewal and replacement of the covenant 84.  Walsh, 1 & 2 Kings, 270. 85.  Many scholars note the parallel with Moses and discuss it: Dillard, Faith, 54–55; Walsh, 1 Kings, 270–78; Nelson, 1 and 2 Kings, 128; Sweeney, 1 and 2 Kings, 232; Cogan, 1 Kings, 456–57. Dharamraj, who tries to argue throughout her study that Elijah exactly conforms to the standard of the “Prophet like Moses,” explores the parallel fully, but with an eye toward seeing Elijah in a positive light: Prophet Like Moses?, 50–70. 86.  While many scholars note the comparison, many see it as heightening Elijah’s status, rather than defining him over against Moses; see, e.g., Dillard, Faith, 55; Cogan, 1 Kings, 456–57, as well as Dharamraj in the previous footnote.

80

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

(Exod 33), Elijah goes to “the cave” and there will spend the night in order to confront YHWH. Elijah, that ambiguous prophet of Carmel, is here clearly no Mosaic prophet. 3. Elijah Complains to YHWH—1 Kings 19:9b–18 The direct interaction between Elijah and YHWH on Horeb is, likewise, meant to evoke an echo with the Deuteronomic tradition of Moses having a relationship with YHWH “face to face” (Deut 34:10). And, as before, the parallel will consistently show Elijah as the lesser of the two, not merely because he is no Moses, but that his character—his motives, his intentions, his goals––are completely different from those of Moses. The episode is divided into six sections, many of which correspond with other sections: A. YHWH’s question and Elijah’s answer (vv. 9b–10) B. YHWH’s brief instructions for what Elijah is to do immediately (v. 11a) C. A Non-Theophany (v. 11b–12) B′. Elijah’s performance of YHWH’s brief instructions (v. 13a) A′. YHWH’s question and Elijah’s answer (vv. 13b–14) D. YHWH’s extended instructions for what Elijah is to do afterwards (vv. 15–18)87

The interaction begins with “the word of YHWH” coming to Elijah. Unlike in a normal prophetic experience, however, the word that YHWH pronounces provides neither a message for another person nor instructions for Elijah to follow. Instead, YHWH asks, ‫ מה־לך פה אליהו‬/ “What are you doing here, Elijah?” The syntax clearly marks that the question is not about Elijah’s actions, but rather his presence there on Horeb. Why is he there? The journey for which the messenger’s food was meant to fortify him was not for him to come to Horeb, but rather for some other purpose, undoubtedly to lead and teach Israel about the Deuteronomic Torah, as Moses had. Instead, Elijah had used the strength of the meal to come to Horeb!88 87.  Walsh’s outline is non-chiastic and does not highlight the theophany nor show the correspondence between YHWH’s command in v. 11a and Elijah’s actions in v. 13a (1 Kings, 271). He does, however, note the close similarity between this scene and Exod 33. 88.  For Elijah’s journey to Horeb as being contrary to YHWH’s intention, see Walsh, 1 Kings, 270–71; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 144–45; Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 94–95. Dharamraj (Prophet Like Moses?, 53) argues that the question “What are

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

81

Elijah answers in a way that separates him from the people of Israel. Instead of reviewing the recent events on Carmel, which unified and solidified their devotion to YHWH, Elijah sees himself as separate and as a victim: ‫קנא קנאתי ליהוה אלהי צבאות‬ ‫כי־עזבו בריתך בני יׂשראל‬ ‫את־מזבחתיך הרסו‬ ‫ואת־נביאיך הרגו בחרב‬ ‫ואותר אני לבדי‬ ‫ויבקׁשו את־נפׁשי לקחתה׃‬ I’m the one who has been zealous for YHWH, the God of Armies! The people of Israel have forsaken your covenant! Your altars they have torn down! Your prophets they have killed with the sword! I, alone, I remain And they are seeking my life to take it!

He might have said something like: “I have been very zealous for YHWH! The people of Israel have renewed their devotion to your covenant! We have rebuilt your altar! We have killed the prophets of Baal with the sword!” Instead, he separates himself from the people of Israel, then accuses them as a whole of forsaking the covenant, tearing down Yahwistic altars, killing Yahwistic prophets, and seeking his own life, even though the last three items were clearly only done by Jezebel, acting on her own singular volition.89 His mention of being completely alone you doing here?” is not being accusatory, but rather is an invitation to dialogue. (See also Cogan, 1 Kings, 452.) However, the parallel scenes where he notes similar opening questions by YHWH are almost all in rhetorically fraught situations: Adam (Gen 3:9); Cain (Gen 3:6, 9); Balaam (Num 22:9); and Jonah (Jonah 4:9). Garsiel (Earth to Heaven, 95) also notes that the repetition of the same exact question later indicates “that it is a significant and crucial interrogating question… Against such a background, the Lord’s question should be interpreted as a rebuke rather than as a polite and low-keyed opening remark. The meaning of the question is ‘What are you, Elijah the prophet, doing here so far away in the desert and such a long way from the Kingdom of Israel? Why have you deserted your post and mission?” It should also be noted that Elijah, himself, seems to see the question as accusatory in light of his multi-clause, defensive response. 89.  Cogan attempts to explain the incongruity between Elijah’s rehearsal of the state of Israel and the previous victorious scene by positing separate traditions which know nothing of each other: 1 Kings, 456. Sweeney (1 and 2 Kings, 232) explains the difference by seeing the speech as reflecting the general mood of the books of Kings

82

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

and unique in his devotion to YHWH also rings false.90 Not only did all Israel confess that YHWH was God on Carmel, but other characters that we have seen, Obadiah as well as the 100 prophets whom he protected, have remained true to YHWH, as Elijah well knows. Why does he accuse Israel to YHWH in this manner? What is his intent? If the parallel with Moses provides a clue, then Elijah again becomes an anti-Moses.91 When YHWH was angry with Israel at Horeb because of the golden calf, Moses intercedes with YHWH, asking mercy and forgiveness so that YHWH would not destroy them and start over with Moses in the stead of Abraham (Deut 9:12–19). What is the intent of Elijah’s wholesale accusation against all Israel? Is it to replay the scene, but this time to have YHWH actually destroy Israel because of their apostasy? Or is it to turn the tables in this scene, by casting himself in the role of YHWH who is angry to Israel, and forcing YHWH to become the Moses-figure and intercede with him for their deliverance. In light of Elijah’s clear anti-Mosaic characterization, either goal is likely. In response, YHWH commands Elijah to leave the cave and, like Moses (Deut 5:5, 31; 10:10), to stand upon the mountain ‫ לפני יהוה‬/ “before YHWH” (v. 11a). The phrase “before YHWH” is one that Elijah has twice used to describe his own relationship with and devotion to his deity (17:1; 18:15). In Elijah’s mouth it has been used to represent an identification between YHWH and himself, YHWH’s special prophet. In the pattern of the overall format of the episode, Elijah carries out, somewhat, the command in v. 13: “As soon as Elijah heard, he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out and stood at the opening of the cave.” Again, unlike Moses who knew God face to face, by wrapping his own face in his in general. The weight of the entire chapter, however, argues against seeing Elijah as a positive character almost anywhere in any of the scenes. If the point of the story is to portray Elijah as faithful and brave and true, the narrator could have done much better. 90.  Whereas at Carmel, Elijah’s noting that he was alone in that context meant that he was greatly outnumbered by the prophets of Baal and Asherah. He was singular as opposed to their plurality. Here, however, in the context of placing himself over against “all Israel,” his statement is false not only by his own knowledge—Obadiah and the 100 prophets certainly are numbered among “all Israel,” as well as the great gathering on Carmel—but also by YHWH’s response, which indicates that the statement here is not simply “the only prophet remaining on the field” (thus Dharamraj, who tries to redeem Elijah and rehabilitate him into a brave and selfless prophet “like Moses”: Prophet Like Moses?, 67). 91.  See Robinson, “Elijah at Horeb,” 535: by his own claim, Moses says that he “is the only prophet left, and (he implies) self-interest should therefore ensure that God take special steps to preserve him.”

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

83

mantle, Elijah seems unable or unwilling to have such a relationship with YHWH.92 Also, he is also unwilling to take his stand upon the mountain, only making it as far as the mouth of the cave.93 Once at the cave entrance, YHWH again asks him the exact same question as before and Elijah, for his part, answers exactly the same, as well (vv. 13b–14). Elijah has not changed, and seems unwilling to continue the relationship that, he claimed, he had had with YHWH before. As such, he refuses to stand upon the mountain ‫ לפני יהוה‬/ “before YHWH,” resigns his position, and is unwilling to continue in his prophetic function for Israel.94 92.  Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 146. Cogan argues that even Moses hid his face before YHWH in Exod 3:6 (1 Kings, 456). Yet that early scene in Exodus contrasts pointedly with the summative statement of Deut 34:10. 93.  Nelson (First and Second Kings, 126–27): “Although he has always claimed to stand before the Lord (17:1; 18:15; cf. 19:11), he fails to obey this time. He is unimpressed by the show and his complaint remains exactly the same as before (v. 14).” 94.  Dharamraj attempts to overcome this interpretation of the Horeb episode in the large central section of her book (Prophet Like Moses? 42–153). She has three basic arguments to support the contention that Elijah is exactly the Prophet like Moses and his portrayal at Horeb should consistently be interpreted positively. First, the plan of YHWH in resolving the issue of the unfaithfulness of Israel is “a bloody purge so as to birth an Israel within Israel”; Elijah’s indictment against Israel is, therefore, true. Second, Elijah continues in the Naboth and the Ahaziah narratives to reflect positive aspects of the Prophet like Moses; his actions at Horeb must, therefore, not need “rehabilitating.” Third, if he truly does misrepresent Israel twice at Horeb, there should surely be a punishment if not “outright dismissal” for “bad behavior” which, of course, is ultimately not forthcoming; instead, he is carried to heaven without seeing death, an “undeniable commendation” of his life (Prophet Like Moses?, 222–23). On the other hand, first, Elijah is, indeed, reprimanded at the end of the final divine speech: his consistent perspective of his uniqueness is overblown: there is a multitude of faithful Israelites. Second, Elijah does indeed go on to act as a Prophet like Moses (particularly in the Naboth episode, less successfully in the Ahaziah episode). This does not argue that he is a consistent positive character; it argues that he is ambiguous and, therefore, not consistent and not absolutely trustworthy. Third, it is, in fact, not clear that Elijah’s ascension is an “undeniable commendation”; there is no divine voice speaking from heaven, “This is the Mosaic prophet, in whom I am well pleased!” The ascension seems random and unexpected and, throughout the episode, the focus is on Elisha, not Elijah. The ascension compels Elisha to begin his work; Elijah must be removed first. In light of this, as well as the majority of readings in the past quarter century, I believe that Elijah’s actions in 1 Kgs 19 are not positive and that, while he is consistently compared to Moses throughout the episode, the comparison is actually a contrast at almost every turn.

84

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Between the two sets of questions and answers, and between YHWH’s instructions and Elijah’s movement to the mouth of the cave, there is what appears to be a theophany that is explicitly not a theophany (vv. 11b–12). While YHWH passes by, there are the routine manifestations that were also present on Horeb with Moses: wind, earthquake, and fire. Yet, YHWH is not in any of these manifestations, these signs, these miraculous events.95 In Deuteronomic language, even the miracles and signs that should be at the heart of YHWH’s presence are, in fact, empty. Such signs cannot unmistakably be trusted to point to YHWH’s presence. Deuteronomy 13, with its warning against prophets who may produce signs to convince Israel of their veracity, is illustrated on the most holy mountain itself. They cannot even convince Elijah, the miracle worker, himself. Finally, once it is obvious that Elijah relinquishes his position as prophet, YHWH gives him one last set of instructions. These commands, however, have nothing to do with rescuing Elijah from Jezebel, which was the original impulse that sent Elijah to Horeb. Instead, Elijah––like Samuel before him––is sent to anoint a king: ‫לך ׁשוב לדרכך מדברה דמׂשק‬ ‫ובאת ומׁשחת את־חזאל למלך על־ארם׃‬ ‫ואת יהוא בן־נמׁשי תמׁשח למלך על־יׂשראל‬ ‫ואת־אליׁשע בן־ׁשפט מאבל מחולה תמׁשח לנביא תחתיך׃‬ ‫והיה‬ ‫הנמלט מחרב חזאל ימית יהוא‬ ‫והנמלט מחרב יהוא ימית אליׁשע׃‬

95.  The scene of the non-theophany has, ironically, been the focus of many commentators who see it as central to the meaning of the story: Cogan, 1 Kings, 456; Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 98–99; Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses?, 70–84. Note especially Sweeney (1 and 2 Kings, 232): “The initial manifestation of YHWH’s self-revelation emphasizes YHWH’s holy, incorporeal character.” This is ironic because, of course, the fire, earthquake, and wind are explicitly not manifestations of YHWH’s presence. This is precisely the danger that Deut 13:1–5 warns about with regard to miracles: they captivate our senses and can lead us to see them as proofs for YHWH’s will or intentions when, in fact, they may simply be magical apparitions or non-theophanic phenomena. Both Nelson (First and Second Kings, 122–25) and Walsh (1 Kings, 276) correctly evaluate the phenomena as almost non-issues. Nelson sees even the “sound of silence” at the end as simply that: a space of silence in which Elijah can respond or not respond to what he has experienced. Walsh sees the sound as something that “contains the divine presence,” an interpretation that I think, again, misses the point.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

85

Go! Turn around on your journey toward the desert of Damascus. Come [there] and anoint Hazael as king over Syria. And anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel-meholah as a prophet in your place. It will be that: The one who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill. (vv. 15–17)

YHWH sends him to Damascus, the capital of Syria, to anoint the new Syrian king, Hazael, as well as to anoint a new king of Israel, Jehu. Finally, since he no longer chooses to be a prophet, Elijah is to anoint his successor, Elisha. The overarching purpose of these three changes will assure a harmonious and cooperative relationship between the two nations of Syria and Israel, and between the new monarchies and the successor prophet, Elisha. Furthermore, the relationship will be one based upon and centered on shared responsibilities for justice.96 At the very end of the speech, YHWH overturns all of Elijah’s pretense and strips him of his excuses. There are, YHWH says, a large number of Israelites who have remained faithful and have not worshipped Baal. All of Elijah’s self-pitying and self-aggrandizement are shown to be false, just as Elijah himself knew from Obadiah and from the outcome of the Carmel contest. If Elijah cannot continue to proclaim to Israel the unified vision of Deuteronomy––even in spite of the tremendous success of Carmel—then, perhaps, another person can. D. Elijah and the Meeting with Elisha—1 Kings 19:19–21 In YHWH’s instructions, Elijah was to go to the desert of Damascus, and he was to anoint three individuals: Hazael, who is to rule in Damascus, Syria; Jehu, who is to rule in Samaria, Israel; and Elisha, who is to be 96.  Dharamraj believes these commands paint a picture of “a bloody purge so as to birth an Israel within Israel” (Prophet Like Moses?, 222). This view is perhaps influenced by the eventual bloodbath brought about by Jehu upon the Omride house near the end of the Elisha cycle in 2 Kgs 10. However, the purpose proposed by YHWH here is not of a purge or a bloodbath. YHWH clearly knows of the faithfulness of many in Israel, as well as the preceding victory on Mount Carmel. The justice pictured here, in fact, seems directed against relatively few insurgents: ‫ הנמלט‬/ “the one who escapes” instead of *‫ הנמלטים‬/ “the ones who escape” (as suggested by the NRSV). YHWH does not promote widespread violence here. The overall sense of the command is one of harmony, unity, and cooperation, traits that Elijah decidedly does not portray in this episode.

86

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Elijah’s successor. Although the lack of syntactically markers does not require that the three be anointed in the order they are given, the initial direction that Elijah is to go to the Syrian Desert probably indicates that Hazael is the highest priority. Elijah leaves Horeb immediately after YHWH finishes speaking and, we expect, he will head out for Damascus to find Hazael. Instead, Elijah immediately goes to find Elisha, son of Shaphat.97 It seems that Elijah wants to give up his position as prophet even more than we thought! Elisha, as he is introduced into the story, does not seem a particularly powerful candidate for the position. He is not a prophet, nor is he even numbered among the “sons of the prophets,” bands of disciples who will be introduced into the story later. Instead, he appears as a farmer, or rather, as a laborer on a farm, following the last yoke of oxen in a field being plowed.98 Elijah does not anoint Elisha as he was told, but rather throws his mantle “at him” and, it appears, keeps walking since Elisha, after leaving his oxen, must hurry to catch up with him (v. 20).99 Elisha expresses that he wants to go and kiss his father and mother (supposedly goodbye) and then “I will follow after you.” Elijah’s response to Elisha’s request is opaque and ambiguous: 97.  Again, Cogan explains the difference between YHWH’s instructions and Elijah’s actions by positing multiple texts: “The word of YHWH in vv. 15–18 and Elijah’s incomplete execution of His commands in vv. 19–21 suggest that two separate fragments of tradition were juxtaposed in the present text” (1 Kings, 457). In light of the characterization of Elijah throughout the chapter, however, it seems unnecessary to explain Elijah’s disobedience in such a way. Elijah is not a positive character in this episode. Nelson seems to intimate that Elijah does go to Damascus (First and Second Kings, 127: “On this way to the ‘wilderness of Damascus’…”), but no such scene is presented by the narrator. 98.  Garsiel interprets the plowing of Elisha as indicative of his being an owner of “a large estate with many people… For his fields, he employs twelve pairs of oxen, each team driven by a plowman” (Earth to Heaven, 104). It seems unlikely, however, that an owner of such a large estate would, himself, be plowing. 99.  Unlike most English translations, which say that Elijah cast the mantle “over” Elisha, the Hebrew text says that Elijah ‫ ויׁשלך אדרתו אליו‬/ “threw his mantle at him” or “…to him.” The image indicates an off-hand and dismissive action (see, e.g., Deut 9:21; 29:28; Josh 8:29; 2 Sam 20:21). It certainly does not present a formal ceremony in which Elijah “designates…his successor by casting his mantle over Elisha’s shoulders” (Matthews, Social World, 57). Nelson explains the incongruity of not “anointing” Elisha as due to “metaphorical language which cannot be pressed to literally” (First and Second Kings, 127). Again, in light of Elijah’s characterization throughout the chapter, it does not seem strange that Elijah would not obey YHWH’s command exactly…or even mostly.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

87

‫לך ׁשוב כי מה־עׂשיתי לך‬ Go! Return, because what did I do to you? (v. 20)

Does this mean “Go, then return back to me!” (Elijah wants Elisha to follow him but grants him a short reprieve to say goodbye to his family)?100 Or does this mean “Go! Return back to your people!” (Elijah does not want him to follow him and instead, to just go back and stay)?101 The following question, “What did I do to you?” is also ambiguous. Does it imply that Elisha should know the importance and weight of receiving Elijah’s mantle and should, therefore, act appropriately (however that might be, by staying home or by following after the prophet).102 Or does it mean that Elijah does not consider the action of throwing his mantle at Elisha to be important at all; rather, it is something trivial and not worthy of Elisha’s discipleship.103 In light of the previous conversation at Horeb, it would seem as though Elijah wants to be done with the whole thing: “Go away! I haven’t done anything particularly important, have I?” Elisha, for his part however, seems to interpret the commands and question with the opposite meaning: “Go and then return to me, because I’ve done something particularly important to you!” When he goes back to the field, we expect him to kiss his father and mother, as he said. Instead, he supposedly has no interaction with his parents at all, but rather he provides a sacrificial feast for, it could be assumed, his co-workers, using the yoke as the wood for the fire and the slaughtered oxen for the meal (v. 21a).104 This singular act—Elisha’s very first action in these episodes— is highly indicative of the character that we will see in the next chapter. 100.  Dharamraj, Prophet Like Moses? 150–51. 101.  This option is exactly what seems to be indicative of the relationship between the two the next time we see them together in 2 Kgs 2: Elijah tries over and over to separate himself from Elisha, who doggedly hangs on to him. 102.  Thus Sweeney, 1 and 2 Kings, 233. 103.  Walsh argues that this interpretation of the question “cannot be merely rhetorical, as if Elijah were saying, ‘After all, I haven’t done anything to you.’ Investment into Yahweh’s prophetic service, as Elijah well knows, is no light thing” (1 Kings, 279). Yet the point of the question is not found in what Elijah may think, but rather in what he wants Elisha to think. If Elisha determines the throwing of the mantle as something that is “no light thing” then he may refuse it, and Elijah would be stuck in a position that he wants to forsake. 104.  Garsiel notes the incongruity of what Elisha proposes and what he actually does, as well as the fact that “the attentive reader may find the roots of independence in his behavior” (Earth to Heaven, 104).

88

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

On the one hand, he will appear as very independent, overturning our expectations of what he himself will be and do. This independent streak will be manifested in the seemingly random journeys that he will take and the disparate feats that he will do. It will also appear a few times as outright dissimulation and lying as well as bringing out harsh consequences for characters who doubt his ability or disrespect his authority. Perhaps YHWH has chosen someone cut from the same pattern as Elijah! On the other hand, this initial action of Elisha is also indicative of his characterization as a helper to those in trouble. Elisha will be a person who serves, who supports, those in need. A common episode will involve his providing food or drink to those who have little or nothing (2 Kgs 2:19–22; 3:16–17; 4:1–7, 38–41, 42–44; 7:1). This, in itself, is not a bad thing at all! Perhaps YHWH has chosen someone quite opposite from the self-focused prophet Elijah! It will remain to be seen, however, if it is indicative of the Mosaic prophet, the one who leads Israel to wholehearted devotion toward YHWH. As soon as the meal is concluded, Elisha leaves and follows Elijah and, as we have already seen as his nature, he becomes Elijah’s servant (v. 21b). They do not, however, continue their journey to Damascus so that Elijah can anoint Hazael as king of Syria, nor do they search out Jehu in order for Elijah to anoint him as king of Israel. The two simply leave the scene and are absent for the entirety of the next chapter, a chapter in which Israel, still under Ahab’s (and Jezebel’s) rule, is besieged by war from Syria, still under Ben-hadad’s rule. YHWH’s plan for a change in leadership of the two countries, instigated by the actions of Elijah, will not happen anytime soon, and Israel pays the price. The encounter between Elijah and Elisha (as well as its aftermath in the following chapter) has many narrative gaps and, by the end of the scene, we are unclear what either Elijah or Elisha are now individually planning or expecting. Has Elijah decided to continue in his prophetic office for a while longer, allowing Elisha to be his servant? Or, is he still definitely no longer wanting to be a prophet and is just putting up with Elisha, the hanger on?105 And what of Elisha? Does he know that he is YHWH’s 105.  Walsh comments, “What does the scene reveal about Elijah’s response to Yahweh? In v. 15 Yahweh gave Elijah a double command: ‘go, return on your way.’ In v. 19 Elijah obeys the first command: he ‘goes’ (NRSV, ‘set out’). But does he ‘return on his way?’ That is, does he take up once more his prophetic ministry? The narrator carefully leaves the question open” (1 Kings, 280). Walsh notes that since Elijah does not obey the command to “anoint” Elisha, this may indicate that he is not ready to forsake his role as prophet, which would provide narrative space for the events of 1 Kgs 21 and 2 Kgs 1.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

89

designated successor to Elijah? Why does Elijah not tell him? And if he is the successor, why does the narrator not simply pick up the story later, cutting out all of the liminal and ambiguous scenes that will follow before Elijah’s ascent into heaven? The transition between the prophets is messy and confusing. We, as readers, are no longer sure whom we should, ourselves, be following or listening to or obeying: the self-centered prophet who has moments of greatness, or the independent prophet who also wants to be a follower.106 The scene ends ambiguously and, in light of the following chapter in which the two are completely absent, ominously. Excursus: Other Prophetic Stories at the End of 1 Kings The present volume is a study of Elijah and Elisha; its focus is upon their characters and how they represent the phenomenon of prophecy. In the case both of their characters and of prophecy, the narrator of these stories is, I argue, thoroughly ambivalent and this ambivalence is represented in the ambiguity that surrounds both the two prophets in their motivations, their actions, and their words, as well as the phenomenon of prophecy as a way of discerning YHWH’s mind. At the end of 1 Kings, three additional stories that have prophets as major characters appear (20:13–22, 28–43; 22:1–28). Because of the focus of this book, I will not explore these stories in detail here. I hope to write, as a subsequent volume to my Samuel book and to this study, a third volume exploring the narratives of all the other prophetic figures who appear in the History, including Nathan (2 Sam 7; 12; 1 Kgs 1), Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kgs 11:29–40; 12:15; 14:1–18), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14–20), as well as all the other “prophets,” “seers,” and “men of God” that are scattered here and there throughout Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. In that study, I plan to explore these final three stories about prophets in detail. At this point in this volume, however, it would be good to provide a short overview of the three episodes. The episode of 1 Kgs 20:13–22 relates a story set during a siege of Samaria by the Syrian king, Ben-Hadad. The foreign king had sent messengers into the city to demand that King Ahab turn over his family as well as his personal wealth and, undoubtedly seeing his loss as the city’s salvation, Ahab acquiesced and stated that he was willing to hand these over to Ben-hadad (vv. 2–4). In response, Ben-hadad pressed further and stated that the next day he would send his army into the city and they would take everything that they desired, in effect despoiling the city (vv. 5–6). Ahab sees this overreach as leading to the destruction of the city and refuses (vv. 7–9). A standoff leads to an immanent attack being instigated against Samaria (vv. 10–12).

106.  Nelson makes a comparable point and evaluates the end of the scene similarly (First and Second Kings, 127–28).

90

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Into the situation, ‫ דחא איבנ‬/ “a certain prophet” approaches Ahab and pronounces an oracle of salvation for Ahab: YHWH will give the opposing multitude into Ahab’s power and the result of this miracle will end with Ahab knowing that YHWH brings it about (v. 13). The oracle is wonderfully Deuteronomic in its tone and its overall function. The miracle of salvation will not be an end in itself: it will lead to Ahab’s knowing YHWH in a deeper way. Ahab does not just rely upon the oracle, but also questions what he should actively do to bring it about. Who should lead the undertaking? Should the Samarian forces take an offensive or a defensive stance? The prophet speaks by YHWH and instructs him to muster the servants of the governors who are inside the city and that Samaria should lead the attack. Ahab obeys, musters 232 young men, as well as the inhabitants of the city, which number 7,000 (vv. 14–15). The military action the next day goes off perfectly and ends with Ahab and his army defeating the Syrian army and their associates. Ben-hadad and his cavalry, however, escape in the midst of the battle on horses (vv. 16–21). The scene ends with the prophet approaching Ahab again and providing encouraging words, as well as a warning that Ben-hadad would return the next spring (v. 22). The story as a whole shows the cooperation that can occur between a prophet and a king who confesses that “YHWH is God” (18:39) and is willing to obey (18:41–46). It furthermore reveals its basic Deuteronomic character by placing the miraculous military victory in the context of a larger theological setting which has the effect of causing Ahab to know that “I am YHWH” (20:13b) and to receive words of encouragement and instruction (vv. 14, 22). The story is clearly a positive example of the working of a Deuteronomic prophet. The next episode (20:38–43) follows on the heels of the confrontation between Ahab and Ben-hadad the following spring. In the midst of the battle, a “man of God” provides a salvation oracle from YHWH, promising to hand over “this great multitude” to Ahab, with the result that Ahab would know that “I am YHWH” (20:28). As in the previous episode, the oracle is given with the expectation that Ahab’s relationship with YHWH will be the goal ultimately affected. The battle, however, ends with Ben-hadad and his associates deceiving Ahab, promising him certain concessions, and appealing to his gracious attitude. Ahab allows Ben-hadad to retreat and go home (20:31–34). In the following scene, one of the “sons of the prophets” also disguises himself and confronts Ahab with a story about losing someone that he was supposed to be guarding (vv. 35–40a). Ahab replies to the man that he should probably lose his life for allowing his prisoner to slip away (v. 40b). At this point, the prophet takes off his disguise. Ahab recognizes him as a prophet, and the man pronounces an oracle from YHWH: because Ahab allowed Ben-hadad, who had ravaged Israel for so long, to escape, God would bring judgment upon Ahab and upon Israel (vv. 41–43). This story, again, has a fairly clear plot, working in a similar way as the episode when Nathan tells David a parable in order to trap the king in his own sense of justice (2 Sam 12:1–15).107 107.  Even in this story, however, there are ambiguous aspects. For example, the prophet comes from the band of men named “the sons of the prophets.” This group will be discussed in the next chapter as “hangers-on” around Elisha. They will

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

91

Finally, the story of Micaiah the son of Imlah presses the question of the certainty to prophesy as a phenomenon completely into ambiguous territory. We cannot deal in depth with this story here, but a few overarching themes can be drawn. The story of the oracle and visions of Micaiah the son of Imlah has received a great deal of scholarly attention, primarily because its function and purpose seem to be precisely the ones being advocated here.108 It, from beginning to end, provides a strong warning about treating prophecy, even theoretically, as a perfectly clear and unambiguous means for divining the will and mind of God.109 In an attempt to take back the administrative city of Ramoth-Gilead from the Syrians, Ahab calls on his vassal, the Judean king, Jehoshaphat, for help. As a prelude to the battle (and, perhaps, in an endeavor to dissuade Ahab from the expedition), Jehoshaphat asks that Ahab inquire of YHWH by the prophets whether the mission should be carried out in the first place. Four hundred prophets arrive who unanimously proclaim, “Go up, so that my Lord may give (it) into the hand of the king!” (22:6). When asked by Jehoshaphat if there are any other prophets, Ahab replies that the only remaining prophet is Micaiah son of Imlah; “but I hate him for he never prophesies anything good for me, but only evil” (v. 8). Nevertheless, Ahab has Micaiah summoned to appear and prophesy. Perhaps in response to this secondary referral and

consistently be shown to be rather childish, petty, indecisive, and lackluster. They are decidedly not positive characters in the later stories. One wonders if that characterization carries here as well. Furthermore, at the beginning of the scene, when the prophet tells another one to strike him, the narrator informs us that he said this “by the word of YHWH” (v. 35). The only thing the prophet says, however, is “Strike me!” When the other man refuses to obey him, the prophet pronounces a violent judgment upon him “Because you have not obeyed the voice of YHWH…” (v. 36). How could the man know if the command was from the mind of the prophet or if it were from YHWH, in the absence of a formal marker of the command as an oracle? The judgment and the violent death that follows are, therefore, troubling. 108.  This discussion about the story of Micaiah is drawn from the discussion of the text in the introductory chapter of my book on Samuel; see Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 37–40. Note also the following studies: Ariel Alvarez Valdés, “El enfrentamiento entre profetas y falsos profetas,” Revista bíblica 53 (1991): 217–29; R. W. L. Moberly, “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah as a Test Case,” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003): 1–23; “To Speak for God: The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah,” Anvil 14 (1997): 243–53; Evangelia G. Dafni, “RWḤ ŠQR und falsche Prophetie in I Reg 22,” ZAW 112 (2000): 365–85; Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God,” CBQ 56 (1994): 649–63; Richard J. Coggins, “On Kings and Disguises,” JSOT 50 (1991): 55–62; J. J. M. Roberts, “Does God Lie? Divine Deceit as a Theological Problem in Israelite Prophetic Literature,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 211–20. 109.  An attitude that might be tempting if only a surface reading is given to the surrounding narratives about Elijah and Elisha.

92

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

the probable suspicion of Jehoshaphat that provoked it, one prophet, Zedekiah ben Kanaanah, produces a sign: he fashions iron horns and predicts that “with these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed,” to which the prophets respond with an even more positive oracle: “Go up to Ramoth-Gilead! Triumph! YHWH will give (it) into the hand of the king!” (vv. 11–12). The messenger, meanwhile, suggests to Micaiah that he should prophesy something good, as the other prophets have done. Micaiah, however, responds that he, in good Deuteronomic fashion, only prophesies what YHWH tells him. When asked by Ahab whether the mission should occur, Micaiah unexpectedly responds with an unequivocally positive oracle: “Go up! Triumph! YHWH will give (it) into the hand of the king!” (v. 15). This raises Ahab’s suspicions about the oracle. He reproves Micaiah and says he wants him to “speak only truth” in the name of YHWH, seeming to assume that Micaiah has not done so. Micaiah then reports two visions that he saw. The first vision is of a scattered and disordered Israel on the mountains, like sheep that do not have a shepherd. The divine voice then says, “They do not have masters. Let them return, each one to his house, in peace” (v. 17). The first vision, being negative for the intentions of Ahab, provokes the king to dismiss it as simply more of what he had expected (v. 18). Micaiah’s second vision, however, is more troubling to the prophets themselves and to the ideology of prophecy in general: ‫ויאמר לכן ׁשמע דבר־יהוה ראיתי את־יהוה יׁשב על־כסאו וכל־צבא הׁשמים‬ ‫עמד עליו מימינו ומׂשמאלו׃ ויאמר יהוה מי יפתה את־אחאב ויעל ויפל ברמת‬ ‫גלעד ויאמר זה בכה וזה אמר בכה׃ ויצא הרוח ויעמד לפני יהוה ויאמר אני אפתנו‬ ‫ויאמר יהוה אליו במה׃ ויאמר אצא והייתי רוח ׁשקר בפי כל־נביאיו ויאמר תפתה‬ ‫וגם־תוכל צא ועׂשה־כן׃ ועתה הנה נתן יהוה רוח ׁשקר בפי כל־נביאיך אלה ויהוה‬ ‫דבר עליך רעה׃‬ He said, “Therefore hear the word of YHWH: I saw YHWH sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven was standing beside him, to his right and to his left. And YHWH said, ‘Who will seduce Ahab, so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?’ Then one said one thing, and another said another. Then the spirit came forward and stood before YHWH and said, ‘I myself will seduce him.’ YHWH asked him, ‘By what?’ He said, ‘I will go out and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then YHWH said, ‘You are to seduce him, and you shall succeed; go out and do this.’ Now see, YHWH put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; YHWH has spoken evil concerning you.” (1 Kgs 22:19–23) In response to this vision, Zedekiah slaps Micaiah and asks, “Where exactly did the spirit of YHWH pass across from being with me to speak with you?” Micaiah takes the question about location and turns it back on Zedekiah: “You are about to see on that day when you go to hide in an innermost room!” (vv. 24–25). Ahab imprisons Micaiah and, with Jehoshaphat, goes to Ramoth-Gilead, where he is defeated and killed in battle.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

93

The story is a tale that unsettles any simplistic notions about prophecy. In this scene, several prophets all prophesy by YHWH, they provide a precedent-setting example of unanimity, none of them encourages idolatry, and one, in fact, produces a sign. The 400 prophets pass all Deuteronomic criteria for true prophecy. There is absolutely nothing suspicious about the event, particularly in light of the story of salvation in 20:13–22. It is, however, when Micaiah agrees with the triumphal oracles pronounced by the 400 that the deep problem with the scenario is brought to light. One way of coming to an understanding of Micaiah’s visions is to question how they are understood by others in the story, particularly by his prophetic rivals. The meaning of Zedekiah’s question in v. 24, “Where exactly did the spirit of YHWH pass across from being with me to speak with you?,” is ambiguous; the question can be interpreted in one of three ways, depending upon three interpretations that Zedekiah might have of the event. 1. First, Micaiah may simply be lying about the defeat, following his own precedent and proclaiming evil as he always has. Thus, Zedekiah’s question can be seen as rhetorical and viciously sarcastic; the spirit is still with Zedekiah and has not gone anywhere. “The spirit never really left me, did it?” he perhaps intends the question to mean. 2. Second, Zedekiah could be positing hypothetically that the 400, including himself, are all lying; he himself knows, however, that this is impossible. His question is therefore rhetorical in this case as well, but shows the contrary-tofact nature of the situation: “How did the spirit come to you if it was not through me? If you have the spirit, it came originally from me!” he might seem to argue. 3. Finally, as the man of God in 1 Kgs 13 supposed, Zedekiah may wonder whether YHWH might have changed his mind; whereas at the beginning YHWH had spoken triumph through the mouths of the 400, now YHWH might have decreed, through Micaiah, defeat. Thus, Zedekiah’s question is suspicious, but honest: “Did the spirit really leave me and start proclaiming a secondary, different oracle through you?” These are, according to Zedekiah, the only three possibilities. Either Zedekiah is right, Micaiah is right, or YHWH has changed his mind. Yet Micaiah knows the confusing and troubling truth. It is true that the 400 prophets are prophesying by YHWH, saying exactly what they have heard, and proclaiming exactly what YHWH wants them to say (including Zedekiah and his horns and his pronouncement of success). It is, further, true that Micaiah in both his oracle of triumph and in his first vision of defeat proclaims YHWH’s word faithfully in each case. It is true that every single word spoken by every single prophet 1 Kgs 22 is instigated by YHWH. At the same time, however, it is also true that YHWH never changes the divine will throughout the entire event. From beginning to end, whether through a word of triumph or through a word of judgment, YHWH has pronounced judgment upon Ahab. The oracles of triumph are divinely inspired seductive lies, actually instigated by YHWH, actually enabled by the spirit of YHWH, and truly proclaimed by the prophets of YHWH.

94

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

“Speak to me only truth in the name of YHWH,” Ahab implores Micaiah. Yet with this story a death knell is sounded for a clear and unambiguous understanding of the simple truthfulness of prophecy as a means of discerning YHWH’s mind and will. No criterion can effectively function within this scenario. Prophetic call, persuading signs, precedence of previous oracles, inward charismatic feeling, corroborating witness by other prophets, even the Deuteronomic test of the eventual fulfillment of the prediction (Deut 18:22)—none of these functions when the deity, as the initiating source behind all prophecy, has the freedom to change the divine will or, further, the ability to inspire manipulating lies. In such a story, and in the real world of its readers, prophecy, as an institution, is valid. It is also extremely ambiguous. ***

E. Elijah and the Vineyard of Naboth—1 Kings 21 The story of how Queen Jezebel conspires against a vineyard owner, Naboth, in order to have him killed is one of the truly great examples of Hebrew storytelling in the Bible. As such, it has been discussed and interpreted by many scholars, including several that interpret the text from a literary or theological perspective.110 Since this chapter is focused 110.  See particularly, Patrick T. Cronauer, The Stories About Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition, and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9, LHBOTS 424 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2005); see also: Walsh, 1 Kings, 316–41; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 138–45; Garsiel, Earth to Heaven, 107–41. See also: Gray, I & II Kings, 433–44; Cogan, 1 Kings, 475–86; Sweeney, 1 and 2 Kings, 245–52; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 157–60; Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 209–15. Note also these recent studies from a historical or sociological perspective: Raymond Westbrook, “Law in Kings,” in Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, ed. André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 445–66; Anne Marie Kitz, “Naboth’s Vineyard After Mari and Amarna,” JBL 134, no. 3 (2015): 529–45; Stephen C. Russell, “The Hierarchy of Estates in Land and Naboth’s Vineyard,” JSOT 38 (2014): 453–69; F. Rachel Magdalene, “Trying the Crime of Abuse of Royal Authority in the Divine Courtroom and the Incident of Naboth’s Vineyard,” in The Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective, ed. Ari Mermelstein and Shalom E. Holtz (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 157–245. The story of Naboth’s murder has also been a fruitful text in post-colonial studies, particularly in the contexts of Kenya, Botswana, South Africa, the Palestinian Territories, and India: Galia Sabar, “ ‘Was There No Naboth to Say No?’: Using the Pulpit in the Struggle for Democracy: The Anglican Church, Bishop Gitari, and Kenyan Politics,” in Religion and Politics in Kenya: Essays in Honor of a Meddlesome Priest, ed. Ben Knighton (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 123–42; Obed Kwalotswe, “The Grabbing of Naboth’s Vineyard: The Economic Implications of the 1958 Land Policy in Botswana and Its Challenges to the Mission of the Church in Botswana and Southern Africa,”

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

95

on Elijah and how his character is portrayed in Kings, I will forgo a close reading of the majority of the text and will, instead, focus on the final dozen verses where Elijah appears. Once the news of Naboth’s death in Jezreel reaches Jezebel in Samaria, she informs Ahab of his death and tells him to take the vineyard that he wanted because “Naboth is not living, but is dead” (v. 15). For his part, as soon as Ahab hears that Naboth has died in Jezreel, he arises and heads out to stand in the vineyard, which is beside the royal palace in Samaria.111 As soon as Ahab reaches the vineyard, the “word of YHWH” comes to Elijah and instructs him to go meet Ahab for the second time. The first time, before the contest on Mount Carmel, led to Ahab’s repentance and Scriptura 92 (2006): 225–39; K. Thomas Resane, “Naboth’s Vineyard: Theological Lessons for the South African Land Issue,” Acta Theologica 35, no. 1 (2015): 174–88; Makhosazana Nzimande, “Reconfiguring Jezebel: A Postcolonial Imbokodo Reading of the Story of Naboth’s Vineyard (1 Kings 21:1–16),” in African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared Meaning, ed. Hans de Wit and Gerald O. West (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 223–58; Knud Jeppesen, “Nabots Vingård i Palæstinensisk Udlægning,” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 70, no. 1 (2007): 25–37; Jeeva Kumar Ravela, “ ‘The Lord Forbid That I Should Give You My Land’: Land Rights in 1 Kings 21 and Its Implication to the Land Rights of Dalits,” Bangalore Theological Forum 43, no. 1 (2011): 121–47. 111.  There seems to be some confusion about where the vineyard is. See Nelson for a lucid discussion of the issues (1 and 2 Kings, 138–39). All commentators interpret the phrase in 21:1, ‫אׁשר ביזרעאל‬, which is missing in LXX, as referring to the vineyard: “Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard that was in Jezreel, beside the palace of Ahab, the King of Samaria.” It is possible, however, that the phrase refers to Naboth’s residence and city: “There was a vineyard—owned by Naboth the Jezreelite, who was in Jezreel—beside the palace of Ahab, the King of Samaria.” If the vineyard is in Jezreel but Naboth lives in Samaria, there are several anomalies in the story: Why does the introduction mention Samaria as the city where Ahab lives, yet his palace is in Jezreel? Why does Ahab have two royal palaces? Why does Jezebel have to write letters to the conspirators who are living in the same city as she is in? When Ahab takes possession and is standing in the vineyard, why does YHWH tell Elijah to meet him, with the direction that that he is in Samaria? If the relative clause in 21:1 refers to Naboth, instead of the vineyard (which is beside the royal palace in Samaria), the locations are much clearer. A similar case is made by Stephan Timm, Die Dynastie Omri, FRLANT 124 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 118–21. It does not, however, clear up the difficulty of the locus of the judgment on Ahab pronounced by Elijah (21:19) and fulfilled later (22:38). Such a view is also at odds with the placement of the vineyard during the death of Jehoram/Joram in 2 Kgs 9:25–26. The scribal addition of the phrase ‫ אׁשר ביזרעאל‬in 21:1 was probably meant to solve the incongruities with these other texts, but simultaneously it disturbed much of the narrative sense within the episode.

96

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

confession of YHWH as their sole deity. The outcome of this meeting is at this point unclear, but what does become obvious is that the meeting will pronounce ramifications for Ahab’s actions, for Jezebel’s actions, and in fact for the actions of the whole Omride dynasty and for the broad sweep of the Northern Kingdom of Israel as a whole. Elijah will pronounce four different oracles, each broadening the scope of judgment. In the first (vv. 16–19), the reader hears a message directly from YHWH, who commands Elijah to go to the vineyard of Naboth and, as before preceding the contest on Carmel, to confront him. The original oracle spoken by YHWH to Elijah is short, comprising an indictment in the form of two rhetorical questions and a judgment which incorporates the focus of each of the questions. Furthermore, the judgment is centered in a particular place. Both the indictment and the judgment are introduced separately: ‫ודברת אליו לאמר‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫הרצחת‬ ‫וגם־ירׁשת‬ ‫ודברת אליו לאמר‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫במקום אׁשר לקקו הכלבים את־דם נבות‬ ‫ילקו הכלבים את־דמך גם־אתה׃‬ “You shall speak to him: Thus said YHWH: “Have you killed? and have you also taken possession?” You shall speak to him: Thus said YHWH: “Wherever the dogs have lapped the blood of Naboth The dogs will lap up your—your—blood!”

When the judgment is given, it is centered upon Ahab, not Jezebel. Walsh provides a brilliant analysis of the question of who the “main character” actually is in the story of the conspiracy. He notes that while Jezebel is the main “actor,” it is actually Ahab who is the prime manipulator behind the scene. While he has, up to this point, appeared to be a passive toy in the hands of either Jezebel or, on Mount Carmel, Elijah, he has actually shown himself to be a wily and shrewd exploiter of all those around him. The long section of his petulant reaction to Naboth’s denial of the vineyard is revealed to be nothing more than using Jezebel to do exactly what he wants: to get the vineyard by any means possible. It is he who

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

97

is, in the last analysis, the murderer of Naboth.112 And the two sins that he has committed, murder and illegal possession, will come upon his own head with his own gruesome death and his desecration in a place similar to where Naboth had suffered.113 Ahab, like Naboth, will not receive a proper burial, a punishment that is worse than all others.114 The oracle focuses exclusively upon Ahab and the judgment that will be exacted upon him. Once Elijah appears at the vineyard, Ahab asks him (in an echo of his earlier question, “Is that you, troubler of Israel?” in 18:17), ‫המצאתני‬ ‫ איבי‬/ “Have you found me, my enemy?” This time, however, Elijah does not contradict him but agrees with him: ‫ מצאתי‬/ “I’ve found you!” (v. 20). Elijah immediately begins a speech which comprises three different oracles, each of which expands the focus more broadly.115 At the end of these, the narrator will pronounce a “closing statement” about the reign of Ahab with a withering negative evaluation. The first oracle given directly to Ahab is the longest (vv. 21b–24) and is organized in a chiastic structure of indictment–judgment–indictment: 112.  Walsh, 1 and 2 Kings, 316–28. 113.  Although most English versions translate the beginning of the location phrase, “In the place where the dogs licked…” the prepositional phrase as pointed in the MT, ‫ּב ְמקֹום ֲא ֶׁשר ָל ְקקּו ַה ְּכ ָל ִבים‬, ִ is actually indefinite: “In a place where the dogs licked…” In other contexts, the phrase ‫ ִּב ְמקֹום‬usually refers to an indefinite location (e.g., Num 19:9; 2 Sam 15:21; Neh 4:14). The use of the phrase here might be an attempt by the narrator to ameliorate the incongruity of the places where Naboth’s, Ahab’s, and Jezebel’s blood were all licked by dogs in the larger composite text (1 Kgs 22:36–37; 2 Kgs 9:30–37). Provan suggests, based on its use elsewhere, that the phrase can be translated as “in place of, instead of” (e.g., Isa 33:21; Ezek 6:13; and Hos 1:10). The suggestion is interesting, but the only true parallel with the present passage is Hos 1:10, a verse which, itself, is playing with the concept of “place.” As such, the incongruity remains open. 114.  The non-burial of a corpse is not only a desecration of the body but borders on a threat to eternal punishment. See Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 214. 115.  Sweeney notes that there is not a scene where Elijah pronounces the oracle he heard from YHWH to Ahab (1 and 2 Kings, 251). This, in light of the overall structure and theological center of the episode, is not problematic (unlike in other narratives where Elijah’s non-compliance with the divine instructions is, actually, part of the point of the story). A similar scene-skipping technique will occur in the episode of the oracle against Ahaziah in 2 Kgs 1. In both of these episodes, Elijah’s actions and words concur with the original episode and, therefore, imply that the original oracle was delivered. Garsiel argues that Elijah does change the oracle (Earth to Heaven, 124, 129), a viewpoint that does not accord with the wider sense of the episode.

98

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha ‫יען התמכרך לעׂשות הרע בעיני יהוה׃‬ ‫הנני מביא אליך רעה‬ ‫ובערתי אחריך‬ ‫והכרתי לאחאב מׁשתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב ביׂשראל׃‬ ‫ונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבעם בן־נבט וכבית בעׁשא בן־אחיה‬ ‫אל־הכעס אׁשר הכעסת‬ ‫ותחטא את־יׂשראל׃‬ Because you have sold yourself to do evil in YHWH’s eyes… I am about to bring evil upon you. I will purge your remainder. I will eradicate any who piss against a wall, those belonging to Ahab— whether bound or free—in Israel. I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam ben Nebat and like the house of Baasha ben Ahijah. Because of the wrath that you have provoked and [Because] you made Israel to sin.

The indictment introduces the oracle as well as concludes it. The judgment is coming because of Ahab’s actions: for selling himself to do evil, for provoking YHWH’s wrath, and for causing Israel to sin. The judgment itself expands from the singular judgment against Ahab alone (“I will bring evil upon you”) to a judgment upon his descendants (“I will purge your remainder”) to a judgment upon any male who is in his family at large (“I will destroy any who piss against a wall, those belonging to Ahab—whether bound or free—in Israel”) to the complete annihilation of his dynasty, making his royal house like those of Jeroboam and Baasha. Throughout the judgment, phrases are used which parallel the judgment that was given previously to the royal houses of Jeroboam and of Baasha (1 Kgs 14:9–10; 16:2–3).116 The oracle also uses distinctively Deuteronomic language, paralleling Ahab’s fate with that pronounced by Moses against those who fail in their exclusive devotion to YHWH: “bringing evil” (Deut 29:20; 31:17–21); “purging” (Deut 13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:9, 21; 22:21–24; 24:7); “destroy” (lit. “cut off”; Deut 12:29; 19:1); “wrath” (Deut 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; 32:16, 19, 21, 27); “to cause to sin” (Deut 24:4). The judgment oracle sounds, both linguistically as well as theologically, like Moses as he speaks in Deuteronomy.117 The third oracle, which follows immediately, focuses upon Jezebel herself and pronounces a similar judgment upon her that was pronounced upon Ahab: 116.  Sweeney, 1 and 2 Kings, 251–52. 117.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 143.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

99

‫וגם־לאיזבל דבר יהוה לאמר‬ ‫הכלבים יאכלו את־איזבל בחל יזרעאל׃‬ Also, to Jezebel YHWH spoke: The dogs will eat Jezebel in the region of Jezreel. (v. 23)

The pronouncement of the first oracle against Ahab is brought to bear upon Jezebel, but with a gruesome change. Whereas before, the dogs only lap the blood from Ahab who, it is assumed, is already dead by this point, here the dogs will eat Jezebel in the region of Jezreel. She who told Ahab to “get up and eat” (v. 7) and who used a “fast” to cover up her crime (vv. 9, 12) has those actions brought upon her: in this case it is the dogs who will feast…upon her. The final oracle (v. 24) further expands the gruesome scene to include the entire royal house: ‫המת לאחאב בעיר יאכלו הכלבים‬ ‫והמת בׂשדה יאכלו עוף הׁשמים׃‬ The one belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs will eat. The one who dies in the country the birds of the sky will eat.

This final pronouncement expands and makes inclusive the target of the judgment. It will not just be Ahab’s blood which is licked by the dogs, nor will it simply be Jezebel who will be eaten by the dogs. The feast will include any person of the royal house; those who eat will not only include dogs but also birds, and there will be no escape: both city and country will be the site of the feast. The judgment is all-encompassing; the house of Ahab is doomed outright. As if that final pronouncement were not enough, the Deuteronomistic narrator places the judgment not only within the context of the present royal house, but comments upon the nature of the judgment from the perspective of the History in general, and even includes the Deuteronomic Torah, as well. ‫רק לא־היה כאחאב אׁשר התמכר לעׂשות הרע בעיני יהוה אׁשר־הסתה אתו איזבל‬ ‫אׁשתו׃ ויתעב מאד ללכת אחרי הגללים ככל אׁשר עׂשו האמרי אׁשר הוריׁש יהוה‬ ‫מפני בני יׂשראל׃‬ Indeed, never was anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in YHWH’s eyes, whom Jezebel his wife manipulated. He acted very abominably, following idols, which the Amorites made, whom YHWH dispossessed before the Israelites. (vv. 25–26)

100

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The final pronouncement draws the ultimate judgment.118 Ahab’s actions, his passivity, his being manipulated, all of it were of a scale that was only paralleled by the original inhabitants of the land. Ahab has brought Israel, through his weakness, to a point where the total annihilation of the whole of the population is on the horizon. Only by wiping out him, his wife, and his royal household can there be hope for Israel. And just at this point, when the fate of Ahab is seemingly sealed, something remarkable happens: he immediately repents (v. 27). In one of the finest cases of the triumph of Deuteronomic theology, the true strength of Deuteronomy shines forth. Yes, the judgments of Deuteronomy are severe and the single-minded devotion demanded by the text is absolutely crucial, but the real goal of Deuteronomic teaching is not toward destruction, but toward salvation and repentance. As evil as Ahab was, even he could repent. Ahab takes on all the trappings of penitence, but, even more so, his contrition seems to be sincere. YHWH, at the end of the episode, reports that the destruction of the royal house will not come during Ahab’s lifetime, but during that of his descendants (v. 28). Some scholars believe these final two verses to be superfluous, appended to the text in an effort to explain why the destruction of the Omrides did not occur during the lifetime of Ahab.119 Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is anything at all that is Deuteronomic about the story of the sad demise of Naboth and the oracular judgments pronounced by Elijah, it is clearly this ending.120 If fact, having arrived at this ending, the harshness and gruesomeness of the oracles and of the final Deuteronomic judgment only heighten the remarkable turn in the heart of Ahab and the pardon of YHWH. And how did this amazing turnabout happen? Through the work of the prophet Elijah, the king is brought around to recognizing his sin. Just as he did on Mount Carmel, Elijah—the true Mosaic prophet—rescues Israel again, this time through the pronouncing of an oracle that could have come straight from the Deuteronomic Torah. It would seem as if here, at the end of the story, that Elijah has regained his confidence and 118.  Garsiel discusses the Deuteronomic language and ideology in this summary (Earth to Heaven, 123–24). 119.  Thus Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 215. Even a historian as critical as Gray entertains the possibility of the repentance of Ahab being an integral part of the tradition (I & II Kings, 443). 120.  Sweeney notes that the language in the scene of repentance and mercy is based on Deuteronomic language and is paralleled in the later scene of the oracle of Huldah pronouncing the sparing of Josiah in 2 Kgs 22:18–20 (I & II Kings, 252). See also Nelson, who makes a similar point (First and Second Kings, 143).

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

101

his steadfastness to lead Israel (and its king) as Moses would have done. He is truly the Mosaic prophet. At least for now. F. Elijah and the Illness of Ahaziah—2 Kings 1:1–18 The repentance of Ahab, brought about through the work of Elijah, does not bring lasting peace to the nation of Israel. In fact, after receiving the news that judgment would not come in his lifetime, Ahab promptly dies in the following chapter, during a war with Syria. He is stuck with an errant arrow, which causes him to bleed out into his chariot. When the chariot is brought to Samaria and washed out, as Elijah had said, dogs lick up the blood (22:38; compare with 21:19).121 As one would expect, on the accession of Ahaziah, the storyline continues exactly as before, with the stereotypical royal formula for a Northern king (22:51–53). The final story in which Elijah appears as a central character concerns the illness of Ahaziah, Ahab’s son. Ahaziah falls through the lattice of a second floor room and receives a life-threatening blow. In response, he sends messengers to the Philistine city of Ekron in order to inquire about his prognosis from the deity of the city, Baal-Zebub (2 Kgs 1:1–2).122 Even as Ahaziah sends his messengers, YHWH also sends his messenger to Elijah with a command and an oracle to give to Ahaziah:123 121.  For the incongruity of the “place” between Naboth’s blood and Ahab’s blood being licked up by the dogs, see the discussion above in the original oracle. Nelson provocatively suggests that the incongruity may be tied to the concept of the “ruse” which YHWH employs for the destruction of Ahab, a theme which is central in the story of Micaiah in the following chapter. As such, this would be a further example of the ambiguity of the phenomenon of prophecy as a whole, a topic that I will explore in connection with Micaiah and the “other prophets” in the History in a subsequent volume in this series. 122.  The name of the deity, translated into English as “Master of Flies,” may be either a corruption of an original name Zebal-Baal, “Prince Baal,” or Baal Zebul, “Lord of Exultation,” or may actually represent the name of the deity. For a discussion of the possible dysphemism of an original name, see Gray, I & II Kings, 463. Sweeney, however, notes that many ancient Near Eastern deities were associated with flies or plagues; therefore, the name may be original (I & II Kings, 269–70). 123.  Gray tries to tie the introduction of a “messenger of YHWH” into the story with the E source of the Pentateuch (I & II Kings, 465–66). It is much easier to note that messengers are an important trope in the story (the original messengers sent to Ekron as well as the three companies of men, the captains of which also serve as messengers). The inclusion is, therefore, literary and ironic.

102

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha ‫קום עלה לקראת מלאכי מלך־ׁשמרון ודבר אלהם‬ ‫המבלי אין־אלהים ביׂשראל‬ ‫אתם הלכים לדרׁש בבעל זבוב אלהי עקרון׃‬ ‫ולכן כה־אמר יהוה‬ ‫המטה אׁשר־עלית ׁשם לא־תרד ממנה‬ ‫כי מות תמות וילך אליה׃‬ Get up! Go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and say to them: “Is there not a God in Israel? You are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron! Therefore, this is what YHWH said: The bed upon which you have gone, you will not come down from it. You will certainly die!” (vv. 3–4a)

Elijah immediately leaves for his meeting (v. 4b). The oracle parallels the one in the previous story about Elijah speaking a divine oracle in the aftermath of the murder of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:19) in several ways. Like that previous oracle, this one begins with a rhetorical question which focuses the indictment (“Is there not a God in Israel?”; “Have you killed and have you also taken possession?”), after which the judgment is introduced with a separate notice (“Therefore, this is what YHWH said”; “Thus said YHWH”), and the final judgment of both oracles begins with a focus upon particular places (“The bed upon which you have gone…”; “Wherever the dogs have lapped the blood of Naboth…”) and ends with a heightened focus or emphasis (“You will certainly die!”; “The dogs will lap up your—your—blood!”). The parallel raises expectations; will this oracle have a similar outcome? Will Ahaziah, as Ahab did previously, recognize his sin and repent and, therefore, stay the judgment? Interestingly, the narrator does not provide the scene where Elijah pronounces the oracle to the messengers, and it soon becomes clear why that scene is unnecessary.124 Instead, we jump immediately to a scene where the messengers return to the palace in Samaria, where they are questioned by Ahaziah. The oracle that we have heard from the mouth of the messenger of YHWH (vv. 3–4) will appear (more or less) twice more in the story from this point forward, once on the lips of Ahaziah’s messengers to him (v. 6) and, finally, on the lips of Elijah himself to Ahaziah (v. 16). Remarkably, the oracle is repeated almost identically by 124.  Note, in the previous story, that the narrator does not explicitly provide a scene where Elijah pronounces the original oracle he heard to Ahab. As before, in light of the over arc of the narrative, the scene is unnecessary.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

103

both the messengers and, in the final scene, by Elijah.125 This should, of course, reassure us that Ahaziah hears the same oracle that the messenger of YHWH pronounced to Elijah. This should, furthermore, reassure us of the veracity of Elijah and the pure power of the prophetic word in the lives of Israel––both in the narrative world of the story as well as in the readers’ own contexts. The messengers note that a man met them and sent them back to the king in order to deliver the oracle, which they repeat. Ahaziah asks what the manner of the man was who sent them and spoke these words. The messengers say that the man was a ‫ בעל ׂשער‬/ “master of hair,” an idiom meaning one who had much hair, either bodily or as a garment.126 Ironically, Ahaziah had sent to inquire of Baal-Zebub, but had actually received a word of divination from a Baal-Se‘ar! The messengers also note that he had on a leather belt or loincloth. Ahaziah knows immediately: it is Elijah the Tishbite! (v. 8).127 Ahaziah sends a group of fifty with a leader to the prophet. Some scholars see the fifty as being indicative of a military delegation.128 Even if this is true, it does not indicate that Ahaziah wants Elijah to be killed or 125.  The only substantial differences are indeed few. In the messengers’ version, the oracle is preceded by a narrative context introduction about Elijah’s sending them and, in the oracle itself, the change of pronoun from ‫ אתם הלכים לדרׁש‬/ “you all are going to inquire” to ‫ אתה ׁשלח לדרׁש‬/ “you (s.) are sending to inquire.” In Elijah’s version, the first two lines are reversed, which highlights the indictment and makes the rhetorical question secondary: “Because you sent messengers to inquire… Is there no God in Israel” as well as the addition of the final phrase, “that you can inquire of his word…” (v. 16). This final phrase, of course, further highlights the divine oracle itself, as well as Elijah’s part in delivering it. 126.  For the sense of ‫ בעל‬indicating “the owner of an object which embodies his manner, his character or his occupation,” see HALOT, s.v. §6. Note especially Gen 37:19; 49:23; Exod 24:14; Lev 25:26; 2 Sam 1:6; Isa 50:8. 127.  Sweeney notes that the statement by the messengers “builds dramatic effect by facilitating the revelation of Elijah to the king, and it prepares the reader to expect something noteworthy” (1 and 2 Kings, 270). The revelation of Elijah is, however, not “facilitated” either by the narrative or by Elijah himself. The narrative inserts the three scenes of the destruction of the two companies of men and the humble access made by the third, hindering the revelation of Elijah temporally. Elijah himself also clearly hinders the meeting with Ahaziah by refusing to come down to pronounce the oracle before the king. 128.  Gray, I & II Kings, 464: “The rank ‘captain of fifty’ indicated the organization of the professional standing army, a feature of the Hebrew monarchy.” On the other hand, the prophets that Obadiah rescued were organized in groups of fifty (18:4, 13) and, in the aftermath of the ascension of Elijah, there are groups of fifty

104

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

even imprisoned.129 In fact, at the end of the story it is clear that Ahaziah sends the company to bring Elijah before him so that he may hear the oracle from the prophet himself. Elijah repeats the oracle (with very minor variations) to the king who, it seems, promptly dies upon hearing the word (vv. 16–17a). The story, as laid out here, is simple and straightforward: Ahaziah is judged, YHWH’s word is shown to be true and powerful, and Elijah’s status as a Prophet like Moses, pronouncing oracles and executing justice, is heightened. However, in the midst of the story stand three scenes which undercut Elijah’s characterization as a Prophet like Moses. Upon delivering the oracle to the messengers, Elijah ascends “the mountain” (v. 9), almost certainly Mount Carmel, the site of his extraordinary victory over the prophets of Baal through his rhetorical skill and through the falling of the ‫ אׁש־יהוה‬/ “the fire of YHWH” from the sky and its devouring of the sacrifice and altar (1 Kgs 18:38). The first two of the three scenes are almost identical in their events and, even, their vocabulary. First Ahaziah sends a company of fifty along with their leader and they ascend the mountain (vv. 9a, 11a). The captain speaks to Elijah, calls him ‫ איׁש האלהים‬/ “Man of God,” pronounces an introductory clause (“The king spoke…”; “This is what the king said…”) and then tells Elijah to “come down” (v. 9b), the second captain adding, “quickly!” (v. 11b). Upon hearing this, Elijah replies and speaks to the captain, ‫אם־איׁש האלהים אני תרד אׁש מן־הׁשמים ותאכל אתך ואת־חמׁשיך‬ If I am the Man of God, fire should come down from the sky and devour you and your fifty!” (vv. 10a, 12a)

Immediately, fire does come down from the sky and devours “him and his fifty” (vv. 10b, 12b).130 The first two scenes follow this pattern and are almost identical. men who are prophets and are clearly not military companies (2 Kgs 2:7, 16–17). The mention of “fifty” in the story may, in fact, cause a literary echo between the context of Jezebel’s slaughter of the prophets and Elijah’s destruction of the companies. 129.  Even as before with Jezebel’s message to Elijah, the threat is not a real threat. If Ahaziah wanted Elijah dead, he would have simply sent the garrison—or a few soldiers––to do the deed. It is clear that Ahaziah does not wish Elijah harm, something that Elijah, the prophet, cannot see. 130.  When Elijah was on the mountain before, the ‫ אׁש־יהוה‬/ “fire of YHWH” fell and devoured the sacrifice and altar, which instigated the confession of Israel that “YHWH is God! YHWH is God!” (1 Kgs 18:38–39). In the first scene in this episode,

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

105

The third commander and his fifty break the pattern. The group ascends the mountain, and the third captain approaches Elijah, but at this point the story diverges from the earlier pattern. The captain, kneels (‫ )כרע‬before Elijah, and pleads (‫ )ויתחנן‬with him.131 He addresses him as “Man of God” as before, but then asks that his life and the lives of his company be precious in Elijah’s sight. He rehearses the fate of the previous two captains and companies and asks, again, for Elijah to favor his life (v. 14). At this, “the messenger of YHWH” appears and tells Elijah what was clearly obvious from the beginning: he should go down, because he should not be afraid of the captain. The fact that Elijah should not be afraid is something that the prophet clearly does not see, since not only does Ahaziah not wish to harm him but Elijah clearly has the wherewithal to defend himself. The final obvious aspect of the encounters is that Elijah should have, as a Mosaic prophet, been willing to appear before the king himself and repeat the oracle. Elijah, however petulant and belligerent and stubborn before, finally obeys and descends the mountain (v. 15). As we have seen in previous episodes, if the purpose of the story is to maintain the truth and power of YHWH’s word and to heighten the status of Elijah as a prophet, the story could have been told in a much more straightforward way without certain elements. The added elements of the destruction of the two captains and 100 individuals may, as is often claimed, highlight the status of Elijah as a miracle worker, someone to be feared.132 But they decidedly work against any portrayal of him as a Prophet like Moses, one who through his rhetorical skill and his on the other hand, it is merely ‫ אׁש‬/ “fire” that descends and devours the companies of men. In the second scene, it is the ‫ אׁש־אלהים‬/ “fire of God” that descends, perhaps a wordplay with ‫ איׁש האלהים‬/ “man of God.” The ambiguity is heightened. Unlike the central scene at Horeb, the fire here is not produced by, approved by, or indicative of YHWH…or is it? Is it, like the drought in 17:1, purely a destructive phenomenon produced by Elijah alone? If the scenes are meant to evoke an echo with 1 Kgs 18, the primary difference is startling: unlike the Carmel scene, no one confesses YHWH as God here. 131.  Elsewhere in Deuteronomy and the History, the pleading for mercy only occurs with YHWH as its addressee (Deut 3:23; 1 Kgs 8:33, 47, 59). 132.  Thus Nelson, First and Second Kings, 156: “From the viewpoint of the captains, this narrative gives instruction on how to treat a prophet—very carefully!” This is certainly true, but “care” and “respect” are different attitudes; one may treat a psychopath “carefully” but not accord him or her honor or respect. Honoring a prophet does not depend upon what destructive abilities the prophet manifests, but rather upon whether the prophet is seeking the benefit and betterment of people and their devotion to their deity.

106

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

demonstrations of power brings Israel into a relationship of devotion and love toward YHWH. In these intervening scenes, Elijah appears as fearful, sullen, obstinate, and incredibly dangerous—the very opposite of Moses as he is rendered in Deuteronomy. Does Elijah proclaim the divine word? Yes…and no…or maybe. One thing is certain: the fire that falls and devours the companies is called forth by Elijah to punish those whom he feared and to maintain his ability to resist doing what needed to be done. In light of such deep ambiguity and ambivalence about Elijah’s role and the possibility of Israel actually hearing YHWH’s word, it is no surprise that Elijah’s days are numbered. G. The Evaluation of the Prophet Elijah—A Review In the various episodes that comprise the Elijah narratives of 1 Kgs 17–19; 21 and 2 Kgs 1, the figure of Elijah appears in an uneven light. Scholars for the past century have suggested that, if the purpose of these episodes is to undergird the status of Elijah as a prophet, the stories occasionally deviate in their portrayal of the prophet as a positive character. What our analysis and discussion of the texts have shown, rather, is that the character of Elijah is sometimes positive, sometimes negative, usually ambiguous, and occasionally completely opaque. Moreover, this complex portrayal of the prophet exactly parallels the ambivalent attitude of prophecy as a whole that the entire cycle creates. In his initial proclamation of the drought by means of an oath that he himself pronounced (1 Kgs 17:1), Elijah’s statement is highly ambiguous. It is not clear, either at the beginning of ch. 17 or in fact anywhere afterwards, that the proclamation was made by the direction of YHWH. It is not clear, furthermore, what the purpose of the drought was, nor exactly what the drought was supposed to accomplish. Finally, the proclamation is silent about the relationship of the drought to the actions of Ahab, Jezebel, the Omrides, or, in fact, anything else besides Elijah’s own word. For a prophet that will later use remarkable rhetorical skill to persuade both Israel and King Ahab about their sin and their repentance, the opening scene of Elijah’s proclamation of the drought is fraught with gaps that are never fully resolved. Elijah appears initially to be concerned only about one thing: maintaining Ahab’s (and, more widely, Israel’s) recognition of his power and status. In the episode of him at the Wadi Cherith (17:2–6), however, he appears as an obedient servant of YHWH, who provides for him and sustains him during the drought. Through the ministrations of ravens, YHWH’s faithful protection and provision for Elijah reveal him to be a positive character.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

107

In the episode when he meets the widow of Zarephath (17:8–16), he appears mostly, likewise, as a positive character, bringing miraculous provision to the widow’s household through the never-ceasing flour pot and oil jug. The story that begins with a plan ending in death actually ends in not only life, but in abundant nourishment for many people. And yet, there is that one detail—which could have so easily been excised from the narrative: Elijah demands to be fed first, before the widow and before her starving child, and makes the miraculous deliverance dependent upon the widow’s obediently bringing him that first cake. Particularly in light of the passages of Deuteronomy that focus on Israel’s need to care for widows, this one small detail is troublesome in an otherwise joyful and lavish story. When the son of the widow dies, we see Elijah in a way that we have not before: unsure, unclear of YHWH’s purposes, and impotent to use his own miraculous powers to revive the boy (17:17–24). Only through Elijah’s prayer does YHWH bring about the resuscitation of the child. But even though we readers are able to see it, none of this is known by the widow. She only knows that Elijah took away a dead son and brought back a living son. Her confession, therefore, which serves as the climax of the story, does not proclaim her own trust in YHWH, but rather the status of Elijah as a man of God and as someone who truly speaks YHWH’s word. Again, the episode ends happily, but also ambiguously. After three years, YHWH tells Elijah that he is to appear before King Ahab and that the drought will finally end (18:1–19). Upon meeting Ahab’s steward, Obadiah, Elijah tells him to go announce to the king that “Elijah is here!” Obadiah, however, makes a speech that emphasizes repeatedly that Elijah cannot be trusted, that he is only setting up Obadiah’s death, that Elijah will not be where he promises to be. In short, Obadiah makes clear that, at least to him, Elijah’s word is unreliable. Only by pronouncing an oath is Elijah able to quiet Obadiah and send him to retrieve Ahab. At least from Obadiah’s perspective, Elijah is at best an ambiguous character, and at worst, downright undependable. Once the confrontation with Ahab is accomplished, however, the narrative changes remarkably (18:20–46). In his hortatory encouragement of Israel, in his ordering of the prophets of Baal and Asherah, in his manifesting in words and deeds the essential unity of Israel and of Israel’s God, through his prayer—in which he calls himself YHWH’s servant, not prophet––Elijah is depicted as Moses, in a way that few other characters in the whole Hebrew Bible are. His defeat of the prophets of Baal, his unification of Israel, and his leading them to confess “YHWH is God! YHWH is God!” reflect the leadership that the Mosaic prophet, as shown in Deut 18, should have. Here, Elijah is truly a positive character.

108

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

This turns around immediately upon hearing Jezebel’s threat (19:1–18). Through Elijah’s journey to Horeb, through his complaint to YHWH, through his refusal to be swayed from his pitying selfishness—the whole of ch. 19 reveals a highly egotistical, frightened, and weak character. YHWH therefore tells him that change is the new order of the day. He is to anoint Hazael to take the place of Ben-hadad as Syria’s king, Jehu to take the place of Ahab as Israel’s king, and Elisha son of Shaphat as his own replacement. YHWH, therefore, accepts his resignation. This is the nadir of Elijah’s narratives, an episode that shows him as a sad, negative character. When he leaves Horeb he does not follow the directions given by YHWH to proceed to the desert of Damascus to anoint Hazael (19:19–21). Instead, he finds Elisha, his putative replacement, and throws his mantle at him and immediately leaves him without speaking a word. Elisha, unsure of the situation, provides a meal for his co-workers and then follows Elijah as a servant, not a successor. The entire scene and each of the parts that comprise it are thoroughly opaque. We leave the scene completely unclear about what either has happened or what to expect. In the aftermath of the conspiracy against and murder of Naboth, Elijah seems to have risen to his purpose and, like on Mount Carmel, again speaks as the Mosaic prophet (21:17–29). His denunciation of the weakness and manipulation of both Ahab and Jezebel in the scheme against Naboth is filled with both Deuteronomic vocabulary and theology. As opposed to the vision that Deuteronomy has for the ideal king (Deut 17:14–20), Ahab has overstepped his authority and used his power for his own selfish ends. Elijah’s rendering as the Mosaic prophet is, furthermore, brought to fruition by none other than Ahab himself: the king repents and gains a gracious reprieve from YHWH. The repentance which Deuteronomy encourages is shown in the character of Ahab himself. Again, Elijah’s identification with the Mosaic prophet is clear. In the parallel story of the denunciation of Ahab’s son, Ahaziah, however, Elijah’s character is ambiguous once more (2 Kgs 1:1–18). Although the word of YHWH’s judgment against the apostate king is clear and sure and, in the end, decisive, Elijah’s word intervenes in the midst of the story, bringing violence and death to over 100 Israelites whose only fault is wanting to bring the prophet before the king. Elijah, as Ahab and Jezebel in the preceding story, uses his power to bring Israelites (in the character of the third captain and his company) to acknowledge his––not YHWH’s––power. While it may be true that Israel should respect and obey the Mosaic prophet, the sequence of stories about Elijah calls into question, again and again, the ability of Israel—and the reader—to discern who, exactly, that might be.

2. Narratives Focused on Elijah

109

If the stories are intended to draw Elijah with lines that resemble the Prophet like Moses, they succeed occasionally, fail often, and are equivocal throughout. If, however, Elijah’s portrayal in the stories is intended to present him ambiguously, as a character who is, on the one hand, neither clearly concerned for Israel’s salvation, nor, on the other, as simply a power-hungry manipulator, the stories succeed splendidly. Elijah is, from first to last, ambiguous and the theological role that he plays, that of prophet, is likewise shown to be highly fraught with difficulty. In the words of Deut 18, how may we know a word that YHWH has or has not spoken? The answer, as it is revealed through these stories, is ambivalent, which is precisely the point. Only one thing is sure: YHWH has spoken through Moses himself in the book of Deuteronomy. Only when prophets speak those words—nothing more, nothing less, nothing else—and lead lives that fulfill those words can they be trusted completely, with one’s whole heart and mind and strength.

Chapter 3 N a rr at i ves F ocus ed on E li sha

A. Elisha and Elijah Separate The previous chapter considered those stories in the History that have Elijah as a major literary character. While Elijah might appear in any particular story as a positive character or as a negative character or as an opaque character, looked at as a whole, the Elijah narratives portray him as neither positive nor negative; the effect of the overarching narrative flow is that Elijah is an ambiguous character. • When he lives in the Wadi Cherith being miraculously fed by ravens in ch. 17, or leads Israel to confess “YHWH is God!” on Mount Carmel in ch. 18, or pronounces judgment in the aftermath of the Naboth assassination, leading Ahab to a repentant attitude in ch. 21—he is portrayed as the Mosaic prophet, as the one who acts and speaks like Moses, proclaiming the divine word using Deuteronomic themes, phrases, and theology. • On the other hand, as the one who, singlehandedly and miraculously (magically?) produces the drought without a word of explanation in ch. 17, or as the petulant and hardheaded anti-prophet at Mount Horeb in the midst of ch. 19, or by not immediately obeying the command to anoint Hazael or Jehu afterwards at the end of ch. 19— he may be portrayed as one who works contrary to the divine will, either seeking his own aggrandizement or cowardly fleeing from his responsibility. • Furthermore, as the one who cares for the widow after she acquiesces and provides for him first in ch. 17, or as the one who secretly admits to himself alone his complete ignorance about YHWH’s actions or intentions yet compassionately prays for the widow’s son to be resuscitated later in the same chapter, or as the one who pronounces judgment against Ahaziah yet destructively refuses to proclaim the oracle to Ahaziah’s face in 2 Kgs 1—he may appear as a contradictory and complex character.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

111

Taken together, these stories show Elijah as one who is associated with YHWH and YHWH’s word, but not absolutely. While he is generally the one who represents YHWH’s intentions in the stories, such an evaluation is never given wholeheartedly, but only reticently. Elijah’s character is ambiguous, and the Deuteronomic evaluation of him—and by extension, of the phenomenon of prophecy as a whole—is ambivalent. He (and prophecy) is worthy of respect and, simultaneously, he (and it) is rightfully considered with suspicion, always being judged in light of the book of Deuteronomy. In a similar way, the stories of Elisha will also present him as an ambiguous character. He will appear both strong and weak; he will stand against the corrupt political structures of the monarchy and will also aid them; he will proclaim the word of YHWH and he will also proclaim his own word. Elisha will appear as the primary representative of the prophetic office in these stories, but will be one who, in the words of Paul Kissling, is an “unreliable character” and one who cannot be completely trusted.1 1. Elijah Attempts to Leave Elisha Behind—2 Kings 2:1–8 The name of Elisha first appears in the narratives within the finale to YHWH’s speech to Elijah after the Mount Horeb episode of 1 Kgs 19.2 Once it becomes clear that Elijah is not willing to work boldly in his office as prophet, that is, as a critic of the monarchy of Israel and as the one who pronounces the divine word, YHWH tells him to anoint Hazael 1.  Kissling, Reliable Characters, 96–148. Kissling notes that “there is a quite noticeable negative element in the portrayal of Elisha and this negative element leads the reader to question his reliability in a way that Elijah’s is never questioned… These negative aspects of the portrayal of Elisha lead the reader to cast some doubt on his reliability both in terms of this ability and his morality” (199). 2.  See particularly, Bergen, Elisha, 47–54; and Kissing, Reliable Characters, 147–54. I have found Bergen’s book and Kissling’s chapters in his study to be especially helpful in thinking about the role and character of Elisha during the research for this chapter. In addition, the following studies have been extremely insightful in considering the Elisha narratives: Walsh, 1 Kings, 3–64; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 127–28; Dharamraj, A Prophet Like Moses?, 118–25; Garsiel, From Earth to Heaven, 101–2. See also, Gray, I & II Kings, 411–12; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 233; Volkmar Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, trans. Anselm Hagedorn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 198–99; Gunkel, Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal, 28–29; Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 147–48; Cogan, 1 Kings, 457–58; Albertz, Elia, 139–50; Beck, Elia und die Monolatrie, 153–56; Dillard, Faith in the Face of Apostasy, 57; Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha, 27–28.

112

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

as the new king of Syria, Jehu as the new king of Israel, and Elisha as his own replacement (vv. 15–16). These three will bring about the justice that YHWH is seeking in a harmonious and cooperative alliance.3 Elisha is, therefore, introduced as one who will bring justice, along with the new kings of Syria and Israel, Hazael and Jehu. These three individuals will, YHWH plans, work together in a way that the petulant and self-centered Elijah seems unable or unwilling to do.4 YHWH commands Elijah to head, first, to the desert of Damascus to fulfill the first of these assignments, that of anointing Hazael. Elijah, for his part, forgoes heading to the desert of Damascus and instead heads straight to Abel-meholah to find Elisha, his replacement. The last time we saw Elisha, he was hurrying after Elijah who had walked away from him after throwing his mantle at him (vv. 19–20). Elisha had gone back to the field he had been plowing, provided a meal for his co-workers, and then hurried to catch up to Elijah. The final scene of the episode finds Elisha, not replacing Elijah, but rather serving him (v. 21b), perhaps in spite of the fact that Elijah had rather just leave him. In the subsequent episodes of the Elijah narratives—the proclamation against Ahab and Jezebel in the aftermath of the Naboth murder (1 Kgs 21:17–24) and the proclamation against Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:3–4, 16)— Elisha does not appear at all, not even as a servant. Elijah appears alone. It might seem that Elijah had reclaimed his role as prophet and, also, had succeeded in leaving Elisha somewhere along the way as he had tried to do immediately after their first meeting.

3.  See the work of James K. Mead for an interesting analysis of this unusual introduction of Elisha, “ ‘Elisha Will Kill’? The Deuteronomistic Rhetoric of Life and Death in the Theology of the Elisha Narratives” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1999). 4.  Contra Bergen (Elisha, 47–48), it need not be the case that the ones put to the swords of Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha include all the population of Israel, with the exception of the 7,000 whom YHWH had reserved for himself. In fact, it seems as if, at this stage of the narrative, “all Israel” had confessed YHWH as God on Mount Carmel. The ones who escape justice, in fact, seem to be relatively few: ‫ הנמלט‬/ “the one who escapes” instead of *‫ הנמלטים‬/ “the ones who escape” (as suggested by the NRSV). Elisha is not being called to promote widespread violence here. The portrait that YHWH paints is of cooperation, the two kings and the prophet working together. Unfortunately, because of Elijah’s refusal to anoint the two kings and to allow them to fulfill their mission when he was told to, the bloodbath later becomes horrific under Jehu.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

113

It should, therefore, be no surprise that when Elisha does come back into the narrative in 2 Kgs 2, Elijah is, again, trying to leave him and go on his own way.5 Even the grammar of Elisha’s reintroduction (v. 1) seems to lose him: ‫ויהי בהעלות יהוה את־אליהו בסערה הׁשמים‬ ‫וילך אליהו ואליׁשע מן־הגלגל׃‬

The first clause is clear enough: “When YHWH took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind…” When the temporal clause is resolved, however, the verb is singular, even though the subject (Elijah and Elisha) is plural. The entire sentence might be translated into English as: When YHWH took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah (and Elisha) went from Gilgal.

It seems ironic that at just the point when the larger collection of stories begins to focus upon Elisha as a main character, the grammar seems intent to slight him in a way similar to Elijah himself. Beginning in v. 2, a series of three vignettes occur which follow an almost identical plot: 1. Elijah tells Elisha to stay where they are because “YHWH has sent me to” another site (vv. 2a, 4a, 6a); 2. Elisha pronounces an oath upon YHWH and Elijah’s own life that he will not “forsake you,” after which they proceed to the announced site (vv. 2b, 4b, 6b); 3. Upon arriving, the “sons of the prophets” at the site ask Elisha if he knows that on that very day YHWH would be taking “your master from your head” (vv. 3a, 5a); 4. Elisha responds that he knows and he commands the sons of the prophets to be silent (vv. 3b, 5b). In the final vignette, the third and fourth scenes are replaced with a scene of the “sons of the prophets” not approaching Elisha, but rather standing at a distance watching the two, who are at the River Jordan (v. 7). In these scenes leading up to the crossing of the Jordan, three characters play parts: Elijah, the “sons of the prophets,” and Elisha. 5.  See Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 172, for a discussion of the ambiguity of Elijah’s trying to escape from Elisha, in spite of the fact that he has been told that Elisha is to be his successor and that this succession was to happen “today.”

114

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The character of Elijah himself is rather sparse in the episode, but what does appear is not particularly positive.6 Elijah and Elisha begin their journey in Gilgal, near the Jordan River. They then proceed to Bethel, in the middle of the Northern Kingdom (vv. 2–3). Upon reaching there, Elijah does not do anything. Instead, they return along almost the identical road they came on and head to Jericho, again near the Jordan River (vv. 4–5); they then arrive at the Jordan (vv. 6–7). Each movement is directed, according to Elijah, by YHWH and yet, once they arrive, Elijah does nothing at the site except declare to Elisha that YHWH has sent him to the next spot. By this point in the Elijah narratives it is clear—at least to the reader— that, in fact, YHWH is not directing him but he is, rather, using YHWH’s name in order to try to persuade Elisha to leave him. The divine word here has been reduced to nothing more than a manipulative device. It is clear not only that Elijah will be taken out of the way, but that, in fact, he should be removed from his office for speaking words that YHWH clearly did not say (Deut 18:20). The “sons of the prophets,” as is true with Elijah in 1 Kgs 17:1, seem to appear from nowhere and have no real introduction or context, either literarily or ideologically.7 They interact in this story only with Elisha, never with Elijah. Wesley Bergen provides an excellent review of the scholarship concerning the group.8 He notes that many scholars view the group as the source of the Elisha stories. As such, their presentation in the narrative is often seen as that of a positive and powerful group. This interpretation, however, is often circular: because the group is the source of the Elisha narratives, they would not portray themselves in a negative light; they must, therefore, be characterized positively. In order to argue this, however, the interpretations are often based on historical reconstructions that have very little to do with any data from the Bible itself. The sons of the prophets, according to some, are “worship leaders” alongside the priests at major religious centers.9 They are representatives of a high 6.  See Gray, I & II Kings, 466–67, for a detailed discussion about classifying this episode within the Elisha narratives rather than the Elijah narratives. See also Gunkel, Elijah, 34. 7.  Before this, they are only mentioned in 1 Kgs 20:35. In that context, only two nameless members of the group are mentioned, one ordering the other to hit him and the other refusing to do so. Because of his disobedience, he is killed by a lion. The scene, overall, seems more comic than tragic. 8.  Bergen, Elisha, 57–61. 9.  W. Wifall, The Court History of Israel (St. Louis: Clayton, 1975), 100; Gray, I & II Kings, 424.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

115

and influential group in Israelite society.10 They are powerful political leaders that carry out covert operations against the enemies of Israel.11 But few of these reconstructions find evidence within the stories of the sons of the prophets themselves. On the other hand, other scholars see them in less glowing terms. They are, according to these views, a “sozial Deklassierten” (social underclass).12 They are wandering beggars, dependent upon the charity of the upper classes.13 They are a group that has few morals, are gullible, and are part of a context where “credulity flourished.”14 They are like gatherings of “hobos around stewpots.”15 They are “impoverished, defenseless, simple people, in need of the man of God to provide protection and the basic necessities.”16 While some scholars who see the sons of the prophets in these more negative terms still hold that the Elisha stories originate with them, such a view is harder to argue.17 Generally, views which argue that the sons of the prophets are a negative group do so by relying primarily upon their presence in the narratives in which they occur.18 In the short episode of 2 Kgs 2:1–8, the sons of the prophets are closely connected with Elisha, either “coming out” to him or “drawing near” to him. They speak with him. They ask him questions. They are directed by him. They are also, finally, the ones who watch him and will, in a following scene (vv. 15–18) make assumptions about Elisha from the things that they witness. Their views are, however, never complete because, unlike the narrator and the reader of the biblical narratives, they cannot see and know many things about the new prophet, things which might not be so positive. 10.  Joshua R. Porter, “Bene-hannabi’im,” JTS 32 (1981): 423–29. 11.  Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 34. 12.  Eberhard Ruprecht, “Entstehung und zeitgeschichtlicher Bezug der Erzählung von der Designation Hasaels durch Elisa,” VT 29 (1979): 73–82. 13.  David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets, JSOTSup 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1981), 49. 14.  Gray, I & II Kings, 428, 474. 15.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 175. 16.  Ernst Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige, Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 288. 17.  Bergen, Elisha, 59. 18.  Ibid., 60: “It is not my intention to probe the characteristics of a group of people who may have been the archetype for this narrative. Rather, as a reader, I want to explore the ways these actors contribute to the creation of my (re)construction of the textual world, and to explore the function they perform within this world.”

116

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Finally, Elisha is the thread which holds the episode together. He is the one whom Elijah wants to leave behind. He is the one who refuses to leave to go on his own. And he seems to be the one who has some leadership position over the sons of the prophets. He is also someone who claims to know things. Twice the sons of the prophets ask him if he knows that Elijah would be taken away from him and he twice responds, ‫גם־אני ידעתי‬ ‫ החׁשו‬/ “I know that, too! Be quiet!” (vv. 3, 5).19 Elisha is clear that, in his relationship with this group, he is the one in charge.20 At the end of the episode, Elijah and Elisha stand on the edge of the Jordan, with the sons of the prophets standing at a distance watching. Elijah takes his mantle (which he appears to have taken back from Elisha!) rolls it up, and strikes the water. The water divides and the two of them cross over on dry ground (v. 8). Elijah, in one of his last acts in the narrative, appears as a Moses figure.21 2. Elijah Is Taken Away—2 Kings 2:9–12 As soon as they cross, away from the prying eyes and ears of the sons of the prophets, a conversation ensues (vv. 9–10). Elijah tells Elisha to ask for whatever it is that he wants from him; it seems clear to Elijah that Elisha has not forsaken him for no reason; Elisha must want something. With Deut 13 and 18 in the background, Elisha’s request should entail his taking on the responsibilities of the Prophet like Moses from Elijah. It will now be Elisha’s role to proclaim in word and in deed the Deuteronomic Torah—nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. It will be 19.  The phrase ‫ גם־אני ידעתי‬grammatically marks Elisha as the one who knows: “I––I know!” The initial gam also marks him as a knower who is associated with the sons of the prophets: “I––I know, too!” The sense of the whole phrase is that they do not know anything that he does not already know and, in fact, he probably knows things (through his association with Elijah) that they do not know. In short, he is the one in charge and they should just be quiet. 20.  Bergen, Elisha, 60. 21.  See particularly, Robert P. Carroll, “The Elijah–Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel,” VT 19 (1969): 400–415. See also Gray, I & II Kings, 475; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 273; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 158. This final clause of the episode is representative of the overall argument of this study: the portrayal of Elijah never devolves into seeing him as a complete humbug and manipulator; once the characterization verges on that sense of Elijah, he will appear in a Mosaic light. Similarly, the portrayal of Elijah never exaggerates his identification with Moses; once the characterization verges on that sense, Elijah will appear as petulant, or cowardly, or manipulative, or deceptive. He truly is ambiguous, both positively and negatively.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

117

his responsibility to lead Israel in their devotion to YHWH alone. It will be his charge to stand against idolatry and syncretism, particularly as it is represented in the monarchical structures of the Northern Kingdom. It will be his obligation to do these things in a way that Elijah seems not only to have been unable to do, but, ultimately, unwilling to do. It is, therefore, surprising and disconcerting that Elisha’s request is for him to be cut out of the same cloth as Elijah: ‫ויהי־נא פי־ׁשנים ברוחך אלי‬ / “I want a portion of your spirit to be upon me!” (v. 9).22 It is an interesting request for two reasons. First, Elijah’s “spirit” has played little part in the narratives before this, unless it is interpreted in such a way as to indicate Elijah’s character, his morality and his personality.23 If that is the meaning here, then it appears that, with Elisha, we will be seeing “more of the same.” A second reason why the request is interesting lies particularly in what it is missing: any reference or mention of YHWH. This is particularly poignant because, unlike in the Elijah narratives, YHWH will very rarely appear as an active character within any of the Elisha stories. Furthermore, although occasionally reference will be made by characters or by the narrator to the “word of YHWH,” YHWH will never speak to Elisha in the narrative. Although miraculous phenomena will occur in the stories, YHWH will rarely bring about (directly) any miraculous sign. YHWH will be a silent character in the stories.24 Whatever we, the

22.  The scholarship surrounding the question of what ‫ פי־ׁשנים‬means is extensive. It is often translated as “double portion” (NRSV). If it alludes to Deut 21:17, a law concerning inheritance after the death of a father, it refers to the “double portion” that the eldest son inherits, compared with the “single portion” that the younger siblings inherit. A second interpretation, based on general Jewish traditions of translation, sees the phrase as meaning “two-thirds.” In either case the phrase “clearly indicated that Elisha is likely to be less powerful than Elijah” (Bergen, Elisha, 62–63). For discussions of the options, see also Würthwein, Könige, 275; Gray, I & II Kings, 475. I would note that while Elisha may be portrayed as “less powerful” than Elijah, the power and the use of it will be identical with Elijah’s; it will still be qualitatively, if not quantitatively, Elijah’s spirit. 23.  This is precisely the sense given to the word in the narrative of Naboth’s vineyard. In 1 Kgs 21:5, after Naboth refuses to sell or trade his vineyard to Ahab, Jezebel comes to the king. She asks, ‫ מה־זה רוחך סרה ואינך אכל לחם‬/ “What’s this? Your spirit/attitude/outlook is so sullen. And you’re not eating!” In 2 Kgs 2, it may be that Elisha is asking, intentionally or unintentionally, to be endowed with the attitude or outlook of Elijah. The reader knows that this is not necessarily a positive thing. 24.  Bergen, Elisha, 44: “The third problem [besides a confusion between YHWH’s word and Elisha’s word, and how Elisha’s role as messenger is transferred to Gehazi] regarding the source of Elisha’s power is the lack of divine initiative in the

118

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

readers, may know of YHWH’s actions or intentions or plans will be interpreted from occasional and rare statements of the narrator and the words, actions, and character of Elisha. In reply to Elisha’s request, most English versions translate Elijah’s response as, “You have asked a difficult thing” or “You have asked a hard thing.”25 The clause ‫ הקׁשית לׁשאול‬makes no reference to the “thing” that is the subject of the request nor does it predicate that the subject of the request is “difficult”; the focus of the clause is simply about the “asking” itself. A similar form of the same root appears in Exod 13:15: ‫ויהי כי־הקׁשה‬ ‫ פרעה לׁשלחנו‬/ “It happened when Pharaoh was stubborn about sending us away…” In the present context, contrary to the usual translation, the clause may be understood as meaning “You make yourself hard in asking,” or, clearer, “You are stubborn to ask!” In light of Elisha’s dogged attachment to Elijah throughout the episode and in light of Elijah’s seemingly strong desire to get rid of him, Elisha’s request that Elijah’s spirit remain with him would be stubborn, indeed! Elijah produces a test: if Elisha sees him when he is taken away, then the portion of Elijah’s personality will be with him; if not, then it will not. Perhaps Elijah is planning to attempt an escape yet again! But Elijah is not given the chance to extract himself from Elisha’s presence; it is done for him. Suddenly and unexpectedly, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separate them and Elijah goes up to the sky in a whirlwind. With phenomena that defined both his highest life event, the descent of the fire on Carmel and the subsequent windy storm ending the drought (1 Kgs 18:38, 45), as well as his lowest life event, the empty non-theophany on Horeb (1 Kgs 19:11–12), Elijah exits the scene, finally removed from his prophetic office.26 Throughout the miraculous event, Elisha does see and cries out, thinking the chariot must be associated with the army of Israel or, more probably, with the military “host” of story. YHWH has no direct speech in any of the stories; neither is there any sense of [a] larger divine purpose to Elisha’s actions. The prophet appears as a loose cannon, wandering around Israel firing off miracles at random. This is most striking given the explicit directions of YHWH that initiate his prophetic ministry.” 25.  Thus KJV, ASV, ESV, NAB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV. 26.  The traditional interpretation of the ascent of Elijah is that it is a positive and redemptive event, signaling YHWH’s final acceptance of and gracious gift for the prophet by allowing him to escape death. This is, however, far from obvious. It is also possible and, in context, highly likely that the ascent may be seen as a judgment upon a prophet who stayed around after his time had come to leave. This quality of a prophet’s staying around after his mission is complete is present in the Samuel stories, as well; see Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy, 112–19.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

119

which YHWH is the commander. At the end of the episode, he no longer sees Elijah anywhere. He tears his clothing into two pieces as a sign of mourning; he must, now, fulfill his work on his own. 3. Elisha and Elijah’s Robe—2 Kings 2:13–14 The very first thing that Elisha does on his own accord is paradigmatic of his prophetic role in all the following stories. Traditionally, the scene is understood as underscoring the fact that now Elisha has accepted his divinely granted role as prophet of YHWH to Israel and that fact is represented by a miraculous sign in the tradition of both Elijah and of Moses, a sign which will be seen and understood by the sons of the prophets in a similar way (v. 15). The actual text is, however, much more troubling and paints a much more ambiguous portrait of the new prophet from the very beginning. Elisha picks up the mantle of Elijah, the same mantle that he once had. Twice the text will describe the mantle with the dependent clause ‫אׁשר‬ ‫ נפלה מעליו‬/ “which fell from upon him” (vv. 13, 14). On the one hand, the clause may mark the mantle as something that is closely associated with Elijah. But this is unnecessary; there have been no other mantles in any of the narratives up to this point. Only Elijah’s mantle has been mentioned and, of course, it would have been with him as the two were walking and talking. On the other hand, the clause may signal that Elijah did not cast the mantle to Elisha (as he had before), nor did the mantle miraculously descend upon him. There is nothing particularly miraculous or theologically significant with regard to the mantle itself; it is not representative of the transfer of the power or authority of Elijah to Elisha. The mantle simply “falls” to the ground as Elijah ascends. Elisha, if he is to make any use of it for whatever reason, must pick it up himself. The sense is purely pedestrian; the phrase emphasizes that there is no indication of any ritual transition of authority. The mantle simply falls; Elisha simply picks it up from the ground. He returns to the Jordan, takes the mantle (which had fallen from Elijah), and rolls it up in an imitation of Elijah’s earlier action (v. 8). The narrative then slows down and relates three separate actions that Elisha performs: ‫ויכה את־המים‬ ‫ויאמר איה יהוה אלהי אליהו אף־הוא‬ ‫ויכה את־המים‬ He struck the water. He said, “Where is YHWH, the God of Elijah—surely he!?” He struck the water.

120

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

In light of the earlier scene in v. 8, we might expect the waters to divide after Elisha strikes them at first, just as Elijah did. But they do not. He then calls upon YHWH, practically demanding the divine presence to perform the action.27 But the waters still do not divide. He then strikes the waters a second time and, only then, do they separate here and there and Elisha crosses over (v. 14b).28 The text repeats many of the same words and phrases between the scenes of Elijah’s splitting of the water and of Elisha’s eventual ability to do the same: • v. 7b: ‫“ וׁשניהם עמדו על־הירדן‬The two of them stood at the Jordan” / v. 13: ‫“ ויעמד על־ׂשפת הירדן‬He [Elisha] stood on the bank of the Jordan”; • v. 8a: ‫“ ויקח אליהו את־אדרתו‬Elijah took his mantle” / v. 14a: ‫“ ויקח את־אדרת אליהו‬He [Elisha] took the mantle of Elijah”; • v. 8a: ‫“ ויכה את־המים‬And he [Elijah] struck the water” / v. 14a, b (twice): ‫“ ויכה את־המים‬And he [Elisha] struck the water”; • v. 8a: ‫“ ויחצו הנה והנה‬The water divided here and there” / v. 14b: ‫“ ויחצו הנה והנה‬The water divided here and there”; • v. 8b: ‫“ ויעברו ׁשניהם‬The two of them crossed over” / v. 14b: ‫“ ויעבר אליׁשע‬Elisha crossed over.” It is, however, telling that although the two men had crossed the Jordan ‫ בחרבה‬/ “on dry ground” (v. 8b), on Elisha’s return the narrator does not repeat this detail. Elisha must try a few times to perform the miracle of the split river and, even then, it may not be completely successful.29 27.  The final ‫ אף־הוא‬is indicative of emphasizing or focusing attention on the subject, YHWH, at the end of the clause. The question is, therefore, not a true request for aid. The LXX translates it similarly by changing the phrase into ‫ אפוא‬/ “where?” A possible translation might incorporate both ideas: “Where is YHWH, the God of Elijah?? Where is he?!?” 28.  Nelson is one of the few commentators who recognize the repetition (First and Second Kings, 159–60). The NRSV is particularly clever in reducing the dissonance of the sequence by incorporating participial and temporal phrases: “He took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?’ When he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other.” In this version, the action is unified with a single strike and a simultaneous speech. While such a sequence is easily possible to represent in Hebrew, the text clearly indicates three separate actions. 29.  I imagine Elisha showing up on the opposite shore with muddy, soggy feet.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

121

If the spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha, it is clearly not a full measure but rather a portion, just as Elisha had asked. Elisha will do many miracles, almost twice as many as Elijah did. With few exceptions, however, he will need to repeat or use physical objects or ritual actions to accomplish them, as opposed to only his words. Furthermore, the signs that Elisha will perform will rarely lead people to a clearer and more devoted relationship with YHWH, either through confession or through repentance. The miracles will often, as with the crossing of the Jordan, help him or others to accomplish goals more easily, but they will not inspire trust, nor will Elisha use them as an opportunity to lead Israel to more fully heed and love YHWH (Deut 18:17). B. Elisha’s Small Tales—2 Kings 2:15–25 Immediately following Elisha’s crossing of the Jordan and the initiation of his role as prophet to Israel, three small episodes define the positive, negative, and ambiguous aspects of Elisha’s characterization. Each of these small stories, in spite of their size, function to sketch out his personality and provide a foundation for all the following stories in the Elisha cycle.30 1. Elisha and the Sons of the Prophets—2 Kings 2:15–18 The fifty sons of the prophets of Jericho had remained at a distance when Elijah and Elisha first crossed the Jordan in v. 7. There, they witnessed Elijah’s ability to split the waters with his mantle in a fashion like Moses (v. 8). They are, of course, unaware of the events that happened on the other side of the Jordan, of the conversation between Elijah and Elisha, of the chariots and horses of fire, of the whirlwind, or of Elisha’s threefold attempt to make the Jordan split so that he could cross back into Israel. In short, we the readers know about Elisha’s request to have (only) a portion of the spirit of Elijah, or of his limited ability compared with Elijah, but the fifty sons of the prophets do not know these things.31 They only see the divided river and Elisha crossing it alone, without Elijah. They tell each

30.  Nelson sees the entirety of the chapter, including the three short stories, as all structurally linked and related. He notes particularly that the stories occur outside of regulated chronology: “The ‘file’ on Ahaziah has closed (1:18); the one for Jehoram of Israel has not yet been opened (3:1). By being removed from the established pattern of chronologically measured time, this story acquires an aura of mystery and otherworldliness” (First and Second Kings, 157). 31.  Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 173–74; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 160–61.

122

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

other that the spirit of Elijah (not merely a portion of the spirit of Elijah) now rests on Elisha, and they approach him and respectfully bow to the ground in his presence (v. 15). At this point, it seems as if Elisha has fully taken over the role of Elijah, at least in the eyes of his followers. But such an assumption does not last long. In an echo of the worry of Obadiah in 1 Kgs 18:12 (‫והיה אני אלך מאתך‬ ‫ ורוח יהוה יׂשאך על אׁשר לא־אדע‬/ “It will be that I will go from you, and then the spirit of YHWH will lift you to somewhere that I don’t know…”), the sons of the prophets likewise are not certain of the whereabouts of the great Man of God. They realize, perhaps, that all they have seen is the two men crossing the Jordan and only one of them returning. What happened to Elijah? They supposedly knew that YHWH would remove Elijah, but how did that actually happen across the river? Did, in fact, YHWH’s spirit carry him away? Or are there, perhaps, more nefarious deeds at work? Can they trust Elisha? They propose a search party to search for “your lord” with the explanation that ‫פן־נׂשאו רוח יהוה ויׁשלכהו באחד ההרים או‬ ‫ באחת הגיאות‬/ “Perhaps the spirit of YHWH lifted him up and tossed him onto one of the mountains or into one of the valleys” (v. 16). It is a strange reason to search for Elijah, especially since they were not privy to the whirlwind that actually did take him away. Are they expecting to find Elijah alive or, perhaps, dead?32 Elisha, having witnessed the ascent of Elijah, reassures them by commanding them “No! Don’t send them!” (v. 16b). In the previous cycle, whenever Elijah commanded anyone to do anything, they obeyed.33 Here, the sons of the prophets refuse to listen and, in fact, press Elisha until he is shamed (at being accused of murder?), at which point he commands them to send the search party. They search for three days but, of course, do not find Elijah (v. 17). Upon their return, Elisha passive-aggressively asks them the rhetorical question: “Didn’t I tell you that you shouldn’t go?!?” Thus ends the episode.

32.  The verb ‫ ׁשלך‬will appear later in the final episode of the Elisha narratives, when some marauders will “toss” a corpse into a cave. Are the sons of the prophets expecting to find Elijah’s corpse somewhere across the Jordan, tossed there by YHWH’s spirit or, perhaps, by Elisha himself? Gray discusses the ambiguity of their suggestion for a search party (I & II Kings, 476–77). Provan notes that if Elijah were alive, there would not be a need to search for him since he would go wherever he saw fit. Only if he were dead would there be an impulse to search for the corpse (1 and 2 Kings, 174). 33.  Sometimes after a hesitation, as with the widow (ch. 17) or Obadiah (ch. 18); but consistently the usual response to a command by Elijah is obedience.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

123

The relationship between the sons of the prophets and Elisha in this initial episode is fraught with uneasy complexity.34 They do not trust him. They disobey him. They press him and manipulate him by using guilt or embarrassment. He, for his part, does not seem to be a strong leader of the group. He allows them to counteract his orders, to force him––perhaps through subtle accusations—to permit the search. And the episode as a whole finds its climax in the petulant rhetorical question, “Didn’t I tell you so?!?” The whole point of the episode seems to center upon Elisha’s lack of authority. If a portion of the spirit of Elijah does rest upon Elisha, it very well may be the petty and complaining spirit that Elijah displayed at Mount Horeb, rather than the heroic and courageous spirit that was clear on the top of Mount Carmel. This first scene of Elisha’s prophetic leadership does not bode well for his tenure. 2. Elisha and Jericho’s Water—2 Kings 2:19–22 The next episode appears on the surface to be a much more positive appraisal of Elisha’s authority and power. The inhabitants of the city of Jericho note that, although their city is situated well, two problems plague the city: the water supply is bad and, supposedly because of that fact, the land “causes miscarriages” or “causes the loss of children.”35 Elisha orders

34.  Contra Bergen, Elisha, 66: “The reader is shown a smooth transition of power, a succession story, and thus expects Elisha to be a prophet like Elijah,” an assessment that, for Bergen who consistently sees Elijah as a positive character, is an affirming comparison. This study, however, has shown that Elijah is not consistently a positive character and, therefore, any comparison between Elijah and Elisha may actually be continuing the narrator’s ambivalent evaluation of prophets and prophecy, rather than drawing a contrast between a respected and godly prophet and his weaker and less honorable successor. Therefore, I see the transition between the two as fraught with the same ambiguous elements that have been reflected in the characterization of Elijah and that will also be reflected in the characterization of Elisha. 35.  The usual English translation of the second problem, ‫והארץ מׁשכלת‬, is usually rendered as “the land is unfruitful” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV) or “the land is barren” (KJV) or “the land is unproductive” (NIV). These translations seem to be based on the sense of the verb in Mal 3:11, “your vine in the field shall not be barren,” a possibility that Gray discusses and accepts (I & II Kings, 477). In the vast majority of cases where this verb occurs (Gen 31:38; 42:36; Exod 23:26; Lev 26:22; Deut 32:25; 2 Kgs 2:19, 21; Job 21:10; Jer 15:7; Lam 1:20; Ezek 5:17; 14:15; 36:12–14; Hos 9:12), it indicates the loss of children either by miscarriage or by bereavement. The land, somehow because of the water source, causes fetuses and/or children to die. This aspect of the problem is important because of its relationship with the following story, Elisha and the Boys of Bethel (2:23–25).

124

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

them to bring him a new bowl with salt in it (v. 20), which they provide. Once out at the water source, he throws in the salt and provides an oracle: ‫כה־אמר יהוה‬ ‫רפאתי למים האלה‬ ‫לא־יהיה מׁשם עוד מות ומׁשכלת‬ This is what YHWH said: “I have healed this water. Death or miscarriage will no longer be there.” (v. 21)

And the narrator relates that, indeed, the water was “healed” from that day forward (v. 22). Here, again, Elisha takes on the role of the Mosaic prophet, paralleled in the story of the cleansing of the water at Marah (Exod 15:23–25).36 The final phrase of the episode, however, is ambiguous: “The water was healed from that day forward according to the word of Elisha which he spoke” (v. 22). Although Elisha had pronounced a divine oracle using the proper preface “This is what YHWH said…,” and even though the miracle pronounced occurs exactly as the oracle states, the narrator withholds the evaluation of the oracle as being from YHWH, but rather states explicitly that it is from Elisha. Wesley Bergen helpfully discusses this slight change and the important effect that it has upon the reader: This final element introduces a disquieting component into the story… This is in stark contrast to the use of ‫“( כדבר‬according to”) in the Elijah narratives and in the rest of Genesis–2 Kings. The usual formula for the fulfillment of prophecy is ‫“( כדבר יהוה‬according to YHWH”) as found in Josh. 8.8, 27; 1 Kgs 12.24; 13.26; 14.18; 15.29; 16.12, 34; 17.5, 16; 22.38; 2 Kgs 1.17; 4.44; 7.16; 9.26; 10.17; 14.25; 23.16; 24.2. The case for a general change in language is not clear, since ‫ כדבר יהוה‬is also found in the Elisha corpus… The readers, as those who read sentences and stories rather than individual words, are not likely to pause long over a small semantic shift such as this. It is precisely this type of small shift, especially in combination with numerous other irregularities, which causes the readers’ perception to change in ways of which they may not be aware. The result is not a prophet who is directly discredited in the minds of readers, but one which makes readers uncomfortable with this prophet in particular and prophetism in general. The narrator has already established in readers a suspicion of any character or event that takes away from the centrality of YHWH. Here the readers’ suspicion is subtly turned toward the prophet, specifically in regards

36.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 275.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

125

to the source of his power, without a direct assault being launched against this venerable institution… Thus, the readers’ admiration for Elisha may be diminished precisely at the same time as it is being enhanced.37

The overwhelming effect of the episode, as opposed to the previous one, is positive: Elisha is the one who can solve problems and banish death and bereavement from a city by means of his miraculous power. The episode, however, also calls into question the source of that power and, therefore, the reasons for it. The story does not end with any sort of confession on the part of the inhabitants of the city. The story revolves around a problem that is solved, rather than a people who are drawn more fully into relationship with YHWH through the mediation of his prophet. As far as it goes, it is a positive story. The question is, however, whether it goes far enough. 3. Elisha and the Boys of Bethel—2 Kings 2:23–25 The story of the confrontation between Elisha and the mocking boys of Bethel is among the shortest episodes in the entire Elijah–Elisha corpus, comprising only 44 discreet “words” over 3 verses. It has also been the seedbed for an overwhelming amount of scholarship.38 While scholars such as Richard Nelson may see that the death of 42 children is largely a modern problem, in the history of scholarship this has not lessened the deeply troubling aspect that this story brings up for readers.39 Even Tractate Sotah records a debate among the Rabbis about the nature of the evil which the children committed and the question of the appropriateness of their destruction.40 Largely, the problem which scholars see in 37.  Bergen, Elisha, 67–68. 38.  See Eric Ziolkowski, Evil Children in Religion, Literature, and Art (New York: Palgrave, 2001), for a fascinating reception-historical exploration of the ways in which this story has been interpreted and transformed throughout history, including rabbinic and early Christian views, hagiographical interpretations, Reformation and Enlightenment questions about the ambiguities of innocence, as well as nineteenthand twentieth-century antitypes and non-Western perspectives. In his book God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories, JSOTSup 95 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), Rick Dale Moore explores the Elisha stories from a variety of contexts and makes abundant references to many of the episodes of the overall narrative throughout, except for this episode; this episode, it seems, does not exemplify the theme of “God saves.” 39.  Some scholars, however, do not seem troubled in the least by the story. Note particularly, Dillard, Faith, 90–92. 40.  See b. Soṭ. 46b. See also Alexander Rofé, The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 15, for a discussion of the rabbinic materials.

126

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

the episode revolves around how the positive character of Elisha could pronounce such a drastic judgment for what amounts to be a relatively minor slight from relatively young children. That is, the presupposition that Elisha must always be in the right in each of the stories about him leads one to try to find reasons to ameliorate the seeming injustice of the episode. The explanations involved in resolving the tension usually are contradictory and often revolve around three issues: the ‫ נערים קטנים‬/ “little boys” were either not little, or not boys, or neither little nor boys;41 their ‫ ויתקלסו־בו‬/ “mocking of him” was not merely mocking of him; and Elisha’s cursing of them ‫ בׁשם יהוה‬/ “in the name of YHWH” was not pronounced in the name of YHWH.42 In other words, the troubling, yet very clear, aspects of the story are, ironically, deemed to be “ambiguous” and are explained in a dismissive way in order to preserve the integrity and venerable status of the prophet Elisha.43 If, on the other hand, the stories of Elisha (and Elijah, as well) are, from beginning to end, meant to portray the prophet in an ambiguous light—sometimes positive, sometimes negative, sometimes conflicted or opaque––then we should expect some stories to portray the main character negatively, just as others portray the main character positively. We should expect stories such as the petulant and bitter Elijah complaining to YHWH at Carmel about circumstances which are clearly not true. We should expect episodes such as the recalcitrant and stubborn Elijah refusing to confront Ahaziah and causing the deaths of over 100 men. And we should expect scenes such as this, when the prophet Elisha uses his miraculous power to brutalize children for a relatively minor infraction. Quite the opposite from many scholars’ views, this story is not “out of the norm” among the stories of the Elijah–Elisha cycle, but is, rather, precisely in line with their narrative arc and their larger effect.

41.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 161: “juvenile delinquents.” 42.  Gray sees the problem (which most other scholars overlook): “The supposition that Elisha invoked the name of Yahweh to curse the boys, with such terrible consequences, is derogatory to the great public figure, and borders on blasphemy” (I & II Kings, 480). Gray’s solution to the “blasphemy” of the text is simply to devalue the episode so that it has little if any real meaning for the overall Elisha cycle. 43.  I recognize the irony in my argument here: in a study where I am exploring the ambiguity of the stories, in this case I argue that most of the story is unambiguous. The transparency of the events in this episode, however, reveal the complex, opaque characterization of Elisha, which is the true focus of the stories as I read them.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

127

The story begins with Elisha leaving Jericho and going up toward Bethel (v. 23a). The itinerary is important because it appears as if Elisha is retracing the journey of Elijah from earlier in the chapter: A. Gilgal (v. 1) B. Bethel (vv. 2–3) C. Jericho (vv. 4–5) D. Jordan (vv. 6–8) E. Trans-Jordan region (vv. 9–13a) D′. Jordan (vv. 13b–18) C′. Jericho (vv. 18a, 19–22) B′. Bethel (v. 23a)

In light of the events at the Jordan and in Jericho, the question arises whether the events in Bethel will present a group of people who question or distrust Elisha’s authority (as the sons of the prophets at the Jordan) or a group of people who trust Elisha’s authority (as the inhabitants of Jericho). It soon becomes clear that we have a chiastic story here, and the other characters in this episode do not hold Elisha in high esteem. Children play an important role in the stories of both Elijah and Elisha. In 1 Kgs 17, Elijah provides for the widow, her son, and her whole household through the miracle of the meal jar and the oil jug. Elijah is also instrumental in bringing the son back from his deathly illness, not by any miraculous artifice, but by simply and sincerely praying. In these scenes, children are portrayed as helpless waifs in need of assistance. Also, later in the Elisha narratives, children will also be portrayed in similar terms (4:1, 5, 18–25a, 31–37). When, therefore, the “small children” here mock Elisha—in style reminiscent of Elijah’s own mocking the foolish prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel in 1 Kgs 18:27—we might be prone to pay attention to their actual words.44 They admonish him to keep going on up, that is, to not stop at their city. This, in itself, while perhaps rude, does not seem to be particularly “mocking” of the prophet. Their name for him, ‫ קרח‬/ “baldy,” does fulfill the definition of mocking, particularly if it is seen as a contrast with his predecessor, Elijah, the one who was a “master of hair” (‫בעל ׂשער‬, 2 Kgs 1:8).45 Their taunt draws a sharp contrast 44.  The parallel with the Mount Carmel scene is not exact; two different verbs are used, ‫ התל‬in 1 Kgs 18:27 and ‫ קלס‬in 2 Kgs 2:23. The aspect of the mocking of prophet(s), as well as its object and its effects, are very similar, nevertheless. 45.  Sweeney provides an extensive exploration on the meaning of baldness in this story, but does not mention its literary function to contrast with Elijah’s hairiness (I & II Kings, 275).

128

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

between the two and Elisha is revealed, at least in the children’s eyes, as nothing like Elijah. In light of the fact that Elisha seems to be retracing the steps of his master, perhaps in an attempt to show he is the true successor to the prophet, this bit of truth-telling is too much, particularly since their remarks are loudly shouted.46 In spite of the fact that Elisha had already passed the boys and, therefore, the city, he does not let their words go unaddressed: he turns around, looks at them, and curses them “in the name of YHWH.” The use of the name of YHWH in the Elijah–Elisha cycle is used to produce signs which draw Israel closer in devotion to YHWH (1 Kgs 18:24), or to rebuild an altar symbolizing Israel’s unity in their worship of YHWH (1 Kgs 18:32), or to promote healing and restoration (2 Kgs 5:11).47 Here Elisha’s use of the name of YHWH brings about the exact opposite effect that Elisha wrought in the previous episode.48 There, death and bereavement were the problem 46.  Bergen seems to deem the actions of the boys dangerous by appealing, unfortunately, to a modern-day analogy: “Part of the ambiguity in the story rests with the picture readers have of the actual threat a group of boys poses to Elisha… At whatever age I wish to place these boys, the seriousness with which stone-throwing Palestinian children are treated by Israeli troops might cause me to take their actions more seriously” (Elisha, 70). The analogy is disturbing: the Bethel children are not posing a physical danger to Elisha; they are not “throwing stones.” Moreover, if members of any military of any nation at any time deem it appropriate to kill children because of their words, however rude, then the justice promoted by that nation is highly suspect, even from a Deuteronomic perspective. The boys at Bethel are worthy of death only if it is presupposed beforehand that their actions are worthy of death. 47.  The last of these come from the mouth of the Syrian, Naaman, as a plan of what Elisha should do to promote his healing and restoration. It is telling, however, that Elisha does not, in fact, pronounce the “name of YHWH” when he orders Naaman to bathe in the Jordan. 48.  Bergen believes that simply because Elisha uses the divine name, then it is YHWH who “chooses the manner in which the incident is dealt with. The wording of Elisha’s curse is not given, and the reader is left in the uncomfortable position of blaming YHWH for the death of a rather large number of small boys” (Elisha, 70–71). Yet Bergen himself earlier notes that YHWH, in fact, almost never acts directly within the stories of Elisha (62). (The sole exception is during the Aramean attack in chapter 6, in which YHWH opens and closes eyes of characters so that they may or may not see things; vv. 17, 18, and 20). YHWH’s name is not always used for beneficial reasons; people can use the name for worthless, deceitful, magical, or destructive uses. This use is directly forbidden in the Deuteronomic Torah (Deut 5:11) and in the Exodus legislation (Exod 20:7). Note HALOT, s.v. ‫ׁשוא‬, for the various meanings of the word usually translated into English as “wrongful use” (NRSV) or “misuse” (NIV) or “vain” (KJV, NAS, ESV, NASB, RSV).

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

129

for the inhabitants of Jericho for which Elisha miraculously provided the remedy. Here, Elisha miraculously brings about death and bereavement for the inhabitants of Bethel. Instead of fulfilling Elijah’s itinerary and heading back to Gilgal, thus completing the circuit and the parallel with his predecessor, Elisha goes to the site of Elijah’s greatest victory, both politically and spiritually: Mount Carmel (v. 25a). Unlike the scene with Elijah, however, nothing happens here for Elisha; the visit comprises only five words: ‫וילך מׁשם‬ ‫ אל־הר הכרמל‬/ “…and he went from there to Mount Carmel.” He immediately leaves and heads back to the capital, Samaria. In spite of his more negative aspects and with all the ambiguity with which he is portrayed, Elijah did, on at least two occasions, draw Israel into a more faithful relationship with YHWH and cause even Ahab to repent, which brought a reprieve of the judgment on the Omride dynasty. Elisha, at least in these initial episodes, does not seem to be living up to Elijah’s portrait of the Mosaic prophet. Rather, he appears as conflicted: as promoting health and healing, as bringing about death and bereavement, but not really leading Israel or its leaders into a more focused and devoted relationship with YHWH. In his initial introduction of the prophet, YHWH had mentioned that Elisha’s role would be to kill those few people who escape from the cooperative political justice of Ben-Hadad of Syria and Jehu of Israel (1 Kgs 19:17). Here in 2 Kgs 2, Elisha does, indeed, kill, but his slaughter does not seem particularly just or sensible.49 If the fault in the story lies in criticism of prophets, such criticism is not limited to small children outside of Bethel. In light of the rather critical assessment that Deuteronomy itself makes towards prophets, and in light of the very ambiguous characterization that the History makes about prophets in general, Elisha’s curse using YHWH’s name and the resultant death of 42 children stands as a cautionary tale about the dangers that these individuals pose to Israel. Is this the portrait that Deuteronomy paints of the Mosaic prophet? Absolutely not.50 49.  As opposed to Jehu’s slaughter of King Ahaziah’s kinsmen (2 Kgs 10:14), who also number 42, but are explicitly adults: ‫ויׁשחטום אל־בור בית־עקד ארבעים וׁשנים‬ ‫ איׁש ולא־הׁשאיר איׁש מהם‬/ “they slaughtered them at the pit of Beth-eked, forty-two men; he did not spare a man from among them.” See Sweeney, I & II Kings, 275. 50.  What is the “lesson” of this story? There is a strong tendency in scholarship to identify God with the prophet so completely that the boys’ mockery of Elisha is identical with their mockery of YHWH: “Mocking is among the most destructive things one person can do to another. More particularly, to mock God’s messenger is to mock the One who has sent him” (Dillard, Faith, 91). “Those juvenile delinquents

130

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

But ambiguity works both ways: just when we consider Elisha to be a thoroughly negative character, the narrative presents another story which makes his characterization simultaneously less negative but more complex. C. Elisha and the War Against Moab—2 Kings 3:1–27 The story of the rebellion of the King of Moab against Israel is an incredibly well-told and, ultimately, surprising and unsettling story both literarily and theologically. The episode begins with an unexpectedly equivocal assessment of the accession and reign of the new king of Israel, Jehoram: ‫ויהורם בן־אחאב מלך על־יׂשראל בׁשמרון בׁשנת ׁשמנה עׂשרה ליהוׁשפט מלך יהודה‬ ‫וימלך ׁשתים־עׂשרה ׁשנה׃‬ ‫ויעׂשה הרע בעיני יהוה‬ ‫רק לא כאביו וכאמו‬ ‫ויסר את־מצבת הבעל אׁשר עׂשה אביו׃‬ ‫רק בחטאות ירבעם בן־נבט אׁשר־החטיא את־יׂשראל דבק‬ ‫לא־סר ממנה׃‬ In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign in Samaria. He ruled for twelve years. He did evil in the eyes of YHWH. However, not like his father and his mother! He put aside the pillar of Baal that his father had made! However he did cling to the sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. He did not turn aside from that. (1 Kgs 3:1–3)

The regular regnal evaluation statements for the kings of Israel throughout the History always include the lines that mention the king doing “evil in the eyes of YHWH” and how the king continues the sin of Jeroboam, who established the national shrines at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:2; 8:18, 27; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:2). Here, however, the absolute, negative evaluation is ameliorated and the narrator got exactly what they deserved! To insult God’s prophet is to insult God” (Nelson, First and Second Kings, 161). See also Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 175. This stance is, of course, contradicted by Deuteronomy’s understanding of idolatry throughout (YHWH and YHWH alone is worthy of devotion and absolute obedience) and the critical attitude it engenders towards all those who are in positions of power, whether political or religious.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

131

notes that Jehoram, while he may not be destroying the national shrines, in fact has turned from the apostasy of Ahab and Jezebel, his parents, and has removed the idolatrous pillar devoted to Baal in Samaria.51 This is quite remarkable and should not be passed over lightly. Jehoram is a YHWH worshiper, although not going so far as a Deuteronomic narrator would have liked. His devotion to YHWH will be an important aspect of his character within this story and as he is represented in other episodes where he plays a part. The story of the rebellion of Moab and the attempt to recover the land by Israel is set up in the same way as other battle accounts found elsewhere in the History. Israel goes to battle against an enemy (vv. 4–8); the army meets a crisis that has the possibility of resulting in failure (vv. 9–14); YHWH provides for the army in its hour of need (vv. 15–20); the battle is ultimately won due to the aid of YHWH and the obedience and devotion of Israel (vv. 21–26). On the surface, the plot sets up certain expectations on the part of the reader. These expectations will be manipulated and problematized throughout the episode. The plot of the story also follows the pattern that we have seen in the episode of the poisoned water of Jericho above (2:19–22): a crisis threatens the community (vv. 9–10); the prophet appears and provides instructions and an oracle (vv. 11–19); the crisis is averted (v. 20). This pattern, likewise, causes certain expectations on the part of the reader, which will be played with. Because of the rebellion of the king of Moab, who was once a vassal of Israel, King Jehoram plans to lead a military expedition in order to take back the nation, an important exporter of sheep, rams, and wool (vv. 4–6). Jehoram asks the aid of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, for his help and receives it immediately. Jehoram then reveals that his plan is to attack Moab from the southeast, which necessitates traveling counterclockwise around the Dead Sea, a trip which takes at least a week.52 Since the two 51.  The only other Israelite king to receive an equivocal evaluation from the narrator is the last king, Hoshea: “In the twelfth year of King Ahaz of Judah, Hoshea son of Elah began to reign in Samaria over Israel; he reigned nine years. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, yet not like the kings of Israel who were before him” (2 Kgs 17:1–2). 52.  Several commentators note that the northern boundary of Moab was reinforced with additional troops, which makes sense of the circuitous route (ANET, 320–21). See Nelson, First and Second Kings, 164. The narrator has, however, left it out—or is ignorant of this military buildup—from the episode. As such, the circuitous route seems unnecessarily hard and, in light of the crisis of lack of water, foolhardy; see Bergen, Elisha, 73.

132

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

armies will be marching through Edom, lying south of the Dead Sea, the king of Edom accompanies them (vv. 7–9a). After they have been on the expedition for a week, the armies have run out of water and cannot supply their troops or animals (v. 9b). In light of this crisis, Jehoram provides a theological––indeed a Yahwistic!—explanation: ‫אהה כי־קרא יהוה לׁשלׁשת המלכים האלה לתת אותם ביד־מואב‬ Alas! Surely YHWH has summoned these three kings in order to give them into the hand of Moab! (v. 10)

Jehoram sees the situation as a judgment from YHWH upon his plan and upon the kings and armies under his leadership. While he is not clear about the reason for the judgment, he is clear about its source: YHWH. Jehoshaphat, however, does not trust Jehoram’s Yahwistic explanation and asks whether there is a prophet to inquire of to determine the truth of the situation and, perhaps, YHWH’s plans (v. 11a). One of Jehoram’s servants responds that Elisha, who once “poured water on the hands of Elijah” (that is, served him), is present with the troops. Jehoshaphat’s evaluation of the prophet is that “The word of YHWH is with him!” (v. 12a). Elisha, like Elijah long ago in 1 Kgs 17:1, appears out of nowhere in the midst of the desert in order to deal with the situation. But Elisha’s first words seem to indicate that he is not aware of the recent Yahwistic religious reforms that have occurred in the capital city of Samaria, the place where we last saw him (2:25). Elisha harshly asks Jehoram, “What do I and you have to do with each other? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother!” (v. 13a).53 Jehoram is taken back by this; in fact, as we the readers know, the officially sponsored prophets of Baal and of Asherah have all been killed by Elijah (1 Kgs 18:40). Besides that fact, Elisha seems unaware that the Baal cult has been dismantled in Samaria and that Jehoram himself is a YHWH worshiper. The king lets the prophet know of his error by repeating his own theological, Yahwistic assessment of the situation:

53.  The question closely parallels the accusation that the widow of Zarephath makes to Elijah after the death of her son (1 Kgs 17:18). In both cases, the accusation is, actually, false: Elijah has no idea why the boy has died, and Jehoram has actually gone further than Elijah in doing away with the official Baal cult in Samaria.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

133

‫אל כי־קרא יהוה לׁשלׁשת המלכים האלה לתת אותם ביד־מואב‬ No! Surely YHWH has summoned these three kings in order to give them into the hand of Moab! (v. 10)

Elisha, for his part, is not convinced of Jehoram’s assessment or, indeed, of his devotion to YHWH. He pronounces an oath similar to Elijah’s original oath that brought on the drought in 1 Kgs 17:1–2: ‫חי־יהוה צבאות אׁשר עמדתי לפניו‬ ‫כי לולי פני יהוׁשפט מלך־יהודה אני נׂשא‬ ‫אם־אביט אליך ואם־אראך‬ YHWH of hosts’ life! The one before whom I stand! Were it not for the fact that I honor Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I wouldn’t look at you or regard you! (v. 14)54

Elisha wishes to perform the role that Jehoshaphat has asked of him, but seems to be unable to receive any oracle without some exterior aid.55 He asks for a musician to play music and, only while the music plays, does the hand of YHWH come upon him and he pronounces an oracle:

This is what YHWH said: Make this wadi pools, pools!56

‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫עׂשה הנחל הזה גבים גבים׃‬

Unlike the earlier oracle Elisha gave concerning the healing of the water of Jericho, this oracle seems truncated, as if something is missing and confusing in its Hebrew configuration. It is clear that the general sense of the oracle is that some dry wadi is to become wet with pools of water,

54.  The two oaths are also similar in that there is not any explanation of why the oath is pronounced. Elijah does not make it clear why he brings the drought; Elisha does not make it clear why he does not regard Jehoram, even in spite of the latter’s devotion to YHWH. 55.  In a way similar to the story of the poisoned waters of Jericho, in which he required a new bowl and salt in order to pronounce the oracle that declared that YHWH (not the salt) had healed the water (2:20–21). 56.  The oracle proper only contains five words; remarkably, only two of these are unproblematic: ‫ הנחל הזה‬/ “that wadi.” My translation takes the verb as an “emphatic imperative,” not an infinitive absolute as it appears. See Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, §113bb. For the repetition of “pools” to express abundance, see §123e.

134

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

but who or what or how this is to be is left completely unclear. It is also unclear who the addressee is; the verb, if it is a form of the imperative, would be singular. Who is to do this and how should he/they do it? Elisha immediately pronounces another oracle that seems to explain the first oracle and also goes beyond it, declaring that the war against Moab will be won, contrary to Jehoram’s dismal evaluation: ‫כי־כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫לא־תראו רוח ולא־תראו גׁשם‬ ‫והנחל ההוא ימלא מים‬ ‫וׁשתיתם אתם ומקניכם ובהמתכם׃‬ ‫ונקל זאת בעיני יהוה‬ ‫ונתן את־מואב בידכם׃‬ ‫והכיתם כל־עיר מבצר וכל־עיר מבחור‬ ‫וכל־עץ טוב תפילו‬ ‫וכל־מעיני־מים תסתמו‬ ‫וכל החלקה הטובה תכאבו באבנים׃‬ Surely this is what YHWH said:57 You will not see wind and you will not see rain. But that wadi will be full of water. And you will drink: you and your cattle and your animals. And this will be easy in the eyes of YHWH! He will give Moab into your power. You will strike every fortified city and every choice city; Every good tree you will cut down; Every spring of water you will stop up; And every good plot you will ruin with stones.

The secondary oracle explains the first: the cryptic reference to pools in the first oracle is not to be done by any of the addressees; it will be done by YHWH and will be an easy feat! Water will be provided and all present, people and animals alike, will drink. The oracle, however, also continues and assures the invading armies of success: YHWH will give Moab into Israel’s power again. It is still unclear whether the final phrases are predictive, merely telling the armies 57.  Taking the initial ‫ כי‬as an asseverative kî, which assures the hearers of the divine nature of the oracle. Elijah uses the same construction when assuring the widow of Zarephath that she should bring him something to eat first: ‫כי כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫ אלהי יׂשראל כד הקמח לא תכלה‬/ “YHWH has surely said, the pot will not be empty…” (1 Kgs 17:14). See Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, §159ee; Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 665–66; Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 153–54.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

135

what they will do, or whether they have the sense of an imperative, telling the armies what they should do. The ambiguity of these final lines is important because, as is soon clear, the army will interpret them as imperative: they will actively fulfill them explicitly (v. 25). In the morning, the first sign of the oracle is fulfilled. Water miraculously flows from the south, from Edom, and fills the wadis of the land (v. 20). The Moabite army sees this, mistakes it for blood, and comes to capture the spoils of what they assume is the slaughtered army (v. 23). Israel, however, rises up and drives the Moabites back, and enters their country. They then systematically fulfill the second part of the oracle in an extended campaign (v. 25).58 The king of Moab makes a final offensive attack against the Edomite army, but fails (v. 26). Victory—and the fulfillment of the oracle of Elisha—seems absolutely assured. Then it is completely undone by v. 27, the final verse of the story: ‫ויקח את־בנו הבכור אׁשר־ימלך תחתיו‬ ‫ויעלהו עלה על־החמה‬ ‫ויהי קצף־גדול על־יׂשראל‬ ‫ויסעו מעליו‬ ‫ויׁשבו לארץ׃‬ Then he [the king of Moab] took his first-born son who was to rule in his stead And offered him up as a burnt offering on the wall. Great wrath came upon Israel. They set out from him. They returned to the land [of Israel].

Just at the moment of greatest victory, the story completely falls apart within the space of one verse and all the expectations that were established about this being a battle story or about this being a prophetic attempt to aid in a crisis are destroyed.59

58.  The final clause of v. 24 and the whole of v. 25 are an “extra paragraph comment,” describing actions which occur simultaneously and repetitively over the course of a time period, marked by the inclusion of the mention of striking Moab in vv. 24b and 25b. For a discussion of extra paragraph comments and their composition and purpose, see Heller, Narrative Structure, 451–56. 59.  Bergen notes, “Even should I succeed in constructing a smooth narrative of prophecy and fulfillment from the text [up to v. 26], the entire structure collapses with v. 27” (Elisha, 80).

136

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Scholars try several ways to deal with the miserable, unexpected ending of the episode. Bergen reviews the various options for the phrase “great wrath,” but comes down on the side of the most theologically fraught: the wrath is connected implicitly with YHWH; it is YHWH who undermines the final victory.60 Burke Long, on the other hand, argues that the episode is a perfect example of an “oracle actualization narrative,” but leaves out vv. 26–27 in order to argue this.61 T. R. Hobbs, on the other hand, recognizes the failure of the Israelite army to win the battle, but ascribes the loss to Joram [sic] being present at the event, a connection made by neither the narrator nor by any character, including Elisha, within the episode.62 Nelson is one of the few who address the problem head on and who offer a theologically nuanced answer: The anticlimax undercuts the assumptions the climax first seemed to support, the traditional religious beliefs of humanity. It undercuts the belief prevalent among the faithful, especially their leaders, that one can actually know just what God is up to in any given set of events. The reader certainly has no idea what is going on, even after finishing the story. It undercuts all nationalistic and ethnocentric religion, the eternal human assumption that “god is on our side.” In this case God seems to have been on both sides, or neither. It undercuts all anthropocentric religion, the thought that God does things for our sake and not for God’s own inexplicable purposes.63

The story, according to Nelson, teaches the reader about humility before the inexplicable, inscrutable purposes of YHWH. This is clearly a consistent and worthy lesson that one can glean from this troubling text. However, it must be noted that our expectations about the pursuit of the battle and the victorious outcome spring not from a general sense that YHWH always brings victory to Israel, or us. No, the reader’s expectations that Israel would regain Moab in a remarkable victory spring directly from our not listening to Jehoram’s dire interpretation of the failure of the expedition and our willingness, along with Jehoshaphat, to listen to the two oracles (particularly the second one) of Elisha. It is 60.  Bergen, Elisha, 80–82. 61.  Burke O. Long, “2 Kings 3 and the Genres of Prophetic Narrative,” VT 23 (1973): 337–48. 62.  T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC 13 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 34. Hobbs never sees Elisha as, in any way, ambiguous or negative; he is always a transparent and valid messenger of YHWH. As such, Hobbs’s explanation of v. 27 in this episode does not address the disjunction between Elisha’s oracle and its non-fulfillment. 63.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 170.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

137

Elisha who assures us that, in fact, YHWH has not drawn the kings into the desert for the purpose of defeating them at the hands of Moab. It is Elisha who interprets the first unclear oracle about “pools, pools” in the wadi with the second one explaining that YHWH would provide water in the desert—paralleling events that occurred with Moses. It is Elisha who provides the army (and the reader) with a sign of his veracity, a sign which comes true with the morning light. And it is Elisha who also promises that Moab would be given into the power of Israel, an outcome that does not prove true in the end. In short, the unexpected ending is only unexpected because the kings and armies listened to Elisha, saw the sign of the water as evidence of his own truthfulness, and acted in accordance with his instructions. In short, the ending is only unexpected because we all—kings, armies, and readers—trusted Elisha. This episode perfectly illustrates the issue which is at the heart of the Deuteronomic legislation about prophets in ch. 18. In the discussion of this passage in the first chapter of this study, I note that Deuteronomy does not address any criteria giving evidence that a prophet does speak YHWH’s message; Deuteronomy only addresses how one may know if a prophet does not speak YHWH’s message. Does this mean: if a prophet (1) speaks in the name of YHWH, and (2) does not encourage the people to worship other gods, and (3) predicts a sign that comes true, then he is ipso facto the true Mosaic prophet? Although the law of the prophet, in its explanations and its criteria, in its rhetorical layers and line-upon-line statements, leads the reader to these inevitable questions, and although this question is, in fact, the only one that truly matters, Deuteronomy (and, further, the larger History) does not—and, perhaps, cannot—answer it. Bergen’s assessment and summation of the story is particularly insightful: Verse 27 acts as a wrecking ball, knocking down the image of Elisha that I have carefully constructed from the words of the story. Whatever discomfort I may have felt with Elisha’s presence with the army in the wilderness, the text offers me the opportunity to characterize Elisha as a true messenger of YHWH, a messenger whose word is not only predictive but also obeyed by kings and armies. The shattering of an important image is a significant event in the story, for I lose faith not only in the particular character, but also in the class of characters of which this image is a representative. Next time I may be much more hesitant about building a strong positive image of the wonder working prophet.64

64.  Bergen, Elisha, 82.

138

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

It is, finally, Elisha who is the linchpin of the story and it is Elisha’s portrayal in the story that the final verse undercuts. If this were the only story in the Elisha collection of narratives, we would be left with a thoroughly negative and thoroughly suspicious opinion of him and of prophets and prophecy in general. Elisha is not, however, a negative character and prophecy, according to the narrator, is not a sham. Both are ambiguous and both may actually, in certain episodes and in certain contexts, promote the message and intentions of YHWH within the story. D. Elisha as a Miracle Worker and Helper—2 Kings 4:1–6:7 In the following two chapters, Elisha will withdraw from dealing with the king of Israel and will, instead, return to working for the benefit of the citizens of Israel or, in the case of Naaman, with a foreigner. Elisha’s characterization will, on average, be presented on a certain level much more positively in these stories than in the previous ones. These stories can all be read fairly easily as straightforward tales of the beneficence of Elisha and the life-giving power of YHWH which works through him. They can be read this way. However, just as with the episode of Elijah’s providing for the widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:8–16), there are also discrete elements within the stories which scratch this patina, this “theological frosting,” and trouble the reader’s too-easy evaluation of Elisha.65 An ever-present aspect of all these stories will be the absence of YHWH as a character. As such, the question of why Elisha does what he does—that is, his motivation and intentions, his character—will be brought to the fore in all these episodes. Furthermore, throughout and in the background will also resound the question of whether Elisha draws Israel into a more devoted relationship with YHWH, the central role of the Mosaic prophet according to Deuteronomy. 1. Elisha and the Widow’s Oil—2 Kings 4:1–7 This first story has reverberations with the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath and is told very simply; the setting, characters, and complication are all provided within the first verse. A widow of one of the sons of the prophets, one of Elisha’s followers, cries out to Elisha and explains her plight: she has fallen into debt and has a creditor who wants to take her sons as slaves in order to fulfill the balance. Elisha asks the woman 65.  The delightful phrase “theological frosting” describing these stories specifically is from Nelson, First and Second Kings, 165.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

139

what she might have on hand; her reply seems to reinforce the image of her poverty: she has nothing but a tiny container of oil.66 Elisha instructs her to gather empty vessels from her neighbors—and not to skimp—and, behind closed doors, to empty out the oil into the containers and to set each of them aside. She and her children do so until there are no pots left. When she comes to tell Elisha that the deed is done, he further instructs her to sell the majority of the oil in order to repay her debt and tells her that she and her children can live on the excess. The theme of the major plot line is one of poverty to abundance, a woman’s family who is threatened with slavery is granted independence and freedom. There are, however, also several details within the story which are not vital to the basic plot as it is sketched out above, details which have the effect of making Elisha’s status as YHWH’s live-giving messenger less clear.67 First, the widow acknowledges that her husband was known specifically by Elisha: ‫ ואתה ידעת כי עבדך היה ירא את־יהוה‬/ “You yourself know that your servant was devoted to YHWH” (v. 1). This is, therefore, not a random widow, unknown and far removed from the prophet, as in 1 Kgs 17. She does not cry out to him only because of her poverty; she cries out to the prophet because he is, in some real way, responsible for 66.  The noun ‫ אסוך‬/ “oil container” is a hapax legomenon. The verbal root, ‫סוך‬, is associated with “smearing” and occurs in Deuteronomy in a context of daubing oil for medicinal reasons: “You shall have olive trees throughout all your territory, but you shall not anoint yourself (‫ )תסוך‬with the oil, for your olives shall drop off” (Deut 28:40). As opposed to the ‫ צפחת‬/ “jar” in 1 Kgs 17:12, in which the widow stored oil for cooking and, therefore, must have been large enough to hold enough oil for that purpose, this widow’s container was probably very small, perhaps only large enough to hold enough oil to apply to wounds or sores. One might imagine a small vial, which heightens the comic scene of a tiny flask emptying oil out into several huge storage jars! 67.  It is important that the details in this story and in the following ones are not necessary for the primary storyline. Two effects come from these details. First, because the details are not vital to the function of the story, if the story is read as one which highlights Elisha’s prophetic status, they are often ignored or read over in many interpretations. Second, since they are not necessary for the story’s function of establishing Elisha’s prophetic status, their presence within the story actually indicates that the story may not be (only) functioning for that purpose. As they stand, the stories function both to highlight Elisha’s power and to question that power’s source and purpose, the two elements which Deuteronomy sees as central to the work of a prophet. Prophets are not just individuals who can do signs and miracles (Deut 13:2–4), nor are those signs and miracles to be accomplished apart from the overarching ideological point of Deuteronomy: the love and devotion of Israel toward YHWH (Deut 13:5; 18:18).

140

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

her husband, one of the sons of the prophets, and his poverty and her resultant extremity should be his concern. She notes what Elisha does know: he knows of her husband and his devotion to YHWH. By implication, she also acknowledges that Elisha knows that the husband is no more (thus the perfect verb ‫ היה‬/ “he was”). What else does Elisha know or not know? Does she cry out to him because he does not know about her plight or about her husband’s possible impoverished situation before his death? Or does she cry out to him because, even though he knows of her situation, he has done nothing to help? If the former, why does he not know about the extreme and life-threatening situation of someone so closely associated with him? If the latter, then why has the prophet, one who is in control and has knowledge, allowed her situation to become so dire?68 Does he know what he claims?69 Is he as in control as he claims? The 1 Kgs 17 parallel is evocative in another way. The widow of Zarephath is provided with food in the midst of a famine; her situation is sure and her life and the life of her household is stable for as long as the famine may last. With the widow of 2 Kgs 4, she gets her sons back through the usual market strategies that got her into the problem to begin with: through buying, selling, causing debt, and paying off debt. While her resources are miraculously provided (only as long as she has empty vessels), the means by which her situation is righted are not changed. She is only solvent as long as she can keep ahead of the creditor, who remains a possible threat.70 Finally, a point which will occur throughout these stories: if the point of the story is to highlight the blessing and abundance of YHWH as it is manifested through his servant Elisha, why does YHWH never make an appearance in the story? Why does Elisha not even mention YHWH with regard to the miraculous deliverance? Why no “YHWH has told me about your situation…” or “For this is what YHWH said…” or “YHWH

68.  A similar situation occurs with the slowly declining health of the widow’s son in 1 Kgs 17:17, and the resulting accusation that the widow levels against Elijah, the prophet of YHWH in v. 18. Note also Bergen’s assessment: “In fact, readers may question why it is that this event has come about at all. Why is a widow of a servant of Elisha allowed to arrive at this point?… Given that the narrative draws me to sympathize with the woman’s plight, I can choose to blame either the sons of the prophets or the prophet directly. Neither choice allows for a positive perception of prophetism…” (Elisha, 85). 69.  The question of what Elisha knows and does not know will be a major theme explicitly raised by the text in the remaining episodes of the cycle. 70.  Bergen, Elisha, 86.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

141

will multiply the oil…”? And Elisha’s silence concerning the work of YHWH is accompanied by the narrator’s own resounding silence about the presence of YHWH within the story, as opposed to the conclusion of the Zarephath miracle in 1 Kgs 17:16. The woman has some relationship with Elisha, but Deuteronomy demands more from its prophets. 2. Elisha and the Shunammite Woman—2 Kings 4:8–37 a. Elisha “Rewards” the Shunammite Woman’s Hospitality—2 Kings 4:8–18a. A truly remarkable and powerful woman convinces Elisha to reside at her family’s house whenever he is nearby. She provides him a well-furnished room and recognizes that he is a “holy” man of God (v. 9). She and her husband, who appears rather distant in the story, are self-sufficient (unlike the previous story’s widow) and need little. She is, in Richard Nelson’s words, “one of the Old Testament’s most attractive characters.”71 Elisha, for his part, wishes to reward her for her kindness to him. Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, notes that she does not have any children. In a stereotypical birth story like those involving the mothers of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel, Elisha pronounces that, within a relatively short period of time, she would bear a son (v. 16), which, of course, happens exactly as “Elisha had spoken to her” (v. 17). The child thrives and grows up. The story, on the surface, is a wonderful tale of an honorable woman who, unlike the children at Bethel, respects the prophet Elisha and, like the widow of Zarephath, provides an upper room for him. For his part, Elisha returns the woman’s hospitality with a promise of new life through the birth of a son. Unlike the previous story of the impoverished widow, which was relatively sparse in its texture and details, this story (and the sequel about her son in vv. 18–37) is a remarkable example of biblical narrative, filled with details that provide depth of character and an interesting plot.72 They also call into question certain interpretations that would too easily give Elisha the role of the Deuteronomic Prophet like Moses. One interesting aspect of the details is that, while they affect the reader’s positive

71.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 173. 72.  For a close narrative analysis of the story, which is impossible here, see Esther Fuchs, “The Literary Characterizations of Mothers and Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible,” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, ed. Adela Y. Collins (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 117–36; Mary E. Shields, “Subverting a Man of God,” JSOT 58 (1993): 59–69; F. Deist, “Two Miracle Stories in the Elijah and Elisha Cycles and the Function of Legend in Literature,” in Studies in Isaiah, ed. W. Wyk (Pretoria: University of Pretoria Press, 1979), 79–90; Bergen Elisha, 87–104.

142

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

interpretations of all other characters in the story, they do not undermine the portrayal of the woman as anything other than powerful, honorable, generous, realistic, engaging, and decisive.73 Elisha’s portrayal, however, is less than honorable. When he wants to repay her for her kindness, he, lying on his bed in his chamber (v. 11), tells Gehazi to summon her to his room. While she is standing before him, Elisha tells Gehazi to speak to the woman and ask her what she might want, if she might want him to speak to the king or a military official on her behalf, a possibility that appears to the reader as rather dismal in light of the events of 2 Kgs 3.74 She replies directly to Elisha that she is sufficient and needs nothing (v. 14); her generosity is not given with any sort of reward. Elisha will not be thwarted; he asks Gehazi directly what she might need. Gehazi answers that she does not have a son, and adds that her husband is old. Elisha tells him to summon the woman again (who undoubtedly is still standing right there in the same room at the doorway, v. 15) and tells her that she will bear a son at a certain time (v. 16). She protests and says, “No!” and adds that he should not lie to her.75 The episode ends, however, with her giving birth to a son just as Elisha said. It is clear throughout the exchange that she, in fact, does not want or see herself as needing a son. Elisha, however, does not listen to her, and convinced of his own rightness, forces the situation and, miraculously, causes it to happen. YHWH is, again, not present in the story and, because of this, Elisha’s role is unclear. Does YHWH tell Elisha about the woman’s future birthing (that is, is his statement in v. 16a a prediction from the deity)? Or does Elisha miraculously cause the birth to occur, quite apart from any interference from the deity? The text seems to lean toward the latter interpretation. While it is unclear whether Elisha functions as YHWH’s messenger in the episode, there is another character who acts as a messenger, delivering messages from someone who is able to work wonders and whose will is undeniable to another person who simply must receive the message. The

73.  Nelson’s evaluation of her is thoroughly and richly evidenced; First and Second Kings, 172–73. 74.  This theme will, however, appear again in 8:1–6. 75.  Shields (“Subverting,” 62) notes that the woman’s demand that Elisha not lie to her parallels Judg 19:23 and 2 Sam 13:12, which are both rape scenes where a man forces his will upon a woman. Both her refusal, “No!,” and her demand not to be lied to make clear that she does not wish for a child.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

143

scene in Elisha’s bedroom is, on one level, comical because Elisha refuses to speak to the woman directly, but only through his servant Gehazi, who acts as an intermediary. On another level, however, the scene is a parody of the prophetic messenger scenario discussed at the very beginning of Chapter 1 of this study. In this parody, Gehazi now takes the role of prophet to Elisha’s taking the role of the absent YHWH.76 Furthermore, this parody raises the question explicitly about the source of Elisha’s authority and power, as well as exactly how much we are intended or allowed to identify the prophet with YHWH.77 b. Elisha Raises the Shunammite Woman’s Son––2 Kings 4:18b–37. When the child of the Shunammite woman has grown up, he goes out one day with his father to the fields where the workers are reaping. He complains of a pain in his head and is taken back to his mother. Sitting on her lap, the child dies. She immediately takes him to the room of Elisha, lays him on the prophet’s bed, and heads out with a servant to find Elisha, who is at Mount Carmel. There she meets Elisha and his servant Gehazi. The prophet can recognize that the woman is upset; she then tells them of the situation. The prophet travels back to her home with her and, after going into his room where the boy is lying, he closes the door, prays, and lies on top of the boy’s dead body. The boy sneezes seven times and opens his eyes. The woman comes to the room, falls at Elisha’s feet in gratitude and takes up her son and goes to her own house. The story, on the surface, is a remarkable tale paralleling Elijah’s own raising of the widow of Zarephath’s son from his deathbed. It reveals the ways in which YHWH is the master of both death and life and can bring new hope out from catastrophic and tragic circumstances.78

76.  This is a theme which we will see in the stories of Naaman and of Gehazi in ch. 5. Further, the furnishings of Elisha’s room suddenly take on further significance. Except for the bed on which he is lying, the other items—‫ ׁשלחן‬/ “table”, ‫ כסא‬/ “chair/ throne”, and ‫ מנורה‬/ “lampstand”—are items found in the Tabernacle. The “little room” of Elijah is transformed into his own small “holy place” for his own presence. 77.  Bergen argues, “Thus the narrative continues to highlight the power of Elisha, here even to the point of his ascension to God-like status. In doing so, it moves beyond the usual relationship of power in which the prophet’s power clearly comes from YHWH. The text also presents this power in a context that does not connect with the larger program of the history of Israel, or the larger movement of the will of YHWH” (Elisha, 104). 78.  Thus Sweeney, I & II Kings, 290; Bronner, Stories, 106–22.

144

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The episode continues the sense and texture of the previous one and is filled with narrative details and particulars that add depth, nuance, and suspense to the plot. It continues what is truly one of the most complex narrative sequences in all of biblical literature. And, likewise, the portrayal of the woman continues to shine in remarkable clarity; she remains strong, fiercely loyal and loving, decisive, and clear-headed throughout. The complexities of the text do not affect her characterization. They do, however, consistently call into question Elisha’s self-image and his own motivations and intentions. The woman finds the prophet at Mount Carmel, the site of Elijah’s greatest victory over the prophets of Baal, through which he drew “all Israel” away from their syncretistic religious sensibility into a devoted and focused relationship with YHWH, whom Israel confessed as “the God” (1 Kgs 17:30–40). Elisha’s presence on Mount Carmel in this episode is like the previous time we saw him there (v. 2:25a): his being there is seemingly purposeless. He is doing nothing there; he seems to be simply wandering about Israel with little plan or purpose.79 When Elisha sees her coming, he turns to Gehazi and instructs him to run to the woman and ask her about her, her husband’s, and her son’s welfare. When Gehazi asks her, she replies, “It is well” (v. 26). Instead of waiting for her to approach him, Elisha only speaks to her through Gehazi as an intermediary. In Elisha’s mind there is a great gulf fixed between himself and the woman, but this is, in fact, not the case. As in the last episode, Elisha uses Gehazi as a messenger in an unusual context when he could just as easily speak to the woman directly. He clearly separates himself from her and places himself in a separate locus of activity. She, for her part, refuses to address him through the messenger, but only directly. She breaks through his self-defined status by grasping him by the feet, perhaps in order to keep him from leaving (v. 27).80 When Gehazi, as a servant wanting to uphold the ideological chasm that his master clearly assumes, tries to move the woman, Elisha recognizes that she is clearly upset but ‫ ויהוה העלים ממני ולא הגיד לי‬/ “YHWH has hidden [the reason] from me. He did not tell me” (v. 27). This, of course, is no surprise to the reader. Unlike Elijah, who also admitted his ignorance of the reason for the death of the widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kgs 17:20) but who had communications from and to YHWH, Elisha has never heard directly from YHWH—at least the narrator has never described such a 79.  Bergen, Elisha, 89: “Does he merely wander for the sake of wandering?” 80.  It is important that she does not ‫ ותפל על־רגליו‬/ “fall at his feet” as she will later (v. 37), perhaps in an attitude of supplication or gratitude (sincere or formalized), but actually ‫ ותחזק ברגליו‬/ “grasps [him] by his feet,” which impedes his movement.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

145

communication. We would, in fact, have been surprised if YHWH had spoken to Elisha about the tragedy. While Elisha may be surprised (or may pretend to be surprised) about the lack of communication, we are not.81 The woman, for her part, does not relieve his ignorance completely but asks two rhetorical questions which give Elisha a hint about the locus of the problem without stating it clearly: ‫הׁשאלתי בן מאת אדני‬ ‫הלא אמרתי לא תׁשלה אתי‬ Did I ask for a son from my lord? Did I not say to you, “Do not make me have to remain at home!”?82

Elisha, realizing that there must be a problem with the son, does not address her but rather speaks again to Gehazi, commanding him to take his staff and go immediately to the woman’s house and place it on the face of the boy (v. 29). In one sense, Elisha places himself in the role of Moses, using his staff to effect a sign.83 But also, Elisha places himself in the role of YHWH, sending his messenger to take care of the situation as his representative. The woman, however, is satisfied with neither Elisha’s self-aggrandizement nor his seeming negligent attitude by sending a messenger in his stead. In a parallel with Elisha’s own words to Elijah in ch. 2, when his predecessor was trying to get rid of him, the woman says that she will not abandon Elisha (even though he is clearly trying to get rid of her): ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬ Elisha: “YHWH’s life! And your life! I will not abandon you!” (2:2, 4, 6) ‫חי־יהוה וחי־נפׁשך אם־אעזבך‬ Woman: “YHWH’s life! And your life! I will not abandon you!” (4:30)

81.  Bergen, Elisha, 100. 82.  The meaning of the verb ‫ ׁשלה‬in the second question is unclear, being a hapax legomenon in this particular stem (Hiphil). In Qal, the root, according to HALOT (s.v.), means “to rest” or “to be at ease,” which seems the opposite situation of a new mother. On the other hand, in the verses where the verb appears, it usually is contrasted with the activity of wandering or being homeless (Jer 12:1; Ps 122:6; Job 3:26; 12:6; 27:8). The woman’s accusation here is that she told Elisha that she did not want to be straddled at home; she was sufficient and free and wanted to keep it that way. He, of course, thought he knew her desires better than she. 83.  Gray (I & II Kings, 447) draws the Mosaic parallel.

146

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Unlike the earlier scene, however, where Elijah is clearly the leader and Elisha the follower, in his case the woman’s non-abandonment of Elisha does not mean he is the one who directs the situation: she leads the way and he follows in her stead.84 When they arrive at the woman’s house, Gehazi informs Elisha that the boy did not “awaken” when the staff was placed on his face. As with Elijah in ch. 17, Elisha enters the room where the boy’s corpse is, closes the door, and attempts several trials to revive the dead son.85 •• ‫—ויתפלל אל־יהוה‬He prays to YHWH, which was the impetus for the revival of the boy of Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:21b–22), but in Elisha’s case, nothing happens. •• ‫—ויעל ויׁשכב על־הילד‬He crawls up on the bed and lies on the boy, which Elijah also tried (1 Kgs 17:21a), and in Elisha’s case, nothing likewise happens. •• ‫—ויׂשם פיו על־פיו ועיניו על־עיניו וכפיו על־כפיו‬He places his mouth, eyes, and hands upon the corpse’s mouth, eyes, and hands, and lies down on the boy. In this case the corpse grows warm. The boy, however, does not come back to life. •• ‫—ויׁשב וילך בבית אחת הנה ואחת הנה ויעל ויגהר עליו‬He gets down, walks around in the house, crawls back up, and lies on the boy again. In this fourth attempt, the boy sneezes seven times and open his eyes.

84.  Hobbs (Kings, 48) understands her statement to mean that she, like a good subservient underling, will accompany him to her house and to her dead son. Well, of course she will! It is highly unlikely that the assumption would be that she would remain at Mount Carmel, while the “great prophet” goes to her dead boy. Such an interpretation is also, clearly, the opposite of what the text clearly says: ‫ וילך אחריה‬/ “And he followed after her” (v. 30b). 85.  The separate clauses, all marked with a wayyiqtol (waw-consecutive), indicate discrete, separate, sequential actions. See Heller, Narrative Structure, 430–32: “The use of WAYYIQTOL clauses in uninterrupted syntactical chains consistently implies sequentiality of action in the narrative—the syntactical sequentiality of the WAYYIQTOL clauses in the chain parallels the temporal sequentiality of the actions described by them” (430). Cases where wayyiqtol chains do not imply sequentiality of discrete separate actions only occur in poetic material, direct discourse, or in conjunction with non-wayyiqtol clauses. In the case of this verse, the various activities to revive the boy are not a “general action” to produce the miracle. They are separate actions, most of which fail.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

147

Of course, the resuscitation of a corpse is quite a miracle, but in Elisha’s case it does not seem to be a miracle that Elisha accomplishes easily. Nor does it seem to be a miracle that YHWH has anything to do with, unlike Elijah’s revival of the Zarephath boy (1 Kgs 17:22). In spite of his success (or perhaps because of it), Elisha still will not address the woman directly but still only speaks to her through his own messenger, his own “prophet” Gehazi. He tells Gehazi to call the woman. The woman comes to Gehazi, who tells her to pick up her son.86 She comes into the room and falls at Elisha’s feet and does obeisance. She then lifts up her son and leaves. Even in spite of the remarkable miracle that Elisha has performed, the ending is unfulfilling and seems, like the final verse of the episode of the war with Moab in the previous chapter, to be a remarkable anti-climax to what could have been a moving and persuasive story. In the parallel episode of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath’s son, the episode ends with the widow’s decisive recognition of the relationship between Elijah and YHWH: ‫ עתה זה ידעתי כי איׁש אלהים אתה ודבר־יהוה בפיך אמת‬/ “This time I know that you are a man of God and that the word of YHWH is truly in your mouth” (1 Kgs 17:24). Even through the widow does not acknowledge the power of YHWH directly, she still confesses that she has, in some way, encountered something of the divine through the miracle of Elijah. The Shunammite woman, however, from beginning to end, remains a forthright, honest, and powerful figure. She never appears mean or selfish or callous. Her son, whom she clearly loves, was once dead and is now alive again and Elisha’s actions somehow seem to have caused that miracle to come about. Her coming into the room and falling at Elisha’s feet and performing obeisance does not, in the end, appear to be a silent statement about the greatness or holiness of Elisha. She is not manipulated into confessing his greatness; nor does she acknowledge the greatness of YHWH; nor is she drawn into a more devoted relationship with YHWH. The story, at the end, is unfulfilling because it just describes a miracle. Nothing more. 86.  Both the Hebrew text and the English translation are ambiguous about who tells her to “Pick up your son” (v. 36b). I believe that it is Gehazi who says it to her because, first, Elisha has never spoken to her directly throughout the entire episode and, second, the following verb ‫ ותבא‬/ “and she came” (v. 37a) would be unnecessary if she were already in the room with Elisha and her son. Elisha sends Gehazi to call the woman; Gehazi leaves the room to call her; she comes to Gehazi; Gehazi tells her “Pick up your son!”; she comes to the room and falls before Elisha, who says nothing to her.

148

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

3. Elisha and the Poisoned Stew—2 Kings 4:38–41 Elisha returns to Gilgal, where a famine has caused normal food supplies to be scarce. The sons of the prophets are with him there. Elisha calls his servant, perhaps Gehazi, to put a large pot on the fire and to cook vegetables for the sons of the prophets. One of them goes to find vegetables in the field and returns with many wild gourds, which he cuts up into the stew, even though he did not know what the gourds were. They serve the stew but immediately cry out and say, “Man of God! There is death in the pot!” Elisha tells them to bring some flour; he throws it into the pot and then tells them to serve the meal again. They do so and there is nothing wrong with the stew! The story reveals, again, the live-giving power of YHWH to provide for his people. As opposed to almost every story thus far, there is little ambiguity in the story about the status of Elisha or his motivations.87 If this were the only tale we had about Elisha, we would consider him to be not only a powerful wonder-worker, but also a caring leader for his followers, providing food in the midst of famine, much like Elijah in Zarephath. He does not appear weak, or proud, or ignorant, or aimless, or self-aggrandizing, or haughty—as he has in previous episodes. In fact, only one small facet of the story might cause some trouble: YHWH, or even a reference to YHWH, is missing in the story. While this has become a standard characteristic of the Elisha episodes, and perhaps it has become so commonplace that we might overlook it in this story, it still must be acknowledged, because even this small ambiguity of the text will be undone and resolved in the next story. 4. Elisha and the Multiplying Food—2 Kings 4:42–44 This episode, comprising only three short verses, is the smallest of all the discrete tales in which Elisha is a central character.88 Belying its size, however, it is actually one of the most significant episodes in the whole Elisha cycle. As such, it will be reproduced in its entirety. ‫ואיׁש בא מבעל ׁשלׁשה‬ ‫ויבא לאיׁש האלהים לחם בכורים‬ ‫עׂשרים־לחם ׂשערים וכרמל בצקלנו‬ ‫ויאמר תן לעם ויאכלו׃‬ ‫ויאמר מׁשרתו מה אתן זה לפני מאה איׁש‬ 87.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 291–92; 88.  Only the story of Elisha’s corpse (13:20–21) is smaller, comprising only two verses. In that episode, however, Elisha is dead and it is only his bones that produce a miracle.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

149

‫ויאמר תן לעם ויאכלו‬ ‫כי כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫אכל והותר׃‬ ‫ויתן לפניהם ויאכלו ויותרו‬ ‫כדבר יהוה‬ A man came from Baal-shalishah. And he brought to the man of God food from [his] first-fruits: Twenty barley loaves and fresh, ripened grain.89 And [Elisha] said, “Give it to the people so that they can eat!” His servant said, “How can I give this to a hundred people?” And he said, “Give it to the people so that they can eat! Because this is what YHWH said: ‘Eating and having more than enough!’ ”90 He gave it to them, and they ate, and they had more than enough, according to the word of YHWH.

For all its brevity, the story truly does serve as a model for a miracle/sign story according to the Deuteronomic model.91 The characterizations of the actors also are straightforward, unambiguous, and positive. The man from Baal-shalishah shares the best of his recent harvest with Elisha.92 Elisha, 89.  The translation “fresh ripened grain” for the phrase ‫ וכרמל בצקלנו‬is a guess. See Sweeney, I & II Kings, 292, who provides a detailed, short description of the problems with translation. His translation is “fresh ears of corn” or “corn in its husk.” 90.  My reading is contrary to most English translations, which see the oracle, ‫אכל‬ ‫והותר‬, as comprising imperatives. If they are imperatives, they are singular and would indicate that only Elisha should eat and have too much. If this is the case, then twenty barley loaves would more than sate Elisha’s hunger. I see them, rather, as infinitives absolute indicating two results: the state of eating that would occur, and the state of having more than enough that would occur. (For a similar argument, see Sweeney, I & II Kings, 292.) The oracle represents the overall picture of the event, rather than directions about what Elisha or the people should do. 91.  This is similar to the way the Othniel episode in Judg 3:7–11 serves as the model for the following judge stories, which deviate from it more and more as the book progresses. As such, in spite of its size (it is the smallest of the judge stories), it is the most important because all the elements are in all the right places. See Roy L. Heller, Conversations with Scripture: The Book of Judges (New York: Morehouse, 2011), 45–48. 92.  Bergen, throughout his study, attempts to emphasize the negative aspects of Elisha’s characterization, which is a worthy goal considering the generally positive assessment most commentators and religious readers grant to him. In this story, even Bergen admits that, “Many of the difficulties noted in the previous stories are not found in this final story of ch. 4” (Elisha, 108). In an attempt to maintain that “there is always some part of the story that makes the reader uncomfortable” (109, emphasis

150

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

for his part, does not hoard and keep the food, but rather shares it with a group of hungry people. Even the servant does not appear stubborn or obstinate or rebellious. He simply asks about the propriety of placing a relatively small amount of food before so large a group; if this were done, such a move could be seen as cruel or inappropriate. Near the end, Elisha repeats the order, but this time with an oracle from YHWH that promises much. And the sign is perfectly fulfilled in exactly the way in which it was proclaimed: eating and having more than enough! And, at the very end, the narrator sums up the miracle by making perfectly clear that it was not just Elisha that conjured up the extra food, nor was it Elisha’s word that was fulfilled—the miracle happens according to the “word of YHWH.” In this story, finally, we see Elisha acting with Deuteronomic behaviors, speaking in Deuteronomic ways, and directing the attention of the servant, the people, and the reader toward YHWH. It is still true that YHWH does not directly act in this story. We do not hear YHWH tell Elisha the oracle; we do not see YHWH multiply the food.93 But at the end of the mine), he argues that the mention of “first-fruits” from the man of Baal-shalishah should trouble the reader because the first-fruits should be given to the priests (Lev 2:14; 23:17, 20; Num 18:13) or at least brought to the “house of YHWH your God” (Exod 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26). These are all, however, non-Deuteronomic texts. Deuteronomy itself designates that the ‫ ראׁשית דגנך‬/ “first of your grain” should be given to the Levites (18:4), but the word—and therefore what it signifies—is different from what the man of Baal-shalishah brings to Elisha. The donation of bread and grain in the episode should not be seen as an illicit theft from the priests, but rather as a generous gift from a farmer. 93.  Bergen’s second attempt to find ambiguity in this story focuses on the fact that YHWH neither directly speaks nor acts in the story: “It must also be noted that YHWH’s words are not presented in direct speech. Readers have only Elisha’s word that YHWH ever said these things” (Elisha, 110). This is a point I have made several times in previous episodes, a point that will continue throughout the following episodes of the Elisha stories as well. A major point of the stories up to this point is not, however, how YHWH, as a character, acts or speaks within the world of the text. The question is: how do we readers, or other characters within the stories, know when Elisha is truly speaking for God, or when he is acting on God’s instructions, or when he is leading Israel in accordance with the overall purpose and focus of Deuteronomy as a whole? Before this, Elisha’s ability to produce miracles raises issues of ambiguity because of four aspects: he seems unable to do them easily (which might indicate that it is he, rather than YHWH, who is performing the miracle; 2:13–14; 4:32–35), or he or the narrator do not attribute the performance of the miracle to YHWH (4:3–4, 16, 36, 41), or he admits that he is ignorant of what YHWH says, does, or intends (4:27), or the miracle which he pronounces does not actually come to pass (3:27). All four of these issues are absent in the story of the multiplying food. The miracle happens

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

151

episode, the text is transparent toward the Deuteronomic message that Israel’s actions and corporate life should be characterized by generosity, providence, assurance, and abundance. The episode also provides the counterbalance to the negative and opaque characterizations of Elisha which have occurred previously, and will occur afterwards. This episode, with its simplicity and positive outlook, reveals that Elisha is truly an ambiguous character. Just when we assume he is proud or a humbug, the narrator assures us that, just maybe, Elisha might be the Mosaic prophet after all. Or perhaps not. 5. Elisha and Naaman—2 Kings 5:1–19 As with the story of Elijah’s ascent into heaven in 2 Kgs 2, the story of Naaman has received a great deal of attention from scholars. Unlike almost every other story in the Elisha cycle, this story is highly complex; it involves not just one single plot line, but is comprised of a series of vignettes set in various locales. The narrator describes the characters within the episode by different terms and adopts differing attitudes toward them; they are not just “stock characters” such as an “honorable woman” or a “generous farmer.”94 In this analysis, I will only be looking at the characterization of Elisha specifically as I have done previously. Elijah has, up to this point, been thoroughly immersed in Israel and has been connected to Israelite people and Israelite geography. He has been associated with Abel-meholah, Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho, Mount Carmel, Samaria, Shunem, and Baal-shalishah. For some of these sites, however, he is only mentioned at the place; he does not seem to do anything, for example, at Mount Carmel: he simply goes there after the destruction of the boys of Bethel, but leaves immediately (2:25a). He is also there when the Shunammite woman comes to him after the death of the son, but he likewise does not appear to be doing anything (4:25). Even when he does act at a place, there seems to be no overarching sense of purpose to his travels. It appears as if he has only been wandering (seemingly aimlessly) within Israel’s borders.

immediately; both Elisha and the narrator attribute the miracle to YHWH; Elisha pronounces an oracle proclaiming YHWH’s intention of abundance; and the miracle occurs exactly as the word of YHWH proclaims. As such, the story is transparent and forcefully contributes to the argument that Elisha is being presented throughout the stories as an ambiguous character, not a negative character, as Bergen tries to argue. 94.  Bergen, Elisha, 113; Robert L. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” VT 31 (1983): 171–84 (171).

152

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

In this episode, however, he is associated with Naaman, a “great man” and a captain of the army of Syria/Aram.95 This might, of course, signal a major turning point in the overall structure of the Elisha cycle. When the narrator mentions Syria/Aram in 2 Kgs 5:1, the reader is reminded of the commission of Elijah given to him by YHWH, a commission that should have resulted in a cooperative relationship between the two kings of Syria and Israel, along with Elisha (1 Kgs 19:15–16). The reader is also reminded that Elijah did not obey the command, did not anoint the new kings, and, therefore, wars have occurred between the two nations 1 Kgs 20 and 22. Perhaps the failure of Elijah and the constant onslaught of war may, somehow, be overturned through the appearance in the cycle of the leprous, mighty warrior, and great man, Naaman.96 The reader may expect that the story is turning back toward a focus on the nation as a whole, its relationships with Syria, and the relationship of all Israel with YHWH. Throughout the story, Elijah is described as a “prophet” by himself and other characters. The young girl in Naaman’s household refers to him as ‫ הנביא אׁשר בׁשמרון‬/ “the prophet that is in Samaria” (v. 3). Elisha calls himself ‫ נביא ביׂשראל‬/ “a prophet in Israel” (v. 8b). Naaman’s own servants call Elisha ‫ הנביא‬/ “the prophet” (v. 13). The narrator, however, never calls him this. The storyline of the episode only refers to him as “Elisha” or, three times, as ‫ איׁש־האלהים‬/ “the man of God” (vv. 8a, 14, 15). Whether these distinctions are important will remain to be seen. What is important at this point is that Elisha sees himself, and other characters see him, as “the prophet.” 95.  The phrase ‫ איׁש גדול‬/ “great man” (v. 1) parallels the ‫ אׁשה גדולה‬/ “great woman” of the previous episode (4:8). As such, the reader is already well disposed toward Naaman, an expectation that is not ultimately disappointed. See Nelson, First and Second Kings, 181. 96.  Much has been made of the fact that Naaman was leprous. Most scholars tie the mention of his leprosy to the Levitical and Holiness Codes (Lev 13:45–46; Num 5:2) and remark that such a disease caused social segregation and, therefore, caused a conflict in the person of Naaman himself, who was simultaneously excluded from society and absolutely central to the military. For this reading, see Bergen, Elisha, 112; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 298; Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 194; Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 332. If, however, the narrative is primarily relying on Deuteronomy to provide its ideological and theological backdrop, no such distinction is made. Naaman still has a skin disease that, undoubtedly, caused him trouble, but his association with Elisha and Gehazi and his own household and the king of Syria is not unduly complicated by what is, in the context of the story, a non-issue. See Gray (I & II Kings, 453), who notes that there is no relationship between the story of Naaman and the Levitical proscriptions about leprosy.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

153

It would seem as though, for Elisha, this is the most important aspect of the plot as a whole. When the king of Israel tears his clothes, despairing because he cannot heal Naaman and, therefore, sees the command by the king of Syria to do so as an attempt to manipulate him into war, Elisha sends a messenger to the king: ‫למה קרעת בגדיך‬ ‫יבא־נא אלי וידע כי יׁש נביא ביׂשראל‬ Why did you tear your clothes? He should come to me so that he can know that there is a prophet in Israel!

The focus of the situation, according to Elisha, is upon him.97 It is he that Naaman should approach, and it is he that Naaman should know about. This is clearly because, according to Elisha, it is he who has the power, the ability, and authority, and the willingness to heal Naaman. From a Deuteronomic perspective, as we have seen numerous times before, this attitude and perspective is problematic (Deut 13:4). When Naaman comes to seek healing, Elisha sends his messenger (supposedly Gehazi) to instruct him to wash in the Jordan seven times so that his skin would be restored (v. 10). Again, as with the Shunammite woman in the previous chapter, Elisha does not speak directly with Naaman, but only speaks through his messenger, much like YHWH speaks through prophets. Elisha’s command to Naaman, ‫הלוך ורחצת‬ ‫ ׁשבע־פעמים בירדן ויׁשב בׂשרך לך וטהר‬/ “Go! Wash seven times in the Jordan so that your flesh will come back to you! Be cleansed!,” causes the military general to become angry. First, Naaman’s anger springs from the rather pitiful, measly source of the healing, the Jordan, as opposed to the better rivers of Damascus (v. 12). But even more central is the fact that Elisha, who obviously claims that he can do so, is not willing to perform the healing directly. Finally, Naaman is upset because Elisha’s command does not mention YHWH, the God of Israel, at all: ‫הנה אמרתי‬ ‫ אלי יצא יצוא ועמד וקרא בׁשם־יהוה אלהיו והניף ידו אל־המקום‬/ “Look! I said to myself, ‘He will come out and stand and call on the name of YHWH, his God, and wave his hand at the spot’ ” (v. 11).98 Elisha, whether he must or 97.  Provan (1 & 2 Kings, 192) criticizes the general because he, like “so many other characters in Kings, Naaman seems to think that prophets are very much in control of their prophetic gift, able to say and do as they choose…” On the other hand, it seems, this is precisely the way that Elisha thinks of himself! 98.  It must be stated that Naaman’s anger does not spring from his expectation of convenience; “Naaman expected Israel’s God and prophet to be just like what he had known at home: itching palms and magic shows. He had brought plenty of money, and

154

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

simply chooses to do so, depends on something other than his own word to accomplish the miracle. Finally, he does not do what a prophet clearly should do: mediate the power and intention of a deity to a person. Even Naaman recognizes the absence of YHWH in the plot and in Elisha’s consciousness, and he is offended by it.99 After being convinced by his servants to do as the “prophet” instructed, Naaman washes in the Jordan and his skin is, indeed, restored like the skin of a ‫ נער קטן‬/ “little boy” (v. 14).100 Naaman’s response is, in spite of everything that Elisha has contrived, exactly what a Deuteronomic narrator would want. He comes and stands before Elisha and confesses precisely what the point of the story should be: ‫הנה־נא ידעתי כי אין אלהים‬ ‫ בכל־הארץ כי אם־ביׂשראל‬/ “Look! I know that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel!” (v. 15a). The foreign general experiences a miracle and rightly understands it—not as merely a miraculous event that does him well and brings him health and wholeness, but as a sign that draws him into a devoted and single-minded relationship with the God so he expected the prophet to deliver on the magic. Naaman wanted ‘vending machine grace’—put your money in and take your blessing” (Dillard, Faith, 116). No, Naaman is clearly willing to be inconvenienced; he is, after all, a warrior in the ancient world. He is willing to travel back to Syria to be healed. No, Naaman’s concerns are much more central to the significance and centrality of religious devotion than, perhaps, even Elisha recognizes. 99.  Bergen makes this point eloquently: “If even a foreigner can see this omission, how much more should the Israelite reader have noticed. Readers may even be slightly embarrassed at having a foreigner point this out to them, and thus feel the omission more keenly. The omission is not merely a lack of the name of God. Rather, Naaman has noted that the role that he expects of a prophet, namely that of an intermediary, has not been taken up by Elisha. It is the servant who has acted as intermediary, in bringing out the message. This leaves Elisha in the role of God” (Elisha, 116). 100.  The phrase is added by the narrator and was not a part of the original instruction by Elisha in v. 10. The comparison of Naaman’s skin with that of a “little boy” is evocative. The significance of the phrase may lie in the slightly different parallel with the opening scene of the episode where the ‫ נערה קטנה‬/ “little girl” mentions Elisha (v. 2). Is the intent to compare the faithful Israelite girl to the (soon to be) faithful Syrian man? (Nelson, First and Second Kings, 181). On the other hand, the exact phrase is also used to describe the boys of Bethel (‫)נערים קטנים‬, who were slaughtered by the two bears through the use of the ‫ בׁשם יהוה‬/ “name of YHWH” (2:24; 5:11). Here in the midst of this story of healing and restoration is an echo from a previous story of maiming and destruction. Is the intent to assure the reader that Elisha has changed a great deal from that earlier episode, or to remind the reader about who Elisha is or, at least, can be? The purpose of the phrase is beautifully ambiguous.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

155

of Israel, YHWH. Despite Elisha’s self-aggrandizement and attempt at manipulation, the story comes to a remarkable and beautiful end by the confession of Naaman. But the story does not end there. Naaman’s attempt to give Elisha a gift introduces a complication into the story that sets up the following episode between Naaman, Gehazi, and Elisha. When Elisha refuses the gift (using an identical oath formula that we have seen from his own mouth in 2 Kgs 3:14, as well as that of Elijah in 1 Kgs 17:1 and 18:15), we know that for all his pride and self-concern, Elisha does not seek money; status perhaps, but not money.101 Naaman asks for some earth so that he may worship YHWH on Israelite soil in his own land. He also notes that his position requires him to attend and participate in religious ceremonies dedicated to the god Rimmon, but asks that this be overlooked because his own true devotion is directed to YHWH alone. Elisha, seeming to acknowledge his sincerity, directs him to leave in peace (v. 19).102 Scholars discuss the significance of soil as a locus for holiness or the question of the centrality of Jerusalem for the theology of the story.103 However, it seems as if the larger point of Naaman’s concern is making a distinction between religious activities and the attitudinal focus on the worship of YHWH alone with heart, soul, and strength, which is the heart of Deuteronomic theology (Deut 6:4–15; 13:4). Naaman’s speech, therefore, is not peripheral and is in line with the larger concerns of Deuteronomic thought, particularly as those concerns were worked out in the Exile.104 While the story as a whole presents Elisha in the slightly 101.  The fact that Elisha uses an oath, swearing upon the life of YHWH, does not at all indicate that he is ascribing the healing that has occurred to have been caused by YHWH (Cohn, 2 Kings, 39). Elisha only uses the word “YHWH” here in the formalized language of an oath; he makes no claims whatsoever about what YHWH has or has not done for Naaman. 102.  Here, Moore is right on target: Elisha’s dismissal “does not suggest cheap theological compromise, but rather a recognition of the realism and integrity of Naaman’s commitment. A theological victory has been won” (God Saves, 80). It is not, however, a theological victory won by Elisha, but rather by the inscrutable plot of the story itself. Jacques Ellul notes how the narrative denies credit to any one source, “even Elisha” (Politics of God and the Politics of Man, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 32–34). For the opposite view, see Cohn (2 Kings, 39) and Bergen (Elisha, 120), who both see Elisha’s dismissal as non-committal, not commenting in either way. 103.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 300; Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 260–61. 104.  Nelson provides a splendid discussion on how this story reflects exilic concerns (First and Second Kings, 182–83).

156

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

negative light that we have seen before, it simultaneously raises the plot beyond the mere concerns and intentions of Elisha to the possibility of Deuteronomic concerns being worked out among Israelites and non-Israelites even in spite of him. 6. Elisha and Gehazi—2 Kings 5:20–27 The next episode focuses on the character of Gehazi. Up to this point in the stories of Elisha, Gehazi has been described as the ‫ נער‬/ “servant” of Elisha (4:12, 25), a designation that begins this episode and will appear once more in the Elisha cycle (8:4). He has mostly played a supporting role in the stories of the woman of Shunem, where he is portrayed as the one who delivers Elisha’s messages to the woman of Shunem (4:12–13, 25–26), as a body guard protecting Elisha (4:27), and as an unsuccessful stand-in for Elisha’s miracle working when he takes Elisha’s staff and attempts to raise the dead boy (4:29, 31b). Depending on whether the reader chooses to identify him with the “servant” or “messenger” in other stories, he may also cook for Elisha and the sons of the prophets (4:38), serve them food (4:43), and deliver the message to Naaman (5:10). As such, his position may suggest that he serves Elisha in the same way that Elisha served Elijah beforehand (1 Kgs 19:21b). This may also suggest that Gehazi would be next in line for the prophetic role that Elisha now plays.105 If that is indeed how the plot sets up Gehazi’s larger role within the cycle, it is thoroughly undermined and undone by the story of Gehazi’s greed. The episode presents Gehazi in a thoroughly negative light, with few redeeming qualities. He is not compassionate, believing that Elisha’s refusal to take a gift amounts to wrongfully sparing (‫ )חׂשך‬the Syrian (v. 20a). He also seems to be xenophobic, referring to Naaman as “this Aramean” (v. 20a). He is greedy, wanting to take something from him (v. 20b). He lies by speaking in the name of Elisha a message that Elisha did not say (v. 22a). He manipulates Naaman by appealing to Naaman’s sense of generosity and willingness to provide for his new-found religious group, including the sons of the prophets (v. 22). By contrast, Naaman, for his part, is compassionate, generous, and forthright (v. 23). When Gehazi asks for certain donations, Naaman provides more than was asked for. When Gehazi returns from storing his stuff and hiding it, Elisha asks him a simple question: ‫ גחזי מאין‬/ “From where, Gehazi?” The question 105.  Some commentators explain Gehazi’s name as a form of the phrase “valley of vision” (as in Isa 22:1; BDB, s.v.; Gray, I & II Kings, 495). The name, therefore, may lead to an assumption of his possible visionary/prophetic ability.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

157

is open ended and could be interpreted in any number of ways. Gehazi interprets the question as focusing on himself and lies again while simultaneously placing himself in a subservient role: “Your servant did not go anywhere” (v. 26). Elisha responds: ‫לא־לבי הלך כאׁשר הפך־איׁש מעל מרכבתו לקראתך‬ ‫העת לקחת את־הכסף ולקחת בגדים וזיתים וכרמים וצאן ובקר ועבדים וׁשפחות׃‬ ‫וצרעת נעמן תדבק־בך ובזרעך לעולם‬ Didn’t my mind travel whenever a man turned aside from his chariot to meet you?106 Is it time to take silver or to take clothing, or olive trees, or vineyards, or sheep, or cattle, or male slaves, or female slaves? The leprosy of Naaman will cling to you and your descendants forever.

For the first time in the cycle, we seen Elisha actually able to exercise visionary power, to know things that he would not naturally know. In addition to his ability to work miracles, he is also able to see visions or circumstances beyond his immediate context. Neither the text nor Elisha explicitly claim that this ability is from YHWH, but it does seem to be actual and, here, to be exercised in the cause of justice and of righting wrongs. Elisha’s accusation to Gehazi, in the form of a rhetorical question, begins just as we would expect: “Is it a time to take silver or to take clothing?” He then continues listing items that Gehazi did not take: “… or olive trees, or vineyards, or sheep, or cattle, or male slaves, or female slaves?” These items parallel those mentioned in the accusation that Samuel makes about the king that the Israelites desire: “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of

106.  The Masoretic text has the first clause as a statement, not a question, which is reflected in the LXX. As such, it makes little sense. The interrogative-‫ ה‬might have been dropped, the negation ‫ לא‬might have been added, or, less likely, the clause may be an unmarked question.

158

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.” (1 Sam 8:11–17; NRSV)107

The picture in both cases is of someone who has a great deal of authority misusing it in order to gain material wealth. If Gehazi and Elisha (and we readers) were expecting him to take on the role of prophet after the passing of Elisha, he has shown himself unworthy of that position. If Gehazi is so intent on retaining (‫ )דבק‬things, then he can have Naaman’s leprosy, as well. The judgment is a fitting ending to the scene. In conclusion, the episode of Gehazi can clearly and certainly be read as a Deuteronomic story of justice.108 It moves appropriately and all the details work together to produce this persuasive interpretation. On the other hand, in its present context and in light of the previous stories with their gaps and opaque portrayals of Elisha and their ambivalent, uneasy attitude toward prophecy and miracles, the story of Gehazi’s greed can also be read at another level. Again, YHWH is nowhere mentioned in the story. The character with miraculous, visionary power in the episode is Elisha, who, as we have seen before in previous stories, often takes over the role of the character of YHWH. In such a schema, then, Gehazi performs the role of Elisha’s messenger or his prophet, a role that he has had before and has performed faithfully and honestly (from what we have seen). Gehazi delivers messages and gives commands on behalf of Elisha. In this story, however, we are confronted with a situation in which the messenger lies and proclaims messages that the primary authority did not pronounce and gives orders that the primary authority did not give, and does things that the primary authority did not command. We, of course, 107.  For discussions of the parallel, see Hobbs, Kings, 68; Cohn, “Form and Perspective,” 182, and 2 Kings, 41–42. 108.  Bergen, while seeing the tale as a comment on the ambiguity of prophecy, also sees the story as much less clear and questions the motivations of both Elisha and Gehazi. I, for my part, see the characters as fairly straightforward in this episode. The function of the episode as a critique of prophecy does not arise because Elisha is negative or because his visionary powers are shortsighted or because the judgment seems excessive (Kings, 123). The story itself is clear. As a critique of the phenomenon of prophecy, the story raises the question about the faithfulness of messengers/ prophets to the ones who, supposedly, sent them (Deut 18:18, 22), as well as questions the consistency of the punishment of those dishonest or manipulating messengers (as in Deut 13:5; 18:19–20).

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

159

see the whole thing: we know that Gehazi lies because we see him not speaking with Elisha before his going to meet Naaman, and we do see him speaking with Elisha after his meeting with Naaman. The speech he proclaims to Naaman (v. 22) is a lie; his words are not Elisha’s words. We also can see, by the end of the episode, the sign of Gehazi’s duplicity: his skin is as white as snow with Naaman’s leprosy (v. 27). If this is seen as a template upon which the phenomenon of prophecy lies (as outlined at the very beginning of this study in Chapter 1), it is clear that the correspondence is very close indeed! Elisha takes on the role for himself, as he often does, of standing in for YHWH. And, in this situation, Gehazi is his (lying) prophet. And Gehazi is his (lying) prophet. The template, however, raises up the character of Naaman as the one with whom most Israelites, and we readers, would identify. He does not see the whole picture. He no longer has direct contact with Elisha. He is completely dependent upon the messenger to hear what Elisha has said and what he needs to do. And even after the gift of silver and clothing is given and his servants have returned and they all go back to Syria, he is none the wiser. He does not know that he has been cheated and lied to and manipulated; he does not see the sign by which the “false prophet” has been targeted and marked. He is, in fact, exactly like most every other character in the Elijah and Elisha cycles, besides the two main prophets. Although the episode itself is clear and unambiguous, its significance in the larger rhetorical sweep of the cycles is illuminating by revealing the ambiguity of prophecy at its core. 7. Elisha and the Axe—2 Kings 6:1–7 The final story in the section where Elisha consistently appears as someone who helps is, in light of the episodes which have preceded it, remarkably anti-climactic.109 The central problem is less critical than we have seen before and the characters interacting with Elisha are decidedly less sympathetic than those portrayed before. The episode begins with a false difficulty. The sons of the prophets tell Elisha about a problem with the place where they are living:

109.  Nelson is certainly correct that many readers find the story trivial because they do not appreciate the relative rarity and value of iron in the ancient context (First and Second Kings, 184). The central problem of this episode does, nevertheless, seem less than what we have seen before: a water source that causes miscarriage (2 Kgs 2:19–22); a complete lack of water in a desert for three armies (3:1–27); sons who are threatened with kidnapping and slavery (4:1–7); a dead only child (4:18–37); a group’s only meal that is poisoned (4:38–41); and leprosy (ch. 5).

160

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha ‫הנה־נא‬ ‫המקום אׁשר אנחנו יׁשבים ׁשם לפניך צר ממנו‬ Look! The place where we are dwelling under your leadership is too small for us!

The statement sounds much like the complaint of the inhabitants of Jericho in ch. 2: ‫הנה־נא‬ ‫מוׁשב העיר טוב כאׁשר אדני ראה‬ ‫והמים רעים והארץ מׁשכלת‬ Look! The location of the city is good, as my lord sees. But the water is bad and the land causes miscarriages (2:19).

As such, perhaps we might expect Elisha to work a miracle to expand the living space of his disciples. He does not get a chance to do this, however, because the sons of the prophets continue speaking and propose to go to the Jordan and ‫ ונקחה מׁשם איׁש קורה אחת‬/ “cut down one tree apiece there” so that they can make a place to dwell. Even those who have no experience constructing buildings certainly know that cutting down a single tree per person, even if there are hundreds of people, will not provide resources for a building to house them all. The plan seems simplistic, childish, and certainly not very well considered.110 Elisha, however, tells them to go (v. 2). They, like children, are unwilling to go to the site unless Elisha comes along. He acquiesces and says that he will come (v. 3). Thus far into the story, the sons of the prophets appear even more negative and thoughtless than they have in previous episodes. Elisha, for his part, seems as though he has nothing better to do than to accompany them on their ill-conceived trek. While they are chopping down trees, the axe head of one of the men falls into the water of the Jordan. He cries out and calls to Elisha with an exclamation that parallels that of Jehoram when he and his armies were in imminent danger of being killed either by thirst in the Moabite desert or by the Moabite army itself: ‫ אהה‬/ “Alas!” (3:10; note also 6:15 in the 110.  Bergen, Elisha, 126: “Whether or not readers are willing to believe that the Jordan is a good place to find house-building material, any reader familiar with building houses likely recognizes that one log per occupant is clearly insufficient to build a wooden structure. While one might presume a stone structure with wooden supports, the plan still suggests a rather unusual division of labor.”

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

161

next episode). The loss of the borrowed axe head is such a loss that it seems equated with the loss of an entire army or city. Again, the character appears childish and immature. Elisha cuts down a tree and tosses it toward the place where the iron axe head fell, the iron “swims” to the bank.111 The story ends with Elisha having to instruct the man to “Pick it up!” and him doing so. The character, again, is foolish and childlike, needing instruction for even the most obvious of actions. This final scene provides an appropriate conclusion for this section and propels the cycle into the next. Throughout this section Elisha uses his ability to work miracles in order to help (or, in the case of the pregnancy of the woman of Shunem, to think he was helping) individuals. While most of these episodes deal with life-and-death issues or with serious complications, here Elisha is reduced to heading up a group of people who cannot do even the most menial of tasks without his direction and without his miraculous power. Is this what it means to be a prophet? Elisha was introduced into the narrative as a person on the level of Hazael and Jehu, the proposed new kings of Syria and Israel (1 Kgs 19:16). Up to this point he has only had one episode where he interacts on a national level, an episode that ends in failure (2 Kgs 3). With the introduction of Naaman, he had the opportunity to step up onto that transnational stage, but remained only a miracle worker and healer by the end of the episode. With this final episode of the swimming axe head, he has been reduced as trivially as he can. Perhaps it is time for him to move into another role, one in which he deals with faithfulness and unfaithfulness to YHWH on a national level, providing his miracles as true Deuteronomic signs, in order to win the hearts and minds of Israel as his predecessor did on Mount Carmel. Perhaps. E. Elisha and Politics—2 Kings 6:8–9:13 In the next major section of episodes, Elisha no longer appears as someone who helps individuals with everyday problems. Instead, he consistently acts on a national level, either as an advisor to the king of Israel and his counselors, or as one whose fame spreads to the upper echelons of political power in the Northern Kingdom (2 Kgs 8:1–6).

111.  As opposed to “floats.” The root, ‫צוף‬, is used of water flowing (Lam 3:54), or causing water to flow (Deut 11:4). The image here is that the iron glides like moving water and eventually comes to the bank.

162

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

As with the episodes in the previous section, however, Elisha will, very often, continue to be presented in an ambiguous light. The question still remains: how does Elisha use his miraculous power and political influence? Will he use it to retain his own status for his own personal gains, or will he lead Israel in a way that closely resembles Moses in the Deuteronomic Torah? Will his signs lead to Israel’s continued salvation (both from foreign attacks as well as from its own divided loyalty toward YHWH), or will the miracles only manipulate Israel and its leaders toward other ends? 1. Elisha and the Aramean Attack—2 Kings 6:8–23 The first story in the collection of episodes focusing on Elisha in the realm of politics portrays him as well as any other in the entire collection. In this story he appears, through and through, as the Mosaic prophet: not only providing help to those in need, but doing so using a Deuteronomic perspective and providing salvation to the nation of which he is a part. The narrative begins as Syria is again at war with Israel and the king of Syria, Ben-hadad, is making plans to invade and camp at a certain spot (v. 8). Elisha, however, using the prescient knowledge that he demonstrated during the episode about Gehazi’s greed (5:26), informs the king of Israel about Syria’s plans.112 The king, in turn, warns the armies who are in the location and he, therefore, saves their lives. The narrator is, furthermore, careful to note that this occurs more than just once or twice (v. 10b). Elisha, therefore, uses his gift in a way that gives credence to his ongoing power and uses it in order to rescue Israelite lives. When the king of Syria is told that it is Elisha who is revealing his secrets to the king of Israel, he plans to capture the prophet by surrounding Dothan, the city where Elisha is staying (vv. 11–14). The servant of Elisha (Gehazi?) arises the next morning and leaves the house. The narrator, at just this point, causes the reader to see through the eyes of the servant, by using the exclamatory particle ‫והנה‬: ‫והנה־חיל סובב את־העיר וסוס ורכב‬ And—wow!—an army was surrounding the city, and horses, and chariots! (v. 15)

112.  Gray (I & II Kings, 464) suggests that Elisha “would naturally be well informed on current affairs and topography” because of his constant moving around in the country. This, of course, completely misses the point of the miracle. For a similar naturalistic “explanation” of Elisha’s prescience, see Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth, 75.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

163

The narrative statement focuses the attention of the reader upon the servant (and Elisha), which serves to produce empathy.113 When the servant tells Elisha about the surrounding army, the prophet is neither panicked nor dismayed. He, in good Deuteronomic style, tells the servant to not be afraid because it is the invading army that is outnumbered.114 Even as Elijah prayed while standing before the Zarephath widow’s son, Elisha here prays to YHWH: ‫יהוה פקח־נא את־עיניו ויראה‬ YHWH, open his eyes, so that he may see! (v. 17a)

In one of the rare instances in the Elisha cycle of stories, the narrator relates that YHWH actually acts within the world of the story explicitly: ‫ ויפקח יהוה את־עיני הנער וירא‬/ “And YHWH opened the eyes of the servant and he saw” (v. 17b). Then, for a second time, the narrator allows the reader to see through the eyes of the servant, this time revealing the divine army waiting to protect the prophet: ‫והנה ההר מלא סוסים ורכב אׁש סביבת אליׁשע‬ And—wow!—the mountains were filled with horses and chariots of fire surrounding Elisha. (v. 17b)

The story follows a clear line between the putative danger posed by the Syrians and the explicit action of YHWH, who not only opens the eyes of the servant, but also seems to be protecting both the prophet and the people of Dothan who are associated with him. When the Syrians try to push their advance into the city, Elisha again prays that YHWH would strike the army with blindness, a request that is immediately granted, just as Elisha said (v. 18b).115 One might expect here, perhaps because of the parallel of the word ‫ סנורים‬/ “blindness” in Gen 19:11 in the midst of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, that Elisha 113.  Bergen, Elisha, 130. 114.  The command ‫ אל־תירא‬/ “Do not be afraid” is common in Deuteronomy and in the History (Deut 1:21; 3:2; 20:3; 31:6; Josh 8:1; 10:8, 25; 11:6; Judg 4:18; 6:23; 1 Sam 4:20; 12:20; 22:23; 23:17; 28:13; 2 Sam 9:7; 13:28; 1 Kgs 17:13; 2 Kgs 1:15; 6:16; 19:6; 25:24). 115.  While the narrator is not explicit that YHWH is the addressee of the prayer, this causes little dissonance both because of the previous and following prayer, which are explicit, as well as the immediate effect that is brought about. See Bergen, Elisha, 130.

164

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

and his servant would use the occasion of blindness to escape the city through the lines of the Syrians.116 In fact, Elisha uses the opportunity to lead the Syrian army to Samaria (v. 19). Once inside the city, Elisha prays once more to YHWH, this time to open the eyes of the Syrians. And, for a third time in the episode, the reader looks through the eyes of a character in the story. This time, however, it is through the eyes of the Syrians: ‫והנה בתוך ׁשמרון׃‬ And—wow!—[it’s] the middle of Samaria!!

The surprise and fear that first greeted the servant of Elisha is now transferred to the Syrians themselves!117 And, just as the literary device before produced empathy, so it does here as well. The reader, by seeing through their eyes, becomes one with the Syrians. When the king of Israel asks, humbly, whether he should strike them, Elisha rebuffs him and asks him: ‫לא תכה‬ ‫האׁשר ׁשבית בחרבך ובקׁשתך אתה מכה‬ ‫ׂשים לחם ומים לפניהם ויאכלו ויׁשתו וילכו אל־אדניהם׃‬ You must not strike [them]! Did you capture with your sword and with your bow those that you’re striking? Put bread and water before them so that they can eat and drink and return to their lords! (v. 22)

In the same way that YHWH cared for Elijah at the Wadi Cherith and in the home of the widow of Zarephath, now Elisha extends hospitality even to those who wanted to seek his life. The protection that YHWH afforded him in Dothan, Elisha provides even for his enemies. It is truly one of the most remarkable scenes of grace and goodwill in the entire Hebrew Bible. The narrator is clear about the result of such an outpouring by the last line of the episode: ‫ ולא־יספו עוד גדודי ארם לבוא בארץ יׂשראל‬/ “The 116.  For the significance of the unusual word ‫ סנורים‬/ “blindness”, see Bergen, Elisha, 130; and Long, Kings, 36. 117.  Dillard reflects on the effect of the text upon the reader: “Put yourself for a moment in the place of the Aramean soldiers. Imagine opening your eyes after a period of terrifying, temporary blindness to find yourself surrounded by enemy troops in their own capital city. The siege of Dothan has been reversed, and now the Aramean soldiers were surrounded. Their best hope was probably for no more than a merciful and speedy death (2 Kgs 6:21). Instead, they were treated with respect and hospitality” (Faith, 131).

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

165

raiding parties of Syria no longer came into the land of Israel” (v. 23b). Bergen expresses the complete victory of Elisha in this story: “The victory of Elisha is total. Not only is he not captured (this was the initial conflict in the narrative), but his solution creates a period of military peace between Israel and Aram. The Arameans are overmastered, and slink quietly into their homes. Not only does the army return home, even the raiding parties…cease to harass Israel.”118 Even as Elijah, on Mount Carmel, rendered a victory for Israel by manipulating both Israel and the prophets of Baal, Elisha here does the same with wonderful consequences. The story is clear, the ambiguities are few, the plot is clean, the working of Elisha and of YHWH are in harmony, and at the end of the episode those who were once enemies have become, while perhaps not friends, at least respectful peers. This is Elisha at his best. 2. Elisha and the Siege of Samaria—2 Kings 6:24–7:20 Then it all comes crashing down in v. 24.119 The truce does not last even long enough to span three clauses. Just when we might have thought that YHWH’s command to Elijah in 1 Kings 19 to anoint new kings over Israel and Syria was a bit premature, or that the nations of Israel and Syria with their present kings could live in harmony, we see Syria again attempt to besiege the city of Samaria. The good will of Elisha and the leniency granted to the Syrians at the end of the previous episode are now called into question.120

118.  Bergen, Elisha, 134. 119.  The initial temporal clause ‫ ויהי אחרי־כן‬/ “It happened after this…” highlights the incongruity of the meaning of the last clause of v. 23 and the following story. The clause both connects and contrasts the two episodes. The NRSV attempts to weaken the contradiction by translating the phrase as “Some time later…,” implying that the following events are not related to the previous story. Gray goes even further by supposing that the introduction “need not necessarily connect with the preceding passage, but with some other matter which has been omitted by the compilers” (I & II Kings, 470). 120.  Bergen argues that, “in three short words the credibility of Elisha collapses. The failure rests clearly with the prophet, just as the credit did” (Elisha, 135). I would further suggest that, in fact, the failure might lay at the feet of Elijah himself, since he did not fulfill the regime change in Israel and in Syria commanded by YHWH (1 Kgs 19:15–17). Since Bergen does not treat the Elijah stories and generally sees Elijah as a positive character, he would not see the groundwork of the failure as reaching back to the previous prophet. Provan, however, does seem to lay some responsibility at the feet of Elijah (1 & 2 Kings, 205).

166

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Like the story of Naboth in 1 Kgs 21, the prophet plays a relatively minor role in the six different plot lines that make up the episode of Ben-hadad’s siege of Samaria.121 He primarily plays a part in the introduction of the story (6:24–7:2) and then drops from the plot, only to be mentioned at the very end of the episode (7:18–20) in a review of the oracles given in 7:1 and 2b. Several worthwhile discussions of the story as a whole are available.122 In this study, the primary focus will be, as it has been, on the portrayal of Elisha and the role he plays in the narrative as well as the characterization of the king of Israel, Jehoram, who plays a major role here. Ben-hadad, king of Syria, assembles his army, comes, and besieges the capital of Israel, Samaria. As a result, the inhabitants of the city are subject to a lack of food to such an extent that what are considered worthless items––donkey heads and dove dung––are sold for exorbitant prices (vv. 24–25). A second storyline begins with v. 26 and focuses not on the siege, but rather the lack of food specifically. The interchange between the king and the bereaved woman forms one of the most tragic scenes in the whole Bible and also establishes the framework upon which much of the ideological complexity and ambiguity of the following story will hang. Although the name of the king of Israel is not mentioned, in the narrative world of the episodes it is undoubtedly Jehoram, the king whom the text did not condemn outright because of his dismantling of the Baal cult in Samaria (3:1–3).123 He is also described as a YHWH worshiper, having a keen discernment of the interaction of YHWH with Israel (3:10, 13).124 Furthermore, he readily listens to and obeys the word of Elisha, whom he seems to respect (6:9–10, 21–23). We must not immediately 121.  Those plot lines include: The initial siege and resulting lack of food (6:24–25); the interchange between the king and the desperate woman (6:26–30); the interchange between the king and Elisha (6:31–7:2); the discovery of the four lepers (7:3–10); the reconnaissance of the king’s servants (7:11–15); and the fulfillment of the two oracles (7:16–20). The various plots, none of which make sense on their own, have been woven together to form a coherent and composite whole narrative. 122.  For discussions of the story as a whole, see particularly, Nelson, First and Second Kings, 188–91; and Cohn, 2 Kings, 48–54. See also: Sweeney, I & II Kings, 310–14; Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 200–203; Gray, I & II Kings, 517–25; Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 266–71; Dillard, Faith, 135–40; Moore, God Saves, 95–104. 123.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 310. 124.  At the end of the episode of the invasion of the armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom into Moab, it does appear that Jehoram’s theological opinion about the finale of the expedition is actually closer to what occurs than the oracle of Elisha.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

167

assume that the king in the present episode is a wholeheartedly evil, or even negative, character from the start. The king is walking along the wall, perhaps checking out the placement of the besieging army outside the city. A woman within the city cries out to him for help (v. 26). The king responds: ‫אל־יוׁשעך יהוה מאין אוׁשיעך‬ ‫המן־הגרן או מן־היקב‬ If YHWH will not help you, from where can I help you?125 From the threshing floor or from the wine press?

The rhetorical questions provide insight into the king’s own views of the situation. Most importantly, the questions do not make any reference to Baal or any other deity. The solution to the famine, according to the king, is squarely placed within the realm and responsibility of YHWH. The king recognizes his own inability to provide for the woman specifically and for his own citizenry generally. He directs her attention to YHWH, not to himself nor to the prophet Elisha. It is ambiguous at this point, at least, whether he sees the siege and the famine as direct results of divine punishment for sin. When he further asks about her situation, she provides him with a heart-wrenching tale of cannibalism. Many commentators have noted the similarity of the scene and the story with that of the tale of the prostitutes before Solomon (1 Kgs 3:16–28).126 It is, however, not at all clear that the woman in this tale is asking the king to find the hidden child so that she can eat it; she does not ask the king to do anything.127 Her story reveals 125.  The NRSV seems to miss the point of the first statement: “No! Let the LORD help you. How can I help you?” The use of the negative particle, ‫אל־‬, is not an outright prohibitive command, “No!” but rather marks a protasis with a negated imperfect (“If he will not help you…”), completed with the second clause as the apodosis, in the form of an interrogative clause (“…from where will I help you?”). See Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, §109h. Cohn sees the king’s response as one of frustration and sarcasm, but this, again, misses the overriding point of the Yahwistic center of the confession (2 Kings, 49; see also Moore, God Saves, 96–97). 126.  Most particularly, see the wonderful discussion of Stuart Lasine, “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6.24–33): Solomon’s Judgment in an Inverted World,” JSOT 50 (1991): 27–53. See also Sweeney, I & II Kings, 311. 127.  This is the assumption of Cohn, 2 Kings, 49: “Having shared her own son for dinner with another mother, she now demands that the woman fulfill her promise and cannibalize her son as well. The depths of the horror come through in the woman’s utter lack of self-consciousness about the crime she has committed and

168

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

two things: her own desperation, and the extremes to which the people of Samaria as a whole have been forced to go. As such, even in light of the grotesque nature of her story, she is portrayed as a sympathetic character. Furthermore, in light of the non-response by the king—he does not bring her up on charges of infanticide, for example—he understands her story similarly and finds himself at a loss. Unlike Solomon, there is no way to deal with such a horrendous situation wisely. The king tears his clothes because of his distress at not only the plight of the woman, but of his own inability to deal with it (v. 30). Moreover, the people of the city themselves can see that their king is wearing sackcloth, a public manifestation of his own humility and contrition. The king, like the woman and the entire populace, is in a pitiable situation, unpretentiously looking to YHWH for help in dire straits. This pitiable narrative setting is ambiguous, however, if read in light of the curses that would befall Israel if they forsake YHWH in Deut 28:53–57: ‫ואכלת פרי־בטנך בׂשר בניך ובנתיך אׁשר נתן־לך יהוה אלהיך במצור ובמצוק‬ ‫אׁשר־יציק לך איבך׃‬ ‫האיׁש הרך בך והענג מאד תרע עינו באחיו ובאׁשת חיקו וביתר בניו אׁשר יותיר׃‬ ‫מתת לאחד מהם מבׂשר בניו אׁשר יאכל מבלי הׁשאיר־לו כל במצור ובמצוק אׁשר‬ ‫יציק לך איבך בכל־ׁשעריך׃‬ ‫הרכה בך והענגה אׁשר לא־נסתה כף־רגלה הצג על־הארץ מהתענג ומרך תרע‬ ‫עינה באיׁש חיקה ובבנה ובבתה׃ ובׁשליתה היוצת מבין רגליה ובבניה אׁשר תלד‬ ‫כי־תאכלם בחסר־כל בסתר במצור ובמצוק אׁשר יציק לך איבך בׁשעריך׃‬ In the desperate straits to which the enemy siege reduces you, you will eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your own sons and daughters whom the LORD your God has given you. Even the most refined and gentle of men among you will begrudge food to his own brother, to the wife whom he embraces, and to the last of his remaining children, giving to none of them any of the flesh of his children whom he is eating, because nothing else remains to him, in the desperate straits to which the enemy siege will reduce you in all your towns. She who is the most refined and gentle among you, so gentle and refined that she does not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground, will begrudge food to the husband whom she embraces, to her own son, and by her expectation that the king would take her side. Whereas one of the prostitutes before Solomon pleaded for the life of her son, this woman asks for the death of the other woman’s son.” Yet none of this is in the speech by the woman; she merely tells what she has done and what was done by the other mother. She merely confesses; she does not command or even ask anything of the king, except the general plea of help in v. 26b.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

169

to her own daughter, begrudging even the afterbirth that comes out from between her thighs, and the children that she bears, because she is eating them in secret for lack of anything else, in the desperate straits to which the enemy siege will reduce you in your towns. (NRSV)

It seems clear that the two texts, the Deuteronomic curse and the 2 Kings account, have identical echoes and are meant to work together intertextually. The question, therefore, arises: is the situation of 2 Kgs 6:24–30 a result of the sin of the king and the people of Israel? If it is meant to be read in light of the curses from Deuteronomy, why does the text portray the king in relatively positive terms, acknowledging the source of relief as belonging to YHWH alone, humbly admitting that he cannot provide for his people, and publicly confessing through sackcloth his own contrition and humility in light of the situation? Why is the portrayal of the woman so empathetically and pitiably drawn? Is the famine a result of sin or is it a military and social crisis that can only be dealt with miraculously—but has not been up to this point? The narrative art of the 2 Kings account forces the reader to deal with such important questions in a realistic and mature way. This is no mere naïve fable meant to teach a simplistic lesson. It is clear where the king places at least some of the blame: Elisha, residing within his own house in the city, has not used his power—as in the last episode—to help the people of Israel. Moreover, his own advice in the previous episode about not killing the Aramean invaders has led inexorably to this situation.128 It is clear to the king that Elisha, both actively and passively, is responsible for the ghastly trouble of the city. He, therefore, pronounces a self-imprecating oath if Elisha’s head is not separated from him that very day.129 After the king rashly plans to end Elisha’s life (v. 31b), the narrator provides a quick view of the interior of Elisha’s home before returning to the king and his sending a messenger to the prophet. The BHS suggests in its notes that the phrase ‫ ויׁשלח איׁש מלפניו‬/ “and he sent a man from before him…” should be shifted to the end of v. 31 as an immediate consequence of the oath. This is, however, unnecessary. In fact, the quick 128.  Several commentators make the association between Elisha’s reprieve of the Syrians and the present trouble: Sweeney, I & II Kings, 310–11; Cohn, 2 Kings, 50; Hobbs, Kings, 80. 129.  Moore notes a humorous bit of irony in the declaration: “So soon after the mention of an ass’s head (6.25), there may be some irony here” (God Saves, 97). Provan also notes: “It is strange that he should invoke the name of God in threatening to make a donkey of God’s prophet” (1 & 2 Kings, 201). Is Elisha being compared, by the narrator, to an ass?

170

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

view of the scene in Elisha’s home, which occurs at the same time as the pronouncement of the oath, provides a perspective of why the king is so angry: ‫ויאמר כה־יעׂשה־לי אלהים וכה יוסף אם־יעמד ראׁש אליׁשע בן־ׁשפט עליו היום׃‬ ‫(ואליׁשע יׁשב בביתו‬ )‫והזקנים יׁשבים אתו‬ ‫ויׁשלח איׁש מלפניו‬ ‫בטרם יבא המלאך אליו והוא אמר‬ And [the king] said, “May YHWH do such to me and more if the head of Elisha son of Shaphat stays on him today!” (Now Elijah was sitting in his house. And the elders were sitting with him.) And he sent a man from before him. Before the messenger arrived, he himself [Elisha] said… (v. 32)

This quick inner-paragraph, parenthetical comment shows what Elisha’s response is to the nightmarish degradation occurring around him: he is sitting in his house, and the responsible leadership of the city are sitting with him.130 He is, in short, doing nothing to provide aid. The king, therefore, convinced that Elisha is of no help and, perhaps, may actually be causing the trouble, at first threatens Elisha, but then recants of murdering the prophet and, instead, sends a messenger to confront Elisha, perhaps in an effort to spur him to action. The question, however, remains for the reader: is Elisha responsible for the situation, either actively or passively?131 The disjunction between the end of the previous episode and the beginning of this one ties Elisha’s actions with the Arameans as resulting in the siege. Clearly, the siege has lasted for quite some time.132 Why has Elisha not blinded the Syrians 130.  For the syntax and rhetorical significance of inner-paragraph comments in Biblical Hebrew narrative, see Heller, Narrative Structure, 441–51. 131.  Many commentators will do almost anything to rescue the image of Elisha in the story: portray the king as a Baalist who is proud and uncaring, and who misuses the name of YHWH in order to undermine the plan of YHWH; portray the woman as a maniacal, blood-thirsty, vengeful cannibal; all the while the figure of Elisha remains a “good guy” above reproach. Among the few who admit that the questions that the text raises are real, living questions are Bergen, Elisha, 139–40; and Lasine, “Jehoram,” 47. 132.  Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 268–69: “Nothing is said on the length of the siege, but the graphic description of the situation, as it is recalled in the first scene (vv. 6:26, 28–30), makes a duration of several months seem likely.”

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

171

outside the walls, or called on the horses and chariots of fire that may or may not be surrounding the city, or even called out she-bears to devour them? If Elisha truly does have miraculous power—whether or not that power is tied directly or indirectly to YHWH at this point does not matter—why does he sit passively, not helping those who are in so much desperate trouble and who truly repent? The questions remain open both in the mind of the king and in the mind of the reader, both before and after the appearance of Elisha in the story. Before the messenger arrives, Elisha reveals to the sitting elders that “this son of the murderer” (son of Ahab?) is sending someone to take off his head. He instructs them to close the door and lean against it all together in order to keep the assassin out of the house.133 When the man arrives, however, it is not to kill Elisha—imprecation oath of Jehoram notwithstanding—but rather to deliver a message. As Bergen notes, the statement is straightforward in most English translations, but is rather ambiguous in Hebrew as a presentation of the mind of the king:134 ‫הנה־זאת הרעה מאת יהוה‬ ‫מה־אוחיל ליהוה עוד׃‬ Look! If this whole trouble is from YHWH then what should I still expect concerning YHWH?135

133.  It is clear that Elisha sees the man sent from the king, not as someone who is delivering a message, but rather as one who is ‫ להסיר את־ראׁשי‬/ “to take off my head,” that is, an assassin, but this is not the case. There is no indication that the messenger even tries to open the door against which the elders are leaning. Robert C. Culley notes that all of Elisha’s actions in this story have an aspect of self-preservation and self-vindication; see Themes and Variations: A Study of Action in Biblical Narrative, Semeia Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 90. 134.  Bergen, Elisha, 141–42. 135.  Most commentators see the speech by the messenger/king as revealing the king’s desperation or hopelessness or murderous hate, an interpretation paralleled by the NRSV: “This trouble is from the LORD! Why should I hope in the LORD any longer?” See Long, Kings, 93; Gray, I & II Kings, 472. Hobbs, who usually interprets the king in purely negative terms, instead sees the speech as a recognition that the siege and famine have had a salvific effect and has served God’s purposes (2 Kings, 81). For my part, I see the quotation as paralleled by the later speech by the captain (7:2): both speeches are set up as an unmarked either/or polar question, both begin with the exclamation ‫הנה‬, both mention YHWH in the protasis, and both introduce the apodosis with an interrogative particle.

172

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The speech is far from a threat to Elisha’s life. It rather sees the present situation in ambiguous theological terms: if the trouble is from YHWH, is there any other outcome than what has been manifested? It also implies the contrary: if there is hope, then might this present situation not be attributable to YHWH? Finally, Elisha, without answering the question one way or the other, pronounces a word from YHWH of promise and of abundance:136 ‫ׁשמעו דבר־יהוה‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫כעת מחר סאה־סלת בׁשקל‬ ‫וסאתים ׂשערים בׁשקל בׁשער ׁשמרון׃‬ Hear the word of YHWH! This is what YHWH said: “About this time tomorrow a measure of fine meal will be worth a shekel. Two measures of barley will be worth a shekel in the gate of Samaria.” (7:1)

Within a day’s time, the exorbitant prices for a worthless donkey’s head and dove’s dung will be replaced with relatively cheap prices for life-giving flour and barley. The provision of YHWH throughout the narratives—by ravens (1 Kgs 17:6), widows (17:16), rain (18:45), springs of water (2 Kgs 2:22), pools of water (3:20), jugs of oil (4:5–7), stew pots (4:41), and multiplying bread and grain (4:44)—will be, according to the oracle, repeated here for Samaria. Unfortunately, the scene does not end there. The king’s captain questions the reliability of Elisha’s oracle pronounced in the name of YHWH: ‫הנה יהוה עׂשה ארבות בׁשמים‬ ‫היהיה הדבר הזה‬ Look! Even if YHWH makes windows in the sky, Could this word happen? (v. 2a)

For his part, Elisha will not allow anyone to question his authority. He immediately pronounces another oracle, but this time it is not from YHWH, but only from his own mouth:

136.  I am reminded of Elijah’s question to YHWH about the death of the widow’s son in 1 Kgs 17:20, “Is it truly against the widow, with whom I have been residing? Did you do evil by killing her son?” The response of YHWH in that episode of raising up the boy does not effectively answer the question one way or the other.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

173 ‫הנכה ראה בעיניך‬ ‫ומׁשם לא תאכל‬

Look! You’re about to see it with your eyes, But you won’t eat any of it! (v. 2b)

There are now two oracles within the story, one from YHWH and one from Elisha, one promising abundance and one promising refusal. At this point, Elisha drops out from the narrative and only his words (those from YHWH and those from his own self) are present, driving the plot and bringing about the expected outcome. Four lepers turn the tragedy of the situation into a comedy not only by bringing out the promised abundance, but through their own comedic actions.137 Because of the four lepers’ own desperation, they turn themselves over to the Syrians, only to find that they have mysteriously left their camp (vv. 3–7). The lepers begin by enjoying the riches found in the camp, but then, gripped by guilt, they report the empty camp to the gatekeepers, who in turn report it to the king. While the king is suspicious of the situation, eventually it is revealed that the army has actually fled and the camp is the people’s own for the taking. The story comes to a possible end with v. 16: ‫ויצא העם ויבזו את מחנה‬ ‫ ארם ויהי סאה־סלת בׁשקל וסאתים ׂשערים בׁשקל כדבר יהוה‬/ “And the people went out and plundered the camp of the Arameans. And a measure of fine meal was worth a shekel and two measures of barley were worth a shekel, according to the word of YHWH.” The episode ends with plenty, with abundance, and with a focus on YHWH who caused it to happen. It is a satisfying and affirming close to the episode. It is not, however, the final ending. Instead, the narrator, in a repetitive and lengthy review that contrasts in its style with the much more economical pace of the story, ends the episode by focusing on the death

137.  Bergen notes, “The tale of the lepers, while initially tragic, quickly becomes comic and even humorous. The plight of the lepers dominates the beginning of the scene (vv. 3–4), their greed dominates the middle (v. 8), and their report dominates the end (vv. 9–10). In between the first two sections, the story of YHWH’s deliverance lies almost buried. The flight of the Aramean army is merely a piece of background information that allows the story of the lepers to move from tragedy to comedy” (Elisha, 144). The confusion and flight of the army is not, technically, wrought by ‫ יהוה‬/ “YHWH” but rather by ‫ אדני‬/ “Adonai” (v. 6). The switch does not, of course, imply a different deity. It does, however, highlight the almost complete absence of “YHWH” as an active character (as opposed to being a mere subject of speech) anywhere in the Elisha narratives.

174

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

of the captain. The episode has another satisfying ending with v. 17: ‫והמלך‬ ‫הפקיד את־הׁשליׁש אׁשר־נׁשען על־ידו על־הׁשער וירמסהו העם בׁשער וימת כאׁשר‬ ‫ דבר איׁש האלהים אׁשר דבר ברדת המלך אליו‬/ “Now, the king had stationed the captain on whose hand he leaned at the gate. The people trampled him in the gate and he died according to the word of the man of God which he spoke when the king came down to him.” But even this is not good enough, it seems, for the narrator. The entire scene of 7:1–2 is rehearsed, word for word, until the final point is made: ‫ ויהי־לו כן‬/ “This is what happened to him” (v. 20a). But even this does not suffice! The episode ends with a third repetition of the death of the captain: ‫ וירמסו אתו העם בׁשער וימת‬/ “the people trampled him in the gate and he died” (v. 20b). A story of YHWH’s provision of abundance is completely overshadowed by an ending that replays three times the death of a person who doubts Elisha’s oracular ability. What does this ending mean? How does it function as an appropriate ending of the episode? Most commentators draw the conclusion that the story as a whole teaches the reader not to doubt the word of a prophet. Provan sees the interpretation in this way: “The skeptical officer—ironically stationed at the very gate where he had anticipated seeing no trade (v. 2)—is trampled in the scramble to acquire goods (vv. 17–20), fulfilling Elisha’s prophecy that he would not share in the bounty. He has stood in the way of God’s salvation, as kings and their officials often do in these Elisha stories, and he has died in a rush of judgment, a mocker of God’s prophet (cf. 2 Kgs 2:23–25).”138 Yet two things argue against this simple explanation. First, the story has gone out of its way to cause us, the readers, to question the motivation and status of Elisha in the midst of the horrible, months-long descent into pitiable chaos. We ourselves wonder why and how Elisha has or has not affected the misery of the city, of the king, of the desperate woman.139 We might, therefore, feel a certain empathy for the captain and his uncertainty. 138.  Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 202. 139.  Within his discussion of this episode, Bergen notes that the reader may question the compassion of YHWH in allowing things to get so bad within the city without rescuing them earlier: “It is the king that comes off rather well in this narrative, and consequently both Elisha and YHWH are shown in a less positive light. Even when YHWH is shown as the deliverer of Israel, he is shown as inactive until cannibalism breaks out, until the king forces Elisha to act. YHWH as deliverer is also hidden both by chronological displacement and by narrative placement in the middle of a comic interlude” (Elisha, 146). This may be true if the purpose of this story, or indeed of all the Elijah and Elisha narratives, is to present and explain the way that YHWH directs and impinges upon the life of Israel. In such a case, the inactivity

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

175

Second, the very fact of the long, drawn-out, repetitive scenes of the captain questioning and getting crushed by the people seem overblown, compared with the laconic nature of the storyline otherwise. It is almost as if the narrator—by providing several satisfying endings to the episode, the life-giving one mentioning the word of YHWH, and the three deathdealing ones highlighting the word of Elisha—draws our attention not to the question of the officer, but to his cruel and all-too-human slaughter. Perhaps the parallel with the fate of the Bethel children provided by Provan above is not misplaced. Bad things happen to those to stand up to Elisha, but this certainly does not mean that he is always a faithful representative of YHWH, or that he is unquestioningly the Mosaic prophet. By no means. If prophecy, as a phenomenon, cannot stand up to honest questioning, then it may be more hazardous than it is beneficial.140 3. Elisha’s Fame and the Land of the Shunammite Woman—2 Kings 8:1–6 The following story brings back one of the previous characters in the Elisha narratives. The Shunammite woman was portrayed in 2 Kgs 4 as a powerful person, both in terms of her economic independence (4:8, 13) but, even more, in terms of her force of character. She presents herself in the two narratives in which she plays a part in thoroughly positive terms: generous, hospitable, realistic, eloquent, circumspect, humble, cautious, forthright, decisive, compassionate, and loving to her family. She is, as Nelson points out, “one of the Old Testament’s most attractive characters.”141 This earlier portrayal might have been used as a foil for the present story in ch. 8, but it is not. There is nothing in this story of her sojourn and her return to indicate that she is otherwise than she was previously. She remains obedient, decisive, and persuasive.142 of YHWH is, indeed, dreadful and worthy of condemnation in light of the circumstances of Samaria during the siege. But, particularly within the Elisha narratives, the narratives do not answer the question: How does YHWH act in the world? Rather, the narratives are a response to the question: How do we know how YHWH acts in the world, if the primary means of ascertaining the answer is through a prophet’s words and actions? The focus is always upon Elisha, questioning whether he is a true Mosaic prophet and how either other characters in the story or we readers ourselves are able to adjudicate the answer by reference to the Deuteronomic Torah. The topic is prophecy as a phenomenon, not the activity of YHWH in the world. 140.  The law of the prophet in Deut 18 itself both entertains and encourages the questioning of prophetic signs and oracles. 141.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 172–73. 142.  Although I find Bergen’s insight into the stories of Elisha persuasive and instructive most of the time, his discussion of this story seems to fall flat. He sees significant and ominous gaps and lacunae in the story where I simply see a laconic

176

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The king, again undoubtedly presented as Jehoram in the world of the narrative cycle, appears as he does elsewhere: an all-too-human political leader who can be rash (6:31), but is primarily a YHWH worshiper who cares for his people, who attempts to care for their needs and concerns, and who respects the prophet Elisha while simultaneously is willing to direct and press him into action. He is not described, either previously or in this episode, as a negative or evil king. Jehoram’s character remains the same. Even the character of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, does not appear out of place in the narrative. In spite of the fact that the last time we saw him, he had contracted the leprosy of Naaman (5:27), it is clear that in the world of Deuteronomy and of the History as a whole leprosy is not regarded as a social stigma in the way depicted in the Levitical legislation.143 Although the major story concerning him shows him as greedy (5:20–27), for the most part Gehazi has been portrayed as a loyal, protective, obedient servant of Elisha.144 This is precisely the type of person who could regale the king with various stories concerning the prophet. Of course, the one character mostly missing from the episode is Elisha himself.145 The prophet only appears explicitly in the first verse, when and focused style of storytelling. This is, perhaps, because his overarching theme is to see Elisha as a negative character, signaling the end of “prophetism” (as opposed to being an ambiguous character who reflects an ongoing ambivalent attitude toward the phenomenon of prophecy, as I argue here). All stories about Elisha are assumed by Bergen to portray him in a critical, negative light. A primary point which Bergen tries to argue in this episode is that the Shunammite woman is portrayed as a wealthy person already in command of vast resources; her coming before the king and her being granted her land is not a case of “economic justice” but rather of using her influence to take what she has clearly not earned (Elisha, 153–54). On the contrary and particularly in light of the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of her in ch. 4, the narrator would have to signal her moral downfall explicitly, rather than subtly and tacitly. I, therefore, see her as the same, wonderful woman described in the previous stories. 143.  Even Gray, with his historical-critical concern for the historicity behind the text, recognizes that in these stories leprosy does not restrict one from living a normal life in society (I & II Kings, 526). 144.  This is, of course, assuming that the “servant” of Elisha (2 Kgs 4:12, 25, 38, 43; 5:20, 25; 6:15, 17; 8:4) is usually, if not always, identical with Gehazi. 145.  It is almost certain that the story does not assume the death of the prophet, as Gray suggests (I & II Kings, 525). Cohn, likewise, thinks that this episode “rounds off” the Elisha stories and is set in a time after the prophet’s death. Cohn sees this episode as ending the “main body” of Elisha narratives because those “later episodes disclose a rather different prophetic persona” (2 Kings, 55). While it is true that the remaining stories describe Elisha in highly ambiguous and even troubling terms, this

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

177

he commands the Shunammite woman to “Get up… Go…and sojourn wherever you can.” After this, he disappears from the episode with only the three other characters to speak about him. The focus, therefore, of the bulk of the episode is on the tradition about Elisha, rather than on the prophet himself. The episode begins with Elisha speaking with the Shunammite woman, who is identified specifically as ‫ האׁשה אׁשר־החיה את־בנה‬/ “the woman whose son he [Elisha] had caused to live” (v. 1), which will become a motif throughout the episode. It is not clear why she, above all other people, should be the recipient of Elisha’s particular attention. The speech is not made to the king or to all Israel. Perhaps we are to infer that because of her special relationship with Elisha, including her showing him hospitality and urging him to perform what was, by the account of Gehazi later in the episode, his greatest miracle, he instructs her in an effort to save her life: ‫קומי‬ ‫ולכי את וביתך‬ ‫וגורי באׁשר תגורי כי־קרא יהוה לרעב‬ ‫וגם־בא אל־הארץ ׁשבע ׁשנים‬ Get up! Go, you and your household! Sojourn wherever you can, because YHWH has called for a famine, and it will come upon the land for seven years!146 does not mean that he has not already been portrayed in similar ways throughout the cycle. The most natural narrative sense of the episode is that it occurs after the preceding story and before the following story. 146.  Cohn seems to argue that the announcement of the famine occurs before the previous stories: “Here again time proves supple in the hand of the biblical narrator as he shifts among various pasts until he arrives at the present. Beginning with reverse word order to denote a past perfect, he recalls an interchange between Elisha and the Shunammite woman” (2 Kings, 55). The “reverse word order,” however, does not indicate a past perfect, but is a normal way in which a new narrative, or even a new paragraph, is introduced in Hebrew storytelling, as in 1 Kgs 19:4; 21:12, 25; 2 Kgs 1:3; 2:7; 3:1, 4; 4:1, 31, 38, 42; 5:1; 6:8; and 7:3 (see Heller, Narrative Structure, 434–35). Provan argues that Elisha predicts the famine at the same time as the events of ch. 4: “We have already heard of a general state of famine in the land in 4:38, and we are presumably to understand, therefore, that the warning cited here was given to the woman around the same time that Elisha restored her son to life” (1 & 2 Kings, 207; see also Sweeney, I & II Kings, 316). The famine of 4:38, however, merely serves the narrative purpose of setting up the episode where the sons of the prophets hunt for gourds to make a stew. The famine, if the larger narrative sense of the cycle

178

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The announcement of the coming famine is similar to that proclaimed by Elijah in 17:1. In this case, however, Elisha does not cause the famine but rather, by his prescient knowledge, is aware of the immanent disaster. In both cases, nevertheless, the purpose or reason or cause of the famine is not given; the famine simply will come. The length of the famine as seven years would, undoubtedly, completely undermine the economy and cause the deaths of most of the population.147 Therefore, the woman does just as Elisha instructs her (v. 2). She and her household stay in Philistia for the prescribed seven years. She returns after the seven-year period and goes to the king and cries out for justice, for the return of her house and her property because they had, evidently, been taken over by someone else.148 In the midst of the episode, in vv. 4–5a, participles mark simultaneously occurring actions, which form the primary focus of the episode: • The king is speaking with Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, asking him to tell him ‫ כל־הגדלות אׁשר־עׂשה אליׁשע‬/ “all the great works that Elisha did.” At the same time, • Gehazi is telling the king ‫ אׁשר־החיה את־המת‬/ “that he had caused the dead to live.” At the same time, • The woman, whose son Elisha had caused to live, is ‫צעקת אל־המלך‬ ‫ על־ביתה ועל־ׂשדה‬/ “crying out to the king about her house and her property.” is to be trusted, does not last more than a year or is only restricted to a relatively small area; it does not appear to be in place when the farmer brings his crops to Elisha (4:42), or when Naaman comes for healing, or when a feast is prepared for the Syrian army in Samaria (6:23). The “famine” mentioned in 6:25 is restricted to the city of Samaria itself as a consequence of the siege; it clearly does not affect the Syrian army outside (7:8). 147.  Bergen (Elisha, 150) notes that the prediction parallels the story of Joseph in Gen 41. Joseph uses his special knowledge and wisdom to instruct the Pharaoh on a plan of action to ameliorate the devastation of the coming famine. Elisha, here, does not do similarly. His best advice to the woman is simply to leave. 148.  It is not clear who has done this. Nelson proposes that the king might either have taken it or is holding it in trust (First and Second Kings, 192). This may be the presupposition of the text, since he easily restores her land at the end, but nothing nefarious is inferred by his taking the land, as with the story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kgs 21.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

179

The confluence of the three events provides the narrative center that enables the resolution of the complication of the woman’s situation. In the midst of the general activity, Gehazi recognizes her and tells the king that this is the very woman, ‫ וזה־בנה אׁשר־החיה אליׁשע‬/ “and this is her son whom Elisha caused to live!” (v. 5b). The king questions her directly and she tells him that this is true, as well. As a result, the king assigns her a eunuch and makes a proclamation as the climax of the episode. Nothing follows the statement, and so the episode’s point is to be found precisely here. The proclamation is a gracious act of benevolence and generosity on the part of the king toward this woman who, herself, had shown benevolence and generosity to Elisha beforehand. The proclamation, however, also has the unintended effect of undermining the entire scene: ‫הׁשיב את־כל־אׁשר־לה‬ ‫ואת כל־תבואת הׂשדה‬ ‫מיום עזבה את־הארץ ועד־עתה‬ Restore everything that she had And all of the income from the property from the time when she abandoned the land until now.

She had merely asked for the return of her house and her property. The king, however, indicates that for the entirety of the past seven years the property has been producing sufficiently to create revenue. He also indicates that he understands her leaving as not being under duress, but rather that she simply ‫ עזבה‬/ “abandoned” the property seven years ago and has just now returned. What had been going on for the past seven years while she and her household had been in Philistia? Clearly no famine had struck at least her property, or from the dispositions of Gehazi and the king, the nation as a whole. In a rhetorical move similar to the episode of the expedition against Moab, the narrator leads us through the plot, step by step, causing us to assume that we understand exactly what is happening and how and where the plot will be resolved. Then, the final verse, even the final clause, overturns everything and calls into question the very word of Elisha that seems, at first, to provide salvation but winds up to be an unreliable assessment of the situation. In the episode, the king appears in a positive light, granting the justice that the woman asks for. Gehazi also appears in a positive light, recounting the various great deeds of his master. The woman also appears in a positive light, obedient and also eloquent and forthright for her desires. The character of Elijah, however, appears

180

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

ambiguously, both clearly as the one who can restore the dead to life, but simultaneously as the one who directs people to actions based on his far from accurate prophetic knowledge. 4. Elisha and the Death of Ben-Hadad—2 Kings 8:7–15 The final two episodes in this section remind the reader of plans proclaimed long ago—the instructions of YHWH to Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:15–17: ‫ויאמר יהוה אליו‬ ‫לך ׁשוב לדרכך מדברה דמׂשק‬ ‫ובאת ומׁשחת את־חזאל למלך על־ארם׃‬ ‫ואת יהוא בן־נמׁשי תמׁשח למלך על־יׂשראל‬ ‫ואת־אליׁשע בן־ׁשפט מאבל מחולה תמׁשח לנביא תחתיך׃‬ ‫והיה הנמלט מחרב חזאל ימית יהוא‬ ‫והנמלט מחרב יהוא ימית אליׁשע׃‬ YHWH said to [Elijah], “Leave! Go back on your journey toward the desert of Damascus! Go in and anoint Hazael as king over Syria! And anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel! And anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place! It will be that the one who escapes from Hazael, Jehu will kill, And the one who escapes from Jehu, Elisha will kill.”

As opposed to the political system that was in place at the time—including the syncretism of Baal–YHWH worship sponsored by the queen, Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:31–33; 18:19), and a clearly unjust overreach by the palace, including excessive land-grabs, conspiracy, slander, and murder (19:2; 21:1–16)—YHWH had commanded Elijah to be instrumental in transforming the context into one where justice would be cooperative between the nations of Syria and Israel, and he himself would be replaced in his role with a prophet who would also join in the league to bring justice. Unfortunately, Elijah did not travel to Damascus to fulfill the first of the commands, nor to Samaria to fulfill the second. Because of his desire at the time to forsake his prophetic office (1 Kgs 19:3–4, 10, 14), he immediately went to Abel-meholah and passed (or, rather, threw) his mantel of office to Elisha (19:19). Elisha, for his part, did not, in fact, take up the office of prophet but, instead, became Elijah’s servant (19:21). Elijah remained as a prophet and continued his prophetic activity, sometimes following the Deuteronomic Torah by pronouncing judgments upon Ahab and Jezebel (21:20–24), encouraging repentance (21:27–29), and drawing the attention of the king to YHWH as the true and rightful deity of

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

181

Israel (2 Kgs 1:3–4). Sometimes, however, he seemed intent on drawing attention to himself and to cause death and destruction to any who insulted him (1:9–14). The nations of Syria and Israel continued in their present trajectories and, instead of cooperating in a mutual system of justice, have waged war against each other, usually initiated by Syria (1 Kgs 20:1–12, 23–34; 22:1–4, 29–40; 2 Kgs 5:1; 6:8–14, 24). In the intervening period, however, not everything was bad. After the death of Ahaziah, Jehoram removed the sacred pillar, used in the worship of Baal, from Samaria, which Ahab and Jezebel had erected (2 Kgs 3:2; 1 Kgs 16:32–33). He never sought aid from any deity except YHWH, seemed to be aware of the influence—sometimes positive, sometimes negative––of YHWH upon his life and upon the life of Israel, and generally respected the person, miracles, and advice of Elisha as the prophet of YHWH.149 In short, under Jehoram, Israel has become a thoroughgoing Yahwistic nation, with no hint of Baal worship recorded anywhere.150 With this background, it is surprising that Elisha takes the initiative, at the end of Ben-hadad’s life, finally to go to Damascus to fulfill the command that YHWH had given to Elijah so long before.151 There is no introduction to the episode detailing how YHWH tells Elisha to go to Damascus, nor is there any previous episode revealing that Elijah instructed Elisha to take up the cause of becoming the catalyst for a political insurrection. In short, it is not clear at all that Elisha’s trip to Damascus was directed by YHWH directly or even indirectly.152 In light of the previous instructions to Elijah 149.  He does, of course, threaten Elisha’s life rashly in 2 Kgs 6:31, but immediately recants of the action. 150.  The narrator, however, judges him negatively in the end because of his support of the national shrines at Dan and Bethel (2 Kgs 3:3). With this litmus test, however, none of the kings of the North are accredited as good. The fact, therefore, that the narrator judges him as doing “evil in the sight of YHWH, though not like his father and mother” (3:2) counts a great deal in his favor! 151.  Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor consider this story and 1 Kgs 19:15–18 to be completely independent narratives with no relationship between them; see II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 92. This may be true in their originating historical context, assuming that the stories are based on oral or independent traditions before their being combined into their present cycles. As they stand, however, it is difficult not to make the connection. 152.  Cohn hints at such a view: “Interestingly, it was not Elisha but Elijah who was ordered to anoint Hazael king of Aram and Jehu king of Israel (1 Kgs 19:15–18). Why does Elisha and not Elijah carry out these divinely ordained commandments? Nowhere does YHWH specifically transfer this responsibility to Elisha, nor does Elijah ever speak of the matter to his disciple” (2 Kings, 59).

182

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

long, long ago, it may be that Elisha sees himself as the “new Elijah” and therefore must fulfill Elijah’s commission, even in spite of the very, very different political, social, and religious context. Elisha does not, however, seek out Hazael to anoint him; he seems to be staying in the city long enough for word to reach Ben-hadad about his presence (8:7).153 The king sends a messenger to inquire of YHWH, through Elisha, about the outcome of his illness. The scene is strongly reminiscent of Ahaziah’s (a king of Israel) sending messengers to Ekron to inquire of Baal-zebub (a foreign deity) about the outcome of his illness in 1 Kgs 1:2. How things have changed! Now, not only does the king of Israel appreciate and respect the prophet Elisha, but even the king of Israel’s military enemy does as well!154 One wonders how Elisha might have traded on the respect and good-will granted to him from Ben-hadad to affect the wars and confrontations—and suffering on both sides— between the two nations. But that is another story, not the one that plays out in this plot. Ben-hadad sends a messenger, Hazael, to inquire of YHWH by Elisha in order to know the outcome of his illness. He orders him to take a ‫ מנחה‬/ “present” to the man of God as a sign of respect.155 Hazael obeys the king’s orders—he goes to meet him and he takes a present––but the narrator adds the detail that what Hazael actually takes is “all the good things of Damascus, forty camel load’s worth” (v. 9). Such a procession was not mentioned by the king and, in fact, would have put to shame the treasure that Naaman brought to him (5:5). It is likely that the extravagant procession was an addition that was done on Hazael’s own initiative.156

153.  Elijah, likewise, did not “anoint” Elisha to be a prophet in his stead, but rather simply threw his mantle at him (1 Kgs 19:19). 154.  Bergen, in an attempt to call into question the previous friendly association that Elisha has had with the king of Israel, notes that in this story “Elisha’s actions are taking on a very Elijah–like character”—meaning, I assume, that Elijah’s “mission was always political, in the sense that it involved confrontation with kings” (Elisha, 155–56). Yet, Elisha does not go to Damascus in order to confront Ben-hadad; it seems as if the king of Syria also has a respectful relationship with the prophet. Furthermore, while it is true that Elijah strongly denounced Ahab and Jezebel for their atrocities, and Elisha seems to be on very friendly terms with Jehoram, the two kings are far from similar. A single-platform, condemnatory approach toward the monarchy seems not to be necessary, practical, or, in fact, Deuteronomic. 155.  HALOT, s.v. ‫מנחה‬. 156.  Bergen, Elisha, 156–57.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

183

When Hazael arrives and stands before Elisha, he does not follow the normal script for a messenger. Instead of simply repeating the message that he had been given (as in 1:2; 5:8, 10; 6:9, 10), Hazael draws attention to himself as the bearer of the message: ‫בנך בן־הדד מלך־ארם ׁשלחני אליך‬ ‫ לאמר האחיה מחלי זה‬/ “Your son, Ben-hadad, the king of Syria, sent me to you to say, ‘Will I recover from this my illness?’ ” While the plot of the episode requires that Hazael be the one chosen as a messenger for the king, the extravagant gift along with the unusually phrased introductory formula indicates that he sees himself as a rather important, indeed selfimportant, messenger. The message which Elisha gives to his inquiry has caused much discussion. There is a discrepancy between the text that is written (the ketib) and the way in which the Masoretes have directed that the text be read (the qere). Bergen explains the problem: The reply of Elisha is muddled by an interesting qere-ketib difference (v. 10). The qere reads ‫לו‬, and would translate “say to him, ‘You will indeed recover…’ ” The ketib is ‫ לא‬and would translate “say, ‘You will not recover…’ ” Either reading produces a text which makes sense, but the qere is the one that introduces the conflict in the story, and makes sense of v. 11. Given the manuscript evidence, it is likely that the ketib is “a late scribal alternation of MT which sought to avoid implicating Elisha in falsehood.”157

The choice of reading with the qere is strengthened by the fact that, in the Enneateuch (Genesis–2 Kings) the imperative of ‫ אמר‬/ “say!” is overwhelmingly followed by a preposition; in the Tetrateuch (Genesis– Numbers) it is usually ‫ אל־‬/ “to” and in Deuteronomy and the History it is usually the alternative ‫ ל‬/ “to”158 Finally, if the message truly were “You shall indeed not live,” one would normally expect the following clause to be headed by a ‫כי־‬, meaning “…because YHWH showed that he would 157.  Ibid., 157; quotation from Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 78. See also Nelson, First and Second Kings, 193; Gray, I & II Kings, 530. Fritz sees the qere as the correct version, but also deletes vv. 10b–13 from the story as “full of contradictions and inconsistencies” and “does not add anything to the narrative sequence of vv. 7–10a, 14–15” (1 & 2 Kings, 274–75). Kissling (Reliable Characters, 169) is certainly correct when he notes that such attempts to exonerate Elisha’s character “are particularly obvious examples of just how entrenched idealistic readings of Elisha are in the traditional scholarship on these narratives.” 158.  Gen 45:17; Exod 6:6; 7:19; 8:1, 12; 16:9; 33:5; Lev 21:1; 22:3; Num 14:28; 17:2; Deut 1:42; 5:30; 1 Sam 9:27; 1 Kgs 12:23; 18:8, 11, 14, 44; 2 Kgs 4:13, 26; 8:10.

184

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

indeed die.” The fact that the second clause is headed by a simple waw argues strongly that the second clause does not explain the message (“… because…”) but rather contrasts with it (“…but rather…”). Of course, the desire by the scribes and commentators to prefer the ketiv is tied directly with their desire not to have Elisha instruct Hazael to lie. This would, of course, be particularly important if the word of YHWH, or the word of Elisha, had always proven true; in that case, this would be an anomaly. However, as we have seen at least three times, the predictive words that Elisha speaks, either attributing them to YHWH or simply speaking them himself, have often proven less than reliable (3:18–19//3:27; 4:29//4:31; 8:1//8:6). It should, therefore, be no surprise that here, in dealing with Ben-hadad, Elisha himself not only provides a message that is not true, but instructs Hazael to state something that Hazael himself knows is not true.159 At this point it is not clear exactly why it is important that Ben-hadad believes, wrongly, that he will recover from the illness. In the previous episode, Elisha was described three times as one who can cause the dead to live. In this episode, while he declares a message of life to Ben-hadad, he refuses to cause him to live even in spite of the foreign king’s acknowledgment of YHWH and of Elisha as his prophet.160 Of course, if Elisha’s whole mission is to take up the assignment of Elijah (whether or not YHWH has actually directed him to do so), then the sick king cannot live; Hazael must do what needs to be done to fulfill the assignment. It is clear, to Elisha at least, that the king must die. Whether YHWH continues to want this is, of course, beside the point for Elisha. 159.  Bergen attempts to get around the incongruity by claiming that some readers will note that Elisha does not lie, he simply gives a command, and Hazael does not lie to Ben-hadad because he merely repeats what Elisha told him to say (Elisha, 159; see also Cohn, 2 Kings, 61). This is, however, splitting hairs. Elisha not only knows what YHWH has revealed to him (that Ben-hadad would die), but also tells Hazael what he knows. There is no getting around the fact that Elisha pronounces a lie in the name of YHWH, given through the mouth of Hazael. Sweeney (I & II Kings, 318) recognizes the deep theological problem with the scene: “Elisha’s instructions facilitate YHWH’s intentions to replace Ben Hadad with Hazael, insofar as it will make it easier for Hazael to kill Ben Hadad. Nevertheless, Elisha’s willingness to lie to Ben Hadad, even to facilitate divine purposes, raises questions as to whether or not statements made by the prophet may be taken as true (see Deut 18:9–22; 1 Kgs 13; 22). Ultimately, such a strategy suggests that even YHWH might be questioned (see 1 Kgs 22; cf. Job).” While I wholeheartedly agree that the text causes the reader to call into question the reliability of prophecy as a phenomenon in all cases, within the narrative I would question whether the “anointing” of Hazael was, in fact, YHWH’s intention. 160.  Sweeney, I & II Kings, 317.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

185

When Elisha begins to cry, Hazael asks why (v. 12a).161 Elisha then reveals what he has come to know and recognize in the man before him: Hazael will do unspeakable evil to the Israelites, including not only burning cities and killing young men, but slaughtering children and pregnant women, as well (v. 12). From what we know of Hazael’s pride and sense of self-importance it is clear to both Elisha and to us readers that his self-deprecating question, “But what is your servant, a dog, that I should do this great thing?” rings undoubtedly false (v. 13a).162 Hazael is quite certain that he is able to accomplish such a thing, with his access to unimaginable wealth. Only one thing stands in his way, of course: the king. And Elisha quickly sweeps this obstacle away: “YHWH showed me you, king over Syria!” (v. 13b). Suddenly, Elisha’s self-commissioned trek to “anoint” Hazael comes to its climax, and the previous three revelations from Elisha all make sense. First, the king must not fear for his life, but should believe that he is safe.163 Second, Hazael will, indeed, be in a position to produce nightmarish consequences among Israel. And third, putting those two pieces of information together, Hazael must take advantage of the situation and do away with Ben-hadad. When Hazael returns to the king, he repeats exactly what Elisha had told him, “You will indeed live!” (v. 14b). The episode quickly ends with Hazael suffocating the king and becoming king in his stead. 161.  The first two clauses of v. 11 (‫ )ויעמד את־פניו ויׂשם עד־בׁש‬are unclear. In light of the blatant lie that Elisha has just instructed Hazael to tell his king, along with the imparted knowledge that the king was to die, I might translate the clauses as, “And he [Hazael] made his face firm and set [it], until he [Elisha] was ashamed.” If this is somewhat close, the meaning would be that Hazael is not fazed in the least by either the treachery that Elisha is instructing him to perpetrate or by the knowledge that the king would die. Elisha, therefore, understands the cold-hearted and manipulative—as well as proud and self-important—person who stands before him; he therefore weeps. Perhaps he did not expect the new ruler to be a sociopath. Bergen suggests leaving the subjects ambiguous, as they are in Hebrew, following the NRSV (“He fixed his gaze and stared at him, until he was ashamed”; Elisha, 158). For further discussion, see Gray, I & II Kings, 531. 162.  Bergen, Elisha, 159; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 319. It is also sadly ironic that in the previous episode, Jehoram asks Gehazi to tell him about the ‫ הגדלות‬/ “great deeds” that Elisha had done, and Gehazi mentions among the greatest the resurrecting of a boy from death. Hazael, however, sees the slaughtering of children as ‫הדבר הגדול‬ ‫ הזה‬/ “this great thing.” 163.  Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 208: “The motivation for such a deception (‘You will certainly recover’) would presumably to be lull Ben-Hadad into a false sense of security so that Hazael can strike—a ploy that Hazael fully understands and acts out (vv. 14–15).”

186

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

How does this episode portray Elisha, the prophet? While it is true that YHWH had told Elijah to anoint Hazael to take the place of Ben-hadad, that was many years before and Elijah had failed to do as YHWH commanded. Things had changed quite a bit in both Israel and in Syria. The Baal cult has been dismantled in Israel, the king of Israel respects YHWH, shows reverence to Elisha, and seems genuinely to care for his people, not abusing his power but using it for their benefit.164 Also, the king of Syria himself, while still occasionally conducting war against Israel, seems to have given up his desire to capture and kill Elisha and respects him as well. Finally, it is clear that Hazael is now a proud, selfaggrandizing, dangerous upstart in the court of Ben-hadad. In spite of all these changes, does Elisha still believe that it would be best to have regime change in Syria? Will that serve the people of Israel, the people he has been called to guide and teach as the Mosaic prophet?165 Clearly not. By Elisha’s own admission, God has practically warned Elisha about the consequences of his actions by revealing three pieces of information if that plan is still put into effect: Ben-hadad, the king whose ear Elisha has, will die; Hazael will do unspeakable evil against Israel; and he will further become king of Syria. The picture is of anything but a harmonious league. Elisha, however, does not take these things as warnings, but rather as instructions, distressing as they are to him. He trudges onward, fulfilling the instructions given to Elijah so long ago. And, tragically, by lying and causing others to lie, Elisha sets into motion events that will come to fruition after many years to come (10:32; 12:17–18; 13:3–7).166

164.  This is not to say that no one in Israel worships Baal. Jezebel is still alive (perhaps under house arrest; 9:30–33) and, as will become clear, a few prophets of Baal are living covertly in the capital (10:18–24). But these are aberrations that have had no place in the official religious or political realm of Jehoram. 165.  Nelson suggests that the succession of Hazael “has been used to advance God’s purpose… But what a terrible purpose!” (First and Second Kings, 194). While such imagery is used in the Latter Prophets to threaten (Isa 13:16, 18; Hos 14:1), it is not clear how, in the present context, such consequences are justifiable (e.g., Amos 1:3, 13). 166.  Lying prophets have been used before by YHWH to ensnare Ahab and bring about his death (1 Kgs 22:5–24; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 193). In the case of this episode, however, Elisha’s lie will lead to the slaughter of innocent women and children, a very different consequence. Bergen (Elisha, 158): “The death of kings and evil queens is one matter, but the murder of children and pregnant women moves well beyond the bounds of simple punishment.”

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

187

5. Elisha and the Instigation of Jehu’s Coup—2 Kings 9:1–13 Before the episode of Elisha’s instigation of Jehu’s mass execution of the entire family of Jehoram, 2 Kgs 8:16–29 records two transitions in the royal family of Judah. Interestingly, the transitions have close narrative echoes to previous episodes in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The accession of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat of Judah occurs during the reign of the present king of Israel, Jehoram (also named Joram) the son of Ahab of Israel (8:16).167 Not only does the southern king share the name of the Northern king, but he is evaluated in similar phrases as the Northern king: ‫וילך בדרך מלכי יׂשראל כאׁשר עׂשו בית אחאב‬ ‫כי בת־אחאב היתה־לו לאׁשה‬ ‫ויעׂש הרע בעיני יהוה‬ He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just like the house of Ahab had done, because the daughter of Ahab became his wife. He did evil in the sight of YHWH. (v. 18)

While Jehoram/Joram of Israel’s regnal notice evaluates him as “doing evil” because he does not do away with the national shrines at Dan and Bethel (“the sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat”), the narrator does praise him for removing the pillar of Baal which Ahab had made, thus undermining the worship of Baal during his reign (3:1–3). Jehoram/Joram of Judah, however, receives no praise. He simply does evil. Ironically, the son of Ahab seems to receive a better evaluation from the narrator than the son of Jehoshaphat (the son of David). Moreover, upon his acceding to the throne of Judah, Jehoram/Joram of Judah deals with a rebellion of a vassal state, Edom. He goes out at night and attempts an attack but, in the end, fails and has to retreat (vv. 20–22). This, of course, closely parallels the failed attempt of Jehoram of Israel, who immediately after his accession to the throne (3:1–3) deals with the

167.  The changing of the name of the Northern king, Jehoram, to “Joram” is undoubtedly not to minimize confusion during this synchronous time. The Northern king is named “Joram” in 8:16, 25. But the Southern king is named “Jehoram” in 8:16, but then switches to “Joram” starting v. 21, but then switches back to “Jehoram” in v. 25. Although the changes may reflect earlier regnal traditions that have been incorporated into the larger History, by retaining the confusing spellings the narrator forces the reader to focus on the similarities and differences between the two kings and the two nations.

188

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Moabite rebellion (vv. 4–6), which also completely fails unexpectedly and ends in a retreat (v. 27). Upon Jehoram of Judah’s death, his son, Ahaziah, succeeds him. This name, also, is an echo of the predecessor to Jehoram of Israel (1 Kgs 22:51–53; 2 Kgs 1:1–18). The two Ahaziahs also receive very similar evaluations (1 Kgs 22:52; 2 Kgs 8:27). One final echo must be mentioned before discussing the episode of ch. 9. Jehoram/Joram of Israel goes out to fight a battle against the newly crowned king of Syria, Hazael, taking his cousin Ahaziah of Judah and his troops with him (8:28). During the course of the battle, Jehoram/Joram is wounded and returns to Jezreel in order to heal. The battle is fought by a group of commanders, among whom is Jehu son of Nimshi. The site of the battle is Ramoth-gilead, the place where Ahab and Jehoshaphat had previously fought against Ben-hadad in 1 Kgs 22. The centerpiece of the narrative of that previous battle is a scene where it is not clear who speaks the word of YHWH from among a group of prophets (1 Kgs 22:5–28).168 The question of how YHWH communicates the divine will, and how to adjudicate any message that a prophet claims to come from YHWH, will also be a central aspect of the episode of the anointing of Jehu as king of Israel. Having discussed the transitional stories in 2 Kgs 8:16–29, I will now turn to the primary episode of this section, Elisha and the instigation of Jehu’s Coup (2 Kgs 9:1–13). In the last episode in which we saw Elisha, he attempted to fulfill the commission given to Elijah to anoint Hazael, even though it was not clear whether that commission had been extended to him either by Elijah or by YHWH. The original charge to anoint Hazael and Jehu was meant to bring about some sort of harmony between the two nations in their unified execution of justice, a justice in which Elisha himself was to take a part (1 Kgs 19:15–17). Even though a great deal of time and change had occurred since then, Elisha attempts to carry out the order given to Elijah, but realizes in the midst of his carrying out his plan that, not only would justice not be the outcome in this case, the accession of Hazael would cause unspeakable slaughter for the people of Israel (8:12). He does nothing, however, to stop or even minimize the damage, but allows Hazael to leave and perpetrate regicide and take the throne for himself. Almost immediately, Elisha’s actions lead to the near-death of his own king, Jehoram, by Hazael’s hand (8:28–29). 168.  As I mentioned in the previous chapter, I hope to discuss this important episode in an upcoming volume on the various “minor” named and unnamed prophets in the history, besides Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

189

Even in spite of the miserable outcome of his “anointing” of Hazael in the previous episode, Elisha seems intent to carry out Elijah’s commission with Jehu, the general of Israel’s army, as well. In this episode, however, Elisha only initiates the action; he does not actively bring it about.169 He calls one of the sons of the prophets in order to send him as a messenger to the general of the Israelite army. As we have seen before, the sons of the prophets are never portrayed in positive terms in the Elisha narratives. They appear as a troubling, disobedient, destitute, petulant, helpless, simpleminded, and childish group of hangers-on around Elisha (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1). They have almost no existence outside of his guidance.170 In the introduction of this episode, the presence of one of the sons of the prophets already heightens the reader’s suspicion about what this messenger might say or do.171 Elisha gives him specific instructions: ‫חגר מתניך‬ ‫וקח פך הׁשמן הזה בידך‬ ‫ולך רמת גלעד׃‬ ‫ובאת ׁשמה וראה־ׁשם יהוא בן־יהוׁשפט בן־נמׁשי‬ ‫ובאת והקמתו מתוך אחיו‬ ‫והביאת אתו חדר בחדר׃‬ ‫ולקחת פך־הׁשמן ויצקת על־ראׁשו ואמרת‬ ‫כה־אמר יהוה‬ ‫מׁשחתיך למלך אל־יׂשראל‬ ‫ופתחת הדלת‬ ‫ונסתה‬ ‫ולא תחכה׃‬ 169.  Gray, I & II Kings, 537: “It strikes one as remarkable in view of the emphasis on the commission to Elijah to anoint Jehu (I K. 19.16) that his successor Elisha plays such a minor part in the actual revolt. He does not even anoint Jehu personally, but is represented as sending one of his prophetic associates to do so (9.1–6, 11), and thereafter neither Elisha nor any of the prophets is ever mentioned in the actual coup d’état.” 170.  Bergen, Elisha, 163: “Verse 9.1 is not only the last mention of Elisha for a while, but the last time the sons of the prophets are mentioned in Genesis–2 Kings. It is somewhat surprising that they are mentioned in connection with the anointing of a new king. They have been generally apolitical until this point, being given an isolated existence on the margins of Israelite society. Their appearance here highlights their subsequent disappearance… Thus their story parallels Elisha’s and they seemingly cannot survive without his presence.” 171.  A suspicion, it should be noted, that is shared by other characters in the story (v. 11).

190

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha Do not delay. Take this flask of oil in your hand. Go to Ramoth-gilead. When you go there, search for Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi. Go in and make him get up from the midst of his companions (lit. “brothers”). Bring him into the inner chamber. Take the flask of oil, pour it on his head, and say, “This is what YHWH said: ‘I anoint you as king over Israel.’ ” Then open the door, Run away, And don’t hesitate. (vv. 1b–3)

Several aspects of the command are intriguing. There is a definite sense of urgency to the whole plan, beginning with “Do not delay!” and ending with “Run away, and don’t hesitate.” Also, in this case, unlike the “anointing” of both Elisha (1 Kgs 19:19) and Hazael (2 Kgs 8:13b), there is actually an anointing that occurs; oil is poured over the head of the designated king. Finally, and most fascinating, the anointing should occur completely in private and, specifically, not in “the midst of his brothers.” In the Deuteronomic Torah that outlines the regulation of the king of Israel, the legislation states that Israel indeed should set up a king, but must ‫ מקרב אחיך תׂשים עליך מלך‬/ “place a king over you from the midst of your brothers” (Deut 17:15). While the context of the Deuteronomic tenet is prohibiting the setting up a foreign king, the phrasing is important. In the story of the anointing of David, the text is explicit that it took place ‫ בקרב אחיו‬/ “in the midst of his brothers” (1 Sam 16:13). On the other hand, the anointing of Saul occurred in private (1 Sam 9:27–10:1), which caused unmitigated trouble for the establishing of the Saulide monarchy.172 In the present scenario, as it is planned by Elisha, it will only be Jehu’s own word that will declare that YHWH has chosen him as the new king.173

172.  See Heller, Power, 102. Sweeney (I & II Kings, 333) understands the anointing of David to be, likewise, in secret, but this is contrary to the sense of the text. 173.  The reason for Elisha’s motivation for the secrecy is ambiguous. Perhaps he wants to stay as much out of the limelight as possible, especially in light of the previous fiasco with Hazael. On the other hand, it may be that, without his own presence to justify the anointing, no one may believe Jehu; Elisha may be able to fulfill the commission of Elijah, but not cause undue trouble or violence.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

191

The messenger is described as ‫ וילך הנער הנער הנביא רמת גלעד‬/ “The youth (the youth was the prophet) went to Ramoth-gilead” (v. 4). The text is difficult and several commentators amend the text in various ways to ameliorate the problem.174 However the text is dealt with, in its present state two things are emphasized: the youthfulness of the messenger, and the fact that this messenger is serving in the role of “the prophet” in the situation. This is not a seasoned, mature prophet. Not only is he from the “sons of the prophets,” but he is also one of the younger members of an already immature, childish group. He comes to a group of generals, who are all sitting together outside, and instead of calling on Jehu explicitly, he claims to have a message “for you, general.” This causes confusion, of course, and Jehu must ask about whom the boy is talking. Once the boy tells him and the two go inside a house alone, the boy pulls out the flask of oil, pours it on his head and speaks. The message that he is supposed to give is ‫כה־אמר יהוה מׁשחתיך‬ ‫ למלך אל־יׂשראל‬/ “This is what YHWH said: ‘I anoint you as king over Israel’ ” (v. 3a). What the boy prophet actually says is very, very close: ‫ כה־אמר יהוה אלהי יׂשראל מׁשחתיך למלך אל־עם יהוה אל־יׂשראל‬/ “This is what YHWH, the God of Israel, said: ‘I anoint you as king over the people of YHWH, over Israel” (v. 6b). The additions are clear and fill out the text by providing one appositive each for YHWH and for Israel. The boy prophet does well. He does well, except for the fact that he does not immediately open the door, run away, and not hesitate (v. 3b). Instead, he provides a long, additional coda to the original oracle (vv. 7–10a), an oracle that simply pronounced him as the new king. Commentators are split whether the appendix is a later addition or not.175 The addition to the oracle will 174.  BHS suggests deleting the first ‫( ַהּנַ ַער‬following the LXX and Syriac; thus, “The youth, the prophet, went…”) and/or changing the second instance to a construct noun, ‫“( נַ ַער‬The servant of the prophet went…”). Gray (I & II Kings, 539) suggests simply omitting the entire phrase, ‫הּנַ ַער ַהּנָ ִביא‬. ַ Sweeney keeps the present text, but argues that the word ‫ הנביא‬/ “the prophet” functions adjectivally: “…‘the prophetic boy,’ or in more idiomatic English, ‘the young prophet’ ” (I & II Kings, 327–28). 175.  Representative of those who see it as a later addition to the text, see Gray’s discussion (I & II Kings, 541). For those who see the whole speech as original, see Hobbs, 2 Kings, 111. Ironically, Bergen’s stance on the issue is not only that they are original, but the discrepancy between Elisha’s pronouncement and the boy prophet’s version should be overlooked: “Often in Genesis–2 Kings the words of the messenger are longer than the original message we have recorded” (Elisha, 164). This is important for his overall argument because the words mirror those of Elijah, whom Bergen sees as a wholly positive character. Elijah’s words repeated

192

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

soon initiate a mass execution of an entire royal family that is unrivaled within the Hebrew Bible. The various clauses of the addition echo the earlier oracles leveled against Ahab and Jezebel in the aftermath of the conspiracy against and assassination of Naboth: ‫והכיתה את־בית אחאב אדניך‬ ‫ונקמתי דמי עבדי הנביאים ודמי כל־עבדי יהוה מיד איזבל׃‬ ‫ואבד כל־בית אחאב‬ ‫והכרתי לאחאב מׁשתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב ביׂשראל׃‬ ‫ונתתי את־בית אחאב כבית ירבעם בן־נבט וכבית בעׁשא בן־אחיה׃‬ ‫ואת־איזבל יאכלו הכלבים בחלק יזרעאל ואין קבר‬ You shall strike the house of Ahab, your lord. I will avenge the blood of my servants, the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of YHWH, from the hand of Jezebel. All the house of Ahab will be destroyed. I will eradicate any who piss against a wall, those belonging to Ahab— whether bound or free—in Israel. I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. And the dogs will eat Jezebel in the region of Jezreel, and no one will bury [her]. (vv. 7–10a)

The final three lines of the addition mirror the oracle given by Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:21–23: ‫והכרתי לאחאב מׁשתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב ביׂשראל׃‬ ‫ונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבעם בן־נבט וכבית בעׁשא בן־אחיה‬ ‫אל־הכעס אׁשר הכעסת‬ ‫ותחטא את־יׂשראל׃‬ ‫וגם־לאיזבל דבר יהוה לאמר‬ ‫הכלבים יאכלו את־איזבל בחל יזרעאל׃‬ I will destroy any who piss against a wall, those belonging to Ahab— whether bound or free—in Israel. I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam ben Nebat and like the house of Baasha ben Ahijah. in this context, therefore, must be true and appropriate. However, in a text whose central concern has been, for several chapters, the status of prophets and whether they are or are not declaring “the word of YHWH”––or are or are not being directed by YHWH––a discrepancy between the giving of an oracle and the repeating of the oracle is not negligible. This is particularly true in the present case, where the wiping out of the entire royal family is based, not on Elisha’s original oracle, but on the addition of “the youth, the youth who is the prophet.”

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

193

Because of the wrath that you have provoked and [Because] you made Israel to sin. Also, to Jezebel YHWH spoke: The dogs will eat Jezebel in the region of Jezreel.

The conclusion, therefore, parallels the earlier oracle given by Elijah. The first three lines, however, are much less clear as to their origin or purpose. The original oracles given against Ahab and Jezebel dealt specifically with the murder of Naboth, stealing his property, and with the general practice of idolatry. In the oracle given by the boy prophet, the introductory lines do two things: • First, they specify the wrong that “all of Ahab’s house” has committed. The unforgivable sin of the house of Ahab is the murder of the prophets and the murder of all the servants of YHWH; for these crimes the Omride dynasty will be destroyed. • Second, the oracle equates Jehu’s actions with those of YHWH—“You shall strike… I will avenge…”—and, further, ties those actions to the oracle pronounced against Ahab long ago: “… I will eradicate… I will make… Dogs will eat…”176 It is, of course, understandable that the young prophet might feel an urge to see the death of other prophets avenged and, therefore, his words might make a certain sense. They are, however, not from YHWH and are not applicable for the present context. Three features of the larger narrative lead me to see them as inappropriate. First, the oracles of Elijah cause Ahab (the one whom no one could match for evil: 1 Kgs 21:25–26) to repent. Immediately after the oracle, he tears his clothes, puts on sackcloth, fasts, and acts with kindness (v. 27).177 In light of this, YHWH recants of the disaster in his lifetime, but promises to keep the judgment until the time of his son (v. 28). This corresponds to the wider theology of Deuteronomy: repentance leads to a pardon of punishment and judgment.178 If this is true, then if the son of 176.  The NRSV makes the connection between Jehu’s actions and YHWH’s actions explicit: “You shall strike down the house of your master Ahab, so that I may avenge on Jezebel…” 177.  Understanding the phrase ‫ ויהלך אט‬not to mean that he “went about dejectedly” (NRSV) but that he “went about gently” or “kindly,” according to the meaning of ‫ אט‬elsewhere (2 Sam 18:5; Isa 8:6; Job 15:11). In other words, he was no longer cruel, but was kind. 178.  Deut 4:30–31; 30:1–4, 8–10.

194

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Ahab, Jehoram, likewise repents, then the punishment may be avoided again, at least for him and his people. Second, the only person in the royal house still alive who actively promoted the cult of Baal in the past and who perpetrated the murder of prophets and of innocent citizens is Jezebel. The narrator has been quite insistent from the beginning of the Elisha cycle that, while Ahab certainly participates in the cult before ch. 21, Jezebel is, throughout, the instigator and organizer of the idolatry and violence within the nation (18:4, 19; 19:1–2; 21 passim). In the aftermath of the death of Ahab, Ahaziah also consults foreign gods and practices idolatry, but he is judged and dies for his sin (2 Kgs 1:3–4, 16–17). Jezebel, alone, remains. Third, with the accession of Jehoram, Israel is in a very different state than it was under Ahab’s rule. The Baal cult is practically eliminated, Jezebel is contained, the king consults YHWH and no foreign god. Like his father Ahab, Jehoram has proven himself as one who is willing to tear his clothes, wear sackcloth (2 Kgs 6:30–31), and live a life of gentleness and kindness. It is, furthermore, highly telling that the story immediately before the accessions of Hazael and Jehu is the episode of the king, Gehazi, and the Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 8:1–6), a story that ends with a restoration of the woman’s goods in a display of justice, kindness, and generosity from the king.179 Jehoram is portrayed as the opposite of Ahab and Jezebel, who took from Naboth and killed him unjustly, cruelly, and selfishly. Yet the oracle as pronounced by the young prophet is heard by Jehu.180 Immediately after giving this much longer oracle, the boy prophet finally obeys Elisha’s instructions, opens the door and runs away. Jehu returns to his comrades and they ask, “Are you alright? Why did that 179.  With apologies to Shakespeare, one might allude to Antony’s speech (Julius Caesar, III ii 89–93): “Did this in Jehoram seem evil? When that the woman cried, Jehoram hath provided. Evil should be made of sterner stuff. Yet the young prophet says he was evil, And the young prophet is an honorable man.” 180.  Sweeney notes that, historically, “Jehu’s revolt had more to do with Israel’s deteriorating military position against Aram than it did with such issues of theology and justice, but the narrator ensures that the reader understand the issue precisely as a matter of theological justice by including these concerns” (I & II Kings, 333). I might say, on the other hand, that in light of the larger Elisha cycle, that the narrator ensures that the reader understand the issue precisely as a matter of theological (and/ or prophetic) injustice in light of the concerns of Deuteronomic theology.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

195

crazy man come to you?” (v. 11a). The men do not respect the presence of the boy, whether or not they recognize him as a prophet or just a messenger. Jehu does not, however, tell them what the boy prophet said. Instead he mocks the boy, even in spite of the fact that he assumes that he is a true prophet: ‫ אתם ידעתם את־האיׁש ואת־ׂשיחו‬/ “You all know the type and how they babble” (v. 11b). When they accuse him of dissimulation and ask him again (undoubtedly ready to mock the words of the boy), he tells them: ‫כזאת וכזאת אמר אלי לאמר‬ ‫כה אמר יהוה‬ ‫מׁשחתיך למלך אל־יׂשראל‬ Such and such he said to me: “This is what YHWH said: ‘I anoint you as king over Israel.’ ” (v. 12)

And suddenly the comrades no longer see this as babbling! They––his friends, his allies, who all together control the armies of Israel––suddenly see the oracle not only as not jabbering, but they claim to receive it as a divine word that gives Jehu authority to do whatever he chooses (along with their help). They therefore hurry (‫)מהר‬, spread their cloaks on the steps, and sound a trumpet to proclaim Jehu as the rightful, God-chosen king (v. 13). The narrator comes in, finally, and ends the episode by noting that ‫ ויתקׁשר יהוא בן־יהוׁשפט בן־נמׁשי אל־יורם‬/ “So Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi conspired against Joram” (v. 14a). The verb ‫“( קׁשר‬to conspire”) is used throughout the History in cases where treachery could or does lead to a usurper murderously, and unjustly, taking over the throne (1 Sam 22:8, 13; 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:9, 20; 2 Kgs 10:9; 12:21; 14:19; 15:10, 15, 25, 30; 16:16; 21:23). It is never used in a positive way for a legitimate transfer of power, even (as in the case of David taking over Saul’s throne) when it is divinely sanctioned. The details of the purge of Jehu are outside the concerns of this study.181 Three further oracular notices must be dealt with, however, before we end the discussion of this important episode. First, after the murder of Jehoram and after the death of Jezebel, the text provides versions of the previous 181.  For a splendid recent study of the ambiguous, ambivalent evaluation of Jehu in the text, see Lissa M. Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10), LHBOTS 478 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2007).

196

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

oracles pronounced by Elijah against Ahab and Jezebel in 1 Kgs 21. The death of Jehoram, the text notes, fulfills a version of the oracle spoken by Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:19: ‫אם־לא את־דמי נבות ואת־דמי בניו ראיתי אמׁש‬ ‫נאם־יהוה‬ ‫וׁשלמתי לך בחלקה הזאת‬ ‫נאם־יהוה‬ “I surely saw the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons yesterday.” ([This is an] oracle of YHWH.) “So I will repay you on this very plot of ground.” ([This is an] oracle of YHWH.) (2 Kgs 9:26)182

This version of the oracle is somewhat similar to the original, except for two important differences. The version is extremely insistent that this oracle is from YHWH, by repeating that fact twice. Also in this version, YHWH sees not only Naboth’s blood, but also the blood of his sons, whom—it is assumed––Jezebel (and Ahab) had murdered as well. The addition is important because it introduces the notion of descendants as victims of the original crime against Naboth. Although the original oracle only had Ahab as its subject, in the present oracle as such, it would seem poetic justice that Ahab’s son, Jehoram, should receive the punishment; sons were killed, sons receive judgment. The divine word has come to pass and is, therefore, fulfilled. Second, after the murder and mutilation of Jezebel, the text records a version of the earlier oracle of Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:23: ‫בחלק יזרעאל יאכלו הכלבים את־בׂשר איזבל׃‬ ‫והית נבלת איזבל כדמן על־פני הׂשדה בחלק יזרעאל‬ ‫אׁשר לא־יאמרו‬ ‫זאת איזבל‬ On the plot of ground of Jezreel the dogs will eat the flesh of Jezebel. The corpse of Jezebel will be like dung upon the field on the plot of ground of Jezreel. No one will ever say, “This is Jezebel.” (2 Kgs 9:36b–37)

182.  Because of the initial ‫אם־לא‬, this seems to be a fragment of an oath formula pronounced by YHWH.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

197

As with the previous example, this version is close to the original, but only in the first line. The version adds the image of her corpse being like dung and the fact that no one would be able to point out a particular grave site for the queen, although these facts can be somewhat implied by the original oracle. As with the previous example, the divine word of the oracle is carried out and fulfilled. However, it is vitally important to note that both oracles are pronounced, not by the narrator, but by Jehu himself and are used by him as legitimation for the murder and desecration of the corpses of Jehoram and Jezebel. In both cases, we discover after the fact that Jehu had been riding with Ahab in the aftermath of the Naboth murder and heard Elijah pronounce the oracles himself fourteen years previously (2 Kgs 9:25). The word of YHWH, therefore, does not miraculously come to pass by divine action and initiation. No, Jehu himself carries out the murders of Jehoram, Jezebel, the few prophets of Baal who remain, and is the catalyst for the extermination of the royal houses of both Israel and Judah in a direct effort to assure his own place as king. And he uses the divine oracles as legitimation to do so. In these instances, this is less a case of prophecy–fulfillment than it is a case of command–execution. Finally, at the end of the narrative of Jehu’s reign—a reign about which, although it lasts 28 years, the only episode that is related by the narrator consists of his slaughter of the hundreds of members of the royal house—the narrator reports that Jehu receives an oracle from YHWH: ‫יען אׁשר־הטיבת‬ ‫לעׂשות היׁשר בעיני ככל אׁשר בלבבי‬ ‫עׂשית לבית אחאב‬ ‫בני רבעים יׁשבו לך על־כסא יׂשראל‬ Because you have done well, by doing what was right in my eyes, according to everything that was in my heart (you dealt with the house of Ahab), your descendants to the fourth generation will sit upon the throne of Israel. (10:30)

The oracle sounds like a wonderful final acclamation of YHWH’s pleasure at the treachery, slaughter, and destruction of the house of Ahab. The source of the oracle, however, is not given. It is clearly not Elisha. The narrator does, explicitly claim that the oracle comes from YHWH. However, the narrator also literally frames the “oracle” by providing, before and after it, his own assessment of Jehu’s reign:

198

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha ‫רק חטאי ירבעם בן־נבט אׁשר החטיא את־יׂשראל‬ ‫לא־סר יהוא מאחריהם‬ ‫עגלי הזהב אׁשר בית־אל ואׁשר בדן׃‬ … ‫ויהוא לא ׁשמר ללכת בתורת־יהוה אלהי־יׂשראל בכל־לבבו‬ ‫לא סר מעל חטאות ירבעם אׁשר החטיא את־יׂשראל‬ However, the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin–– Jehu did not turn aside from them: The golden calves which were at Bethel and at Dan. … Jehu was not careful to follow after the Torah of YHWH, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin.

Jehu, the narrator assures us even in spite of the oracle, did not perform the will of YHWH. And, in this case, he is not judged as sinful merely because of his continuing the “sins of Jeroboam,” as is the case with practically all the Northern kings. In Jehu’s case the narrator inserts specifically Deuteronomic phrases: he was not careful to keep the Deuteronomic Torah with all his heart, the one thing that a divinely appointed king must do (Deut 17:19; see also 28:58; 30:10; 31:12; 32:46). In the end and even in spite of the oracle (which, contextually, only serves to heighten the overall negative assessment of his reign), the narrator tells us Jehu was not only as bad as every other Northern king, he particularly was the antithesis of what Deuteronomy requires of a political leader. Jehu’s reign, therefore, is interwoven with prophetic oracles: before, within, and after. In each case—the oracles from Elijah himself, from the boy prophet, from Jehu’s own mouth, and from the unnamed source— none of the oracles are unequivocal examples of true Deuteronomic prophetic declarations. All of them are complex, confusing, suspicious and, in the end, ambiguous. F. Elisha and Joash—2 Kings 13:14–19 In the final scene of Elisha’s life, the king of Israel, Joash the grandson of Jehu, comes to the prophet for help in the Syrian attacks initiated by Hazael and Hazael’s son, Ben-hadad (13:3).183 As Rachelle Gilmour has

183.  Not, of course, to be confused with the king of Syria whom Hazael assassinated. The fact that Hazael names his own son after the murdered king may be seen as an attempt to cover his crime with an honorific.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

199

noted, the previous regnal notice about Joash causes the reader to expect little from the king: The pericope in 13:10–13 is a Deuteronomic notice about King Joash which summarises his reign. This notice states unequivocally that Joash did evil in the eyes of the Lord and that he walked in the ways of Jeroboam. Indeed, he even named his son Jeroboam. The negative assessment of Joash sharply alters our reading of 13:14–19. We are now disposed to assume the worst in Joash…184

When, therefore, the king appears before the prophet of YHWH, the reader might believe that he is there to attack or kill the sick, old prophet. However, just the opposite is the case! The king comes before him, weeps, and entreats the elderly man in a humble manner: ‫אבי אבי רכב יׂשראל ופרׁשיו‬ My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen! (13:14)

The phrase is unusual and highly ambiguous. Elisha had said the exact same phrase immediately before Elijah was lifted into heaven (2 Kgs 2:12). Is Joash drawing a parallel between the two prophets, seeing that Elisha, himself, is nearing the end of his time on earth? Is he, perhaps, seeing himself as a possible successor to the elderly prophet?185 It was reported that his father, Jehoahaz, had his own army destroyed by Hazael (13:7). Is Joash pleading for the prophet to produce additional troops? Finally, the phrase is very similar to the vision that the servant of Elisha sees during the siege of Dothan, when Ben-hadad, the previous king of Syria, tries to capture Elisha: ‫והנה ההר מלא סוסים ורכב אׁש סביבת אליׁשע‬ And—wow!—the hills were filled with horses and chariots of fire surrounding Elisha! (6:17)

184.  Rachelle Gilmour, Juxtaposition and the Elisha Cycle, LHBOTS 594 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 201. 185.  Such a view is argued by Gilmour, who discusses the many parallels between the present episode and others in both the Elijah and Elisha cycles (Juxtaposition, 201–3). The notion is highly tantalizing. If such a view is entertained, Elisha firmly quashes any hope the king might have by his manipulation with the arrows at the end of the episode. Elisha will not have a successor.

200

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Perhaps Joash is pleading with Elisha to call upon the divine army which attends him to aid in the Syrian attacks. It is also possible that Elisha, himself, is known as the “chariots and horses of Israel”; Joash’s statement is, therefore, a series of three appositives, all naming Elisha.186 The phrase is ambiguous and the rest of the episode does not help adjudicate or resolve the uncertainty. What is, however, perfectly clear is that the stereo­typical judgment found in the regnal formula (13:11) does not accurately describe the king as he is portrayed in this episode, weeping and humbly pleading before the prophet whom he calls “my father.”187 In response to Joash’s pleading, Elisha instructs him to do several tasks, all of which the king does perfectly, reflexively, and immediately: ‫ויאמר לו אליׁשע‬ ‫קח קׁשת וחצים ויקח אליו קׁשת וחצים׃‬ ‫ויאמר למלך יׂשראל‬ ‫הרכב ידך על־הקׁשת וירכב ידו‬ ‫ויׂשם אליׁשע ידיו על־ידי המלך׃‬ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫פתח החלון קדמה ויפתח‬ ‫ויאמר אליׁשע‬ ‫ירה ויור‬ Elisha said to him, “Take a bow and arrows!” And he took a bow and arrows. And he said to the king of Israel, “Place your hand upon the bow!” And he placed his hand. And Elisha put his hands upon the hands of the king. And he said, “Open the window eastwards!” And he opened [it]. And Elisha said, “Shoot!” And he shot. (vv. 15–17a) 186.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 218. 187.  Jehoram, it will be remembered, is judged as “evil” in his stereotypical regnal notice, but he is portrayed positively in the episodes in which he appears. This is also true with Joash’s father, Jehoahaz (13:2, but note vv. 4–5), and his son Jeroboam II (14:24, but note vv. 25–27). See Gray (I & II Kings, 598) for a discussion of the positive portrayal of the king. Nelson discusses the complex editorial history that has been proposed to explain the disjunctions within 2 Kgs 13 (e.g., the mention of Jehoahaz in v. 22, after his death in v. 9; the death of Joash in v. 13, then coming to Elisha in v. 14, etc.). He notes, however, that when read synchronically as it stands, ch. 13 “exposes the interaction of human sin and divine grace worked out in a complex matrix of events” (First and Second Kings, 216). As such, perhaps the chapter is not so much about which events occurs after other events, but rather the ambiguity of the divine–human relationship itself.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

201

Deuteronomy makes very clear that the commands of the Prophet like Moses should be obeyed (Deut 18:19). This is a theme that we have seen numerous times in both the Elijah and Elisha cycles. And here, at the end of Elisha’s life, he meets one who obeys his word perfectly, better than even the sons of the prophets! In the midst of the ritual, Elisha places his hands over the hands of Joash. Unlike obedience, touch has not been a major motif in the stories of Elisha. Naaman, when he came to Elisha for healing, expected the prophet to ‫ והניף ידו אל־המקום‬/ “wave his hand at the place” of the leprosy, an expectation that the prophet does not fulfill (5:11). In only one story is Elisha’s touch the way in which a miraculous sign is accomplished: in the raising of the Shunammite woman’s dead son. In that episode, the attempt to accomplish the miracle by proxy is futile (4:29, 31). It is only by Elisha’s touching the boy—placing (‫ )ויׂשם‬his mouth upon the boy’s mouth, his eyes upon the boy’s eyes, and his hands upon the boy’s hands—that the miracle is eventually accomplished. In the present episode, when Elisha places (‫ )ויׂשם‬his hands upon Joash’s hands, we are prepared for a miracle that rivals the one of 2 Kgs 4. The entire sequence becomes a ritual, with Joash and Elisha manipulating items, that brings about the miracle of victory as sure as Elisha’s manipulating Elijah’s mantle (2:14), or the new bowl (2:20–21), or the flour (4:41), or the tree (6:6) brought about their respective miracles. As the arrow flies eastward, Elisha reinforces the triumph by pronouncing an oracle: ‫חץ־תׁשועה ליהוה וחץ תׁשועה בארם‬ ‫והכית את־ארם באפק עד־כלה׃‬ An arrow of victory for YHWH!188 An arrow of victory over Syria! You will strike Syria at Aphek until it is destroyed! (v. 17) 188.  It is undoubtedly no coincidence that here, in the last episode of his life, Elisha—whose name means “God saves”—pronounces salvation/victory from YHWH for Israel for the first and last time in his own cycle. The salvation that Elisha proclaims, however, is as quickly renounced as it was granted. As Bergen notes, “Hazael has continued to oppress Israel, as does his son Ben-Hadad (13.3), and a savior has arisen in the role that presumably should have been that of Elisha (13.4–5), but clearly is not” (Elisha, 167). One must also remember that is was Elisha, himself, that legitimized Hazael’s taking the throne and, thus, is the root cause of the nearly constant warfare that has occurred since his accession. In fact, once Elisha is no longer an active part of the larger narrative, the character of YHWH actively comes back into the plot, working for Israel’s victory and relief (13:4–5, 23; 14:25–27). Of course, that salvation would not ultimately prevail for the North.

202

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

The episode comes to a rousing, encouraging climax. The king, troubled but humble and respectful, had come to the prophet and pleaded for help. The prophet commanded him to do a series of actions, which he immediately and reflexively obeyed. The prophet confirmed the aid that will be given to the king by laying his hands on the king’s hands and by providing an oracle that assures not only that YHWH would provide victory, but also that the harassing Arameans would be completely destroyed by the king. This is not, however, the end (or the true climax) of the episode. Elisha, after the oracle of complete victory, begins a new round of commands: ‫ויאמר‬ ‫קח החצים ויקח‬ ‫ויאמר למלך־יׂשראל‬ ‫הך־ארצה ויך ׁשלׁש־פעמים ויעמד׃‬ And [Elisha] said, “Take the arrows!” And he took [them]. And he said to the king of Israel, “Strike the ground!” And he struck [it] three times and stopped.

Objectively, there is little difference between this round and the previous one, except for the possible exception that the king is exuberant and, instead of striking the ground just once as we might assume he was instructed, he strikes three times before he stops. Elisha immediately becomes angry and castigates the king: ‫להכות חמׁש או־ׁשׁש פעמים‬ ‫אז הכית את־ארם עד־כלה‬ ‫ועתה ׁשלׁש פעמים תכה את־ארם׃‬ [You were] to strike five or six times! Then you would have struck Syria until it was destroyed! But now, you will strike Syria three times!

The scene ends here, with Elisha pronouncing the last oracle that he speaks in the Bible, an oracle of incomplete, instead of total, victory.189 After the explicit instructions given throughout the ritual, and the king’s immediate 189.  Both oracles proclaim what would occur, both come from the initiative and the mouth of Elisha, and neither seem to be from YHWH. “Note that neither oracle is presented as a response by Elisha to a word from YHWH, but reads as an initiative of Elisha. This again calls into question whether Elisha is acting as messenger or as God” (Bergen, Elisha, 168). The oracle of partial victory is fulfilled in 13:25b.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

203

and exact obedience, one can imagine Joash’s frame of mind to this new, and final, speech by Elisha. If, as Deuteronomy says, obedience is the proper response to the Mosaic prophet, the king has performed admirably. Many commentators blame Joash, as Elisha does, for acting “perfunctorily, humouring the dying man rather than sharing his conviction… [I]n treating it lightly the king revealed himself as a materialist, whose vision was limited by mere political factors.”190 Yet none of this is even hinted at in the description of Joash throughout the episode. Bergen, I believe, echoes what most readers reasonably feel about the king and the prophet: I can easily imagine the king standing there in bewilderment, wondering how he was to know. Even in proclaiming victory, the narrative does not easily allow a fully sympathetic reading of Elisha. It would have been easy to suggest hesitancy or question on the part of the king, and allowed readers to fully blame the king for the incomplete victory of Israel over Aram. While it is still possible to blame the king, there remains the shadow of obedience without reward that lingers over the actions of the king.191

In his final appearance, Elisha does not proclaim a “God” who “saves.”192 By withdrawing miraculous help from Joash, Elisha brings about a situation in which the Syrians will continue to plague Israel through Hazael and, then, through his son, Ben-hadad, and eventually through Rezin. The undue influence of the Syrians upon Israel will lead, inevitably and inexorably, to their forming an alliance to throw off Assyrian hegemony (chs. 15–16), an action that quickly leads to the destruction of both Syria (16:9) and Israel itself (ch. 17).193

190.  Gray, I & II Kings, 599; see also Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 228: “he did not obey it enthusiastically enough”; Dillard, Faith, 150: “Perhaps he wasn’t convinced, or he doubted, or he lacked faith, or he found the whole procedure curious”; Cohn is in the minority in seeing Joash’s action as “innocent” (2 Kings, 88). 191.  Bergen, Elisha, 168. 192.  The name “Elisha” (‫ )אליׁשע‬means ‫ אל‬/ “God” ‫ יׁשע‬/ “saves”. This meaning of the prophet’s name forms the central message of Moore’s study, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories, a title that, in light of this study, I find more ironic than reassuring. 193.  Sweeney notes the inextricable narrative link between the limited victory of Joash over Syria and the eventual destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (I & II Kings, 358–59, 361). It is highly ironic that in the summary of the destruction of Israel, the narrator lists the sins that led to the downfall: worship of foreign gods (17:7), worship at illicit shrines (vv. 9–10), and worship of idols (v. 12). The narrator then mentions the role of the prophets that YHWH had sent: to warn them of

204

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

G. Elisha’s Corpse and the Israelite’s Corpse—2 Kings 13:20–21 Elisha’s oracle withdrawing Joash’s complete victory over Syria is followed immediately by the death of Elisha and his burial. The final episode of Elisha’s cycle is as enigmatic as it is tiny. It is so small, in fact, that it can easily be reproduced here in its complete form: ‫וימת אליׁשע ויקברהו‬ ‫וגדודי מואב יבאו בארץ בא ׁשנה׃‬ ‫ויהי הם קברים איׁש‬ ‫והנה ראו את־הגדוד‬ ‫ויׁשליכו את־האיׁש בקבר אליׁשע‬ ‫וילך ויגע האיׁש בעצמות אליׁשע‬ ‫ויחי‬ ‫ויקם על־רגליו׃‬ Elisha died and they buried him. (Moabite raiders used to come into the land in the spring.) So it happened that they were burying a man And—wow—they saw the raiders! They threw the man into the grave of Elisha. He went [in] and touched the bones of Elisha. He lived! He got up on his feet!

The meaning or purpose of the story is confusing. Commentators generally note two things about the tale. First, it is extremely strange and even bizarre. It strains credulity. It, among all the stories of Elisha, is the least able to stand up to any sort of historical or sociological explanation. Second, more than any other story, it illustrates the extraordinary power that Elisha has, even in death.194 Dillard goes even further by saying, “This miracle was God’s own seal of approval on the ministry of Elisha.”195 Brueggemann asserts that “It is clear that the report intends to assert, and to claim without question, that even in death, Elisha is a life-bringer.

their wicked ways and to keep the covenant. Israel, however, refused to listen to the prophets but were stubborn. How ironic that in this scene, at the beginning of the end of Israel, Joash obeys the prophet perfectly, but it ultimately does no good. Elisha refuses, in the end, to uphold the absolute victory that he had previously offered. 194.  E.g., Sweeney, I & II Kings, 360; Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 313; Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 230; Cohn, 2 Kings, 89. 195.  Dillard, Faith, 153.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

205

His ‘afterlife’ is operative in the community of Israel. Like Elijah before him, Elisha has been a powerful force for life with a capacity to transform circumstances of death… The present text functions as something of a reprise on this entire memory of ministry.”196 How strange that scholars see the story as completely unbelievable and, simultaneously, as absolutely central to the message of the Elisha stories overall. The hermeneutical move is best illustrated by Nelson, who hints that this story should not be taken literally, but is rather a parable of the remarkable power of the prophet: The last story about Elisha (vv. 20–21) is told with his whole career in view and again reflects on Israel’s situation. The chariots of Israel are gone; raiders invade without opposition. Yet the prophet whose career was characterized by the gift of life (8.4–5) still gives life even from his bones. The story is told with some humor. Read in context, the impact seems to be that there is hope for Israel yet (cf. vv. 4–5, 23), even though the glory days of Elijah and Elisha are dead and gone.197

This way of interpreting the story has a type of integrity and certainly has hortatory and encouraging force. With this I do not argue. And yet, the story still strikes me as very strange, almost dreamlike. I wonder what the story might have looked like if YHWH’s giving of life and hope were truly the central and clear intent of the passage. Perhaps a mention of YHWH? Perhaps the resurrected man, as the Zarephath widow’s son, returns to his companions as a sign? Perhaps those who buried him, like all Israel on Carmel or like Naaman on arising from the Jordan River the seventh time, are convinced that, in fact, YHWH is God and are drawn into a more devoted relationship with the God of Israel? But none of these elements are present in the story, even as they are not present in most of the stories of the previous few chapters. Yet miracles as signs that draw Israel into a more focused relationship with YHWH are among the most important aspects of prophecy as a phenomenon according to Deut 13 and 18.198 If we do not raise this final, strange story to the level of esoteric parable, but instead simply interpret it as we have all the previous episodes concerning Elisha, the story is truly enigmatic and, ultimately, strange and unsatisfying. The miracle is certainly great, but at the end of

196.  Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 432–33. 197.  Nelson, First and Second Kings, 218. 198.  As well as in the summation of the fall of Israel in 2 Kgs 17:13.

206

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

Elisha’s cycle, it is simply one more miracle that does not function as a sign of anything within the world of the narrative. The miracle has no effect, no consequence upon anyone in the book of Kings. In the larger scheme of this study, I would, ironically, agree with Brueggemann that this final, tiny story is a reprise of the entire memory of Elisha’s ministry. The elements that comprise this story are those that are central to Elisha’s larger story. Those elements, however, include the non-presence of YHWH, the attention upon the person and character of Elisha, and the showmanship of working a miracle––even a miracle that produces life. The one who was dead does live, but, like the Shunammite woman after receiving her dead child back, at the end of the story, the man simply walks away. H. The Evaluation of the Prophet Elisha—A Review In the various episodes that comprise the Elisha narratives of 2 Kgs 2:1–8:15; 9:1–14; and 13:14–21, the figure of Elijah appears in an uneven light. Whereas Elijah often appeared unstable as a character—sometimes obeying YHWH’s commands, sometimes disobeying; sometimes speaking YHWH’s word, sometimes speaking his own word; sometimes fulfilling the Deuteronomic function of a prophet, sometimes petulantly confronting YHWH or disobeying those commands or destroying those whom he considered disrespectful—Elisha’s motivation or characterization is much more opaque. He is implicitly compared with Elijah and consistently comes away from the comparison as lacking. This characterization begins in the very first episode when Elijah ascends in a whirlwind into heaven (1:1–10). Elijah tries to leave Elisha behind on three separate occasions. Elisha consistently refuses to obey the elder prophet, perhaps sensing that Elijah is trying to get rid of him. Throughout the episode, Elisha interacts with the sons of the prophets in various locales. While they look to him as a leader or guide, they also seem childish and abrupt as they continually ask him whether he knows that Elijah would be taken from him, a question that Elisha also continually answers and tells them to be quiet. After miraculously crossing the Jordan on dry ground after Elijah split it using his mantle, Elijah asks if Elisha has any final request. Elisha asks for a portion (not, as is often translated twice as much) of Elijah’s “spirit.” Elijah responds that Elisha is stubborn to ask such a thing and requires Elisha to see him be taken before the request is granted. Almost immediately, chariots and horses of fire separate them and Elisha does see him ascend in a whirlwind (2:11–12). Elisha, supposedly, now has part of Elijah’s spirit upon him, symbolized

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

207

by his picking up Elijah’s mantle. When, however, he comes to the Jordan and attempts to cross back over, he must strike the river twice as well as call on “the God of Elijah” before the river parts (2:13–14). When he crosses, the narrator does not describe the crossing as occurring “on dry ground” as before. In this initial scene, it would appear that Elisha will fulfill the role that Elijah has played, but will be weaker at it. Immediately after crossing, Elisha’s characterization continues in his meeting with the sons of the prophets (2:15–18). The sons of the prophets remark that “the spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha,” not knowing that Elisha only requested a portion of the spirit. They show respect to him by bowing down, but then immediately suggest that they search for Elijah. When Elisha tells them not to, they press him until he gives in. When they return, not having found the elder prophet, Elisha snappishly answers, “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t go!’?” The relationship between the sons of the prophets and Elisha does indeed appear to be like one between children and a parent, but in this case a parent who is not particularly strong. It will also be the last time that a character will confront Elisha without him pronouncing their death-sentence soon thereafter. His characterization is more positive during the healing of the water of Jericho (2:19–22). On reaching Jericho, the citizens of the city tell Elisha about their water source, which is bad and causes the land to produce miscarriages. Instead of merely causing the water to become good, Elisha calls for a new bowl with salt in it. After casting the salt into the spring, he pronounces an oracle in the name of YHWH, who heals the spring and causes the miscarriages to cease. The water is immediately purified thereafter. The narrator, however, ends by noting that this occurred, not “according to the word of YHWH,” but “according to the word that Elisha spoke” (v. 22). While the change is minor, it will have major implications as a theme throughout the following episodes. Elijah appears positive in the episode, but a hint of ambiguity is introduced into the story at the very end. On the heels of this remarkable, life-giving episode, Elisha meets some little boys outside of Bethel (2:23–25). When they mock him, he turns around and curses them in YHWH’s name. Immediately, two bears come from the thicket nearby and maul 42 of the boys. The narrator ends by reporting that Elisha continues to Mount Carmel and then returns to Samaria. The story unnervingly withholds any judgment of the prophet, certain that the reader clearly understands that this action is contrary to the principal teachings of Deuteronomy. The themes of the death of children and of any who confront him will play out elsewhere in the Elisha narratives. Elisha’s initial commission, given to Elijah, was for him to kill those

208

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

who fled from justice (1 Kgs 19:16–17). Here he combines his miracleworking power with the ability to kill. This time, however, it is leveled against children against whom he feels personally aggrieved. For the first time in the cycle, we see that Elisha, armed with tremendous power, will sometimes use it for life and will sometimes use it for death, even the death of children. It will not be the last time. A new king comes to the throne of Israel, Jehoram the son of Ahab (3:1–3). He dismantles the cult of Baal, which his parents had established, in the capital city of Samaria. Throughout the Elisha narratives, Jehoram will appear primarily as a YHWH-worshiping Israelite. He never appeals to Baal (unlike his father) or other gods besides YHWH (like his brother, Ahaziah, in 1:2). He understands the consequences of living in exclusive relationship with the God of Israel: sometimes he fears the judgment of YHWH (3:10, 13b) and cries out for help to YHWH when he and his people are in trouble and willingly repents (6:27, 30). While he rashly threatens Elisha’s life on one occasion, he immediately withdraws the threat and, instead, urges the prophet to action on behalf of Israel (6:31, 33). Furthermore, he entertains the servant of Elisha, honors the prophet by gladly listening to stories about him, and mercifully and generously helps those associated with him (8:1–6). The character of Jehoram plays a significant role in the cycle and is primarily shown to be a positive figure in the narratives. Elisha’s character is unexpectedly complex during the war with Moab (3:1–27). When the king of Moab, a vassal to Israel, rebels, Jehoram plans to attack and retake the country by combining his forces with those of Judah and Edom. In the midst of the desert, however, the forces run out of water. Jehoram fears that it must be a sign of divine disapproval and that the expedition is doomed. After the king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, encourages the intercession of a prophet, Elisha suddenly appears and, while under the influence of music, pronounces an oracle from YHWH that promises two things: there will be plenty of water and YHWH will hand Moab over to Israel. The next morning, miraculously, the area is full of pools of water. The army, heartened by the sign, presses into Moab and ravages the land. The king of Moab, however, sacrifices his firstborn son and, suddenly, “wrath” falls upon Israel and they immediately retreat. The episode is highly ambiguous. While Elisha pronounces an oracle in YHWH’s name and the sign of the water comes to pass immediately, ultimately the victory that Elisha said YHWH had promised does not happen. At the end of the day, Elisha is wrong.

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

209

A series of stories follow that portray Elisha as a miracle-working helper, similar to his role at Jericho (2:19–22). In the first, Elisha provides resources for a widow (4:1–7). A widow of one of the sons of the prophets cries out to him that she is destitute and that her creditors will soon take her sons away as slaves, Elisha attempts to repeat the miracle that Elijah performed with the widow of Zarephath. Elisha asks the woman what she has in her house, to which she responds, “Nothing but a tiny container of oil.” Elisha then instructs her to gather many pots and fill them with the oil (that miraculously will continue pouring out from the tiny container). Once all the pots are filled, the oil immediately stops and does not continue to flow. Elisha then instructs her to sell all the oil in order to pay her creditor and to support herself and her sons. Throughout the episode, unlike the Elijah parallel or the earlier Jericho episode, Elisha never describes the instructions as from YHWH, nor does he or the widow acknowledge YHWH as the source of the miracle. In fact, YHWH does not appear anywhere in the episode, either explicitly or implicitly. It is as if Elisha produces the miracle on his own initiative and using his own miraculous power. Elisha, it seems, takes over the role of YHWH in the story. This characterization is continued in his dealings with the Shunammite woman (4:8–17). When a wealthy, powerful woman living in Shunem provides Elisha with living quarters so that he can stay with her family when he is in the region, Elisha wants to repay her. She refuses the help, wanting only to be generous. The servant of Elisha, Gehazi, suggests that she might need a son because she and her husband are childless. Elisha tells her that she would have a son. She replies “No!” and tells the prophet not to make up lies about her. The next spring, however, she gives birth. As in the previous episode, Elisha does not even hint that the miracle is either promised or caused by YHWH. Elisha simply works the miracle, even though it is not requested or wanted by the woman. Ironically, this ambiguous portrayal of Elisha is even continued in the episode of the raising of the dead boy (4:18–37). Several years later, the boy dies and his mother places him on Elisha’s bed. She goes to find the prophet, who is on Mount Carmel. Elisha does not know why she is there and acknowledges privately to his servant that YHWH has not revealed the cause of her despair. When she alludes to trouble with the boy, Elisha tells Gehazi to take his staff, to go quickly and place it on the boy’s face. The mother does not accept this proxy solution and demands that the prophet himself come. When they arrive at the house, the servant tells Elisha that his plan to raise the boy by using the staff was futile. The

210

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

prophet goes into the room and prays, but (unlike with the Elijah parallel in 1 Kgs 17:21b–22a) nothing happens. YHWH does not raise the child. He tries to raise the boy by lying on him. The corpse grows warm, but does not come to life. He walks about the room, and then tries lying on the body again. This time the boy comes to life. When the mother arrives, Elisha does not mention YHWH at all, but simply says, “Take your child,” which she does. Elisha never pronounces an oracle from YHWH, acknowledges YHWH as the source of the miracle, or encourages the woman to see YHWH as worthy of thanks. In fact, Elisha’s relationship with YHWH in the episode is negated: YHWH does not reveal the source of the woman’s trouble to him, and YHWH does not respond to Elisha’s prayer. Elisha himself comes to learn of the boy’s death and Elisha himself raises him from the dead. Throughout the episode, Gehazi plays the role of messenger/prophet to Elisha’s playing the role of YHWH. Elisha, the narrator assures the reader, is decidedly not a deity. At Gilgal, Elisha purifies a pot of stew (4:38–41). When one of the sons of the prophets puts poisonous gourds in a vegetable stew, the group immediately knows that the meal cannot be eaten. Elisha (as with the Jericho episode earlier) asks for an aid, in this case flour. When he throws it into the pot, the stew becomes immediately edible. As with the previous three episodes, the miracle is not accomplished by YHWH; Elisha never reports that his actions are instructions from YHWH; and he does not acknowledge YHWH as the source of the miracle. The case is different when a large group of people are fed with a little food (4:42–44). Elisha receives some food from a man from Baal-shalishah and commands his servant to set it before the group. When the servant doubts, Elisha pronounces an oracle from YHWH: “This is what YHWH said: ‘Eating and having more than enough!’ ” The episode ends with the narrator explicitly noting that the miracle was done “according to the word of YHWH.” The miracle happens immediately; both Elisha and the narrator attribute the miracle to YHWH; Elisha pronounces an oracle proclaiming YHWH’s intention of abundance; and the miracle occurs exactly as the word of YHWH proclaims. The episode, almost in spite of its brevity, is a near-perfect example of a story of prophetic action from the perspective of Deuteronomy. Elisha appears clearly as a Mosaic prophet, leading and providing for his people while acknowledging and pointing them to YHWH as the source of the provision. It is a high point in the Elisha narratives. Elisha is described much more ambiguously in the episode of the healing of Naaman the Syrian general (5:1–19). When the Syrian king sends his general, Naaman, to Jehoram to be healed of his leprosy, the

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

211

king of Israel despairs, seeing it as a ploy to incite war. Elisha, however, demands that the general come to him, “so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel!” When Naaman comes to the prophet’s house, he only meets Gehazi, who acts as messenger, and tells the general to wash seven times in the Jordan River. Initially reluctant, Naaman obeys the command and is completely healed. When he returns to Elisha, he proclaims, “Now I know that there is no god in any country except in Israel!” The general then requests some soil from Israel for him to take back to Damascus, the Syrian capital, as a memorial of his devotion to YHWH. He also acknowledges that, because of his status, he must perform certain ritual actions in the temple of Rimmon at home, but that these will be perfunctory. Elisha tells him to leave in peace. The story is remarkable because even though YHWH never appears in the episode directly, and Elisha never makes any reference to YHWH as the source of the healing, Naaman himself is able to see the healing not merely as a miraculous deed, but as a sign pointing him to a larger reality: YHWH, and YHWH alone, is God. The story’s climax is identical to that of the episode of Elijah on Mount Carmel. A miracle is seen as a sign, which draws people (in this case a non-Israelite!) into a closer and more devoted relationship with YHWH. In Naaman’s case, ironically, this is accomplished almost in spite of the words of Elisha. In the episode of the greed of Gehazi (5:20–27), the servant of Elisha tries to swindle Naaman out of expensive gifts as the general is heading back to Syria. Gehazi shows himself to be xenophobic, greedy, deceptive, and willing to use both his prophetic colleagues and the Syrian general for his own profit. When he returns to Elisha, after hiding his newly acquired wealth, the prophet displays prescient knowledge and places the leprosy of Naaman on him for his greed. Here, again, Elisha does not point to the Deuteronomic Torah to teach and reprove Gehazi; he merely displays his miraculous ability to know things and his miraculous ability to curse. The final episode of Elisha’s miraculous help on behalf of individuals involves him retrieving a borrowed axe head (6:1–7). The sons of the prophets do not like where they are living, devise an inadequate plan to build a new house, and demand that Elisha accompany them as they carry out their foolhardy proposal. As with their repartee after the ascent of Elijah, he gives in to them and lets them carry out their plan. As they are chopping down trees, one of their axe heads flies off and lands in some water. The man begins to cry because the axe was borrowed. Elisha comes to the rescue and, after cutting down his own tree and throwing it in the water, causes the axe head to swim to shore. The episode ends by his having to instruct the man to pick it up. In this case, not only

212

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

does Elisha not mention YHWH, but the entire scene appears absurd and trivial. If the Mosaic prophet is to guide Israel into a closer relationship with YHWH by proclaiming the Deuteronomic Torah and providing signs to both help and teach the people, this is a far cry from that worthy work. After this, Elisha appears in a series of episodes of a much grander scale than chopping trees and making iron swim. The following episodes all feature Elisha’s relationship with kings or major officials. And in the episode of the Aramean attack on Dothan, he is described brilliantly as the Mosaic prophet (6:8–23). Using the prescient knowledge shown in the Gehazi episode, Elisha is able to know the military plans that the king of Syrian plans. He uses this knowledge by informing the king of Israel and, thereby, saving the lives of many Israelites. When the Syrian king learns of Elisha’s miraculous ability to leak his information to the Israelite king, he plans to capture the prophet while he is staying in the city of Dothan, near the capital of Samaria, by surrounding the city with his forces. When Elisha’s servant awakes the next day and sees the army outside, he is upset. Elisha however prays to YHWH, who actively and explicitly “opens the eyes” of the servant so that he is able to see, in the hills surrounding the town, the divine army stationed to aid in the rescue of Elisha. Elisha then prays again, and YHWH blinds the Syrian army. Elisha does not simply escape, as we might assume he would. Instead he tells the army that he will lead them to “the man that you are seeking.” He leads them, instead, to the capital city. Once inside, he prays a third time and YHWH, again explicitly, opens the eyes of the army so that they realize that they are captured. When the king of Israel asks whether he can kill the Syrians, Elisha rebukes him and instructs him to provide a feast for the enemy. The Syrians return to Damascus and no longer come raiding into Israel. The episode, as with the multiplication of the food, has Elisha acknowledging YHWH’s protection, YHWH’s action in bringing about victory, the narrator explicitly noting the activity of YHWH, and the prophet, king, and people showing themselves living by standards of generosity, hospitality, and mercy. The picture is, however, much less rosy during the siege of Samaria (6:24–7:20). While the capital city is under siege, the lack of food grows to such an extent that not only do inedible items go as food, but cannibalism among families becomes a way of dealing with the famine. The king encourages his people to seek YHWH’s help and he himself wears sackcloth as a sign of his own despondency, humility, and repentance. He threatens the life of Elisha because the man of God does not help the situation (as he easily did in the previous episode). The king immediately

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

213

withdraws the threat but urges the prophet to do something lest despair become rampant. In response, Elisha pronounces an oracle from YHWH: within a day, food will be plenteous within the city. A military captain questions the prophet and Elisha ominously declares by his own, not YHWH’s, oracle that the captain will see the abundance, but will not partake of it. Four lepers discover the abandoned camp of the Syrians that night, report it to the city guards, who in turn report it to the king. The next morning the inhabitants go out and the city has abundant good, “according to the word of YHWH.” The episode ends, however, with a long conclusion rehearsing the death of the military captain who was trampled to death by the throng. A complex story that might have ended with provision and a reference to YHWH, instead ends with an overwhelming emphasis on death. The rhetorical skill of the narrator is shown brilliantly in the episode of the return of the Shunammite woman (8:1–6). Elisha, again using his prescient knowledge, tells the woman whose son he had raised to leave her home and country because a coming famine would last for seven years. She obediently leaves with her household. At the end of the period, she returns and goes to the king to ask for her house and property back because they had, supposedly, been taken over by someone else. When she enters, the king is speaking with Gehazi about all the great deeds that Elisha had done and Gehazi is, in turn, telling the king about Elisha’s raising the dead. Just then the woman enters, Gehazi points her out and the king asks her about the matter. At the end of the episode, the king assigns a eunuch to make sure she not only gets her property returned, but also all the income that her land had produced for the previous seven years. While the episode ends with a sign of justice and generosity, it simultaneously reveals that, in fact, her land had not suffered because of any famine during the entire period. It ends with abundance, but not because of the defective and wrong warning from the prophet, but rather in spite of it. In the episode of the encounter with Hazael, Elisha’s characterization becomes even more ambiguous (8:7–15). Elisha seems to take up the commission that YHWH gave to Elijah to anoint Hazael as king of Syria in the place of Ben-Hadad, who is ill. Although the text provides no mention that YHWH had either told him to take up Elijah’s mission or given him a new mission, Elisha suddenly travels to Damascus as a fulfillment of the command given to Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:15a. Upon arriving the foreign king does not try to capture him or kill him (as he tried to do in 6:11–14), but instead sends his servant Hazael to inquire of YHWH through the prophet whether his illness would be fatal. Hazael

214

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

shows himself to be prideful and self-aggrandizing when encountering the prophet. Elisha reveals that YHWH has told him that the king would, indeed die, but that Hazael should lie and tell him that he will live. Elisha then reveals that he further knows that Hazael will bring great trouble on Israel, not only destroying cities and killing soldiers, but also slaughtering children and pregnant women. Elisha finally says that YHWH has shown him that Hazael will be king over Israel. The servant leaves and, the very next day, assassinates Ben-hadad and becomes king in his place. The word of Elisha (and of YHWH?) is certainly fulfilled quickly, but this is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy. The actions and final status of Hazael are not so much fulfillment of an oracle as execution of a divulged plan. The putative fulfillment of Elijah’s commission continues with the anointing of Jehu (9:1–13). In this case, Elisha sends a very young prophet to anoint the military general as the new king of Israel while the present king, Jehoram, is recovering from a wound. The oracle he tells the young prophet is simply, “This is what YHWH said, I anoint you king over Israel.” When the youth finally meets Jehu, however, he pronounces a much longer oracle describing the annihilation of the entire present royal house, involving not just Jehoram and his mother Jezebel, but hundreds of individuals besides. Jehu reports the oracle to his comrades, who immediately proclaim him as king, and who, together with the army, bring about an interval of bloodshed lasting for almost two long chapters. Elisha’s characterization in the episode is one of weakness, recklessness, and questionable motivation. In the final scene of Elisha’s life, his characterization is not resolved (13:14–19). After a long period of inactivity, Elisha receives the king of Israel at the time, Joash. The king asks for help in dealing with the military incursions that Syria is bringing against Israel. Elisha orders the king to do various things with a bow and arrows, all of which the king immediately obeys. Elisha finally pronounces an oracle about YHWH’s help, but the oracle is not implicitly or explicitly described as from YHWH. The oracle promises complete and total victory for Israel over Syria. But then Elisha commands the king to hit the ground with arrows, which the king immediately obeys as before. Elisha unexpectedly becomes angry and withdraws the oracle of complete victory; instead Israel will only have a few battles that they will win against the nation. The episode paints the prophet as one who can assure victory, as he had done beforehand for Israel, but also as one who is underhanded, manipulative, and unwilling to do so. The final episode of Elijah’s death and burial is, perhaps, the most enigmatic of all (13:20–21). After the prophet had been dead for a while, some Israelites throw a corpse into the grave with the prophet’s bones

3. Narratives Focused on Elisha

215

in order to escape from a group of Moabite raiders. The corpse touches Elisha’s bones and, immediately, the man returns to life and stands up. While the episode may be understood to extol the power in even the dead prophet’s remains, it also never mentions YHWH and the dead man does not appear as a sign for anything larger than, simply, a corpse being resuscitated. The scene is paradigmatic of much of the traditional material about Elijah: miracles being produced seemingly at random, with no reference to the God of Israel, and with no larger meaning than the miracle itself. The miracle is simply a miracle; it is not a sign which leads anyone at all into a more profound and meaningful relationship with YHWH. In the end, the one who was once dead simply walks away. It is an extremely unsatisfying, and therefore extremely fitting, ending to the ambiguous life and work of the prophet Elisha.

Chapter 4 E l i j a h , E l i s h a , YHW H, a nd t h e D eut eron om i c E valuati on of P rop h ec y

A. Deuteronomy and the Purpose of Prophecy In the first chapter of this study, I discussed the rhetorical complexity and beauty of the two texts in Deuteronomy that deal with prophecy, Deut 13:1–6 [ET Deut 12:32–13:5] and 18:15–22. While we do not need to review the texts in detail again, it would be helpful in thinking about the ways that Deuteronomy evaluates prophecy, and how those evaluations are manifested in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, to review briefly the basic stance that Deuteronomy takes on the phenomenon of prophecy. Deuteronomy 13:1–6 begins with a reminder neither to add nor remove anything from the overall teaching of Deuteronomy (v. 1), the primary theme of which is centered in the relationship that Israel has with its God, a relationship based upon love and single-minded devotion (Deut 6:1–9). Anything, therefore, that causes Israel to deviate, to be “cast out of the way” of that devotion, should be treated with suspicion and, if found to undermine the love that Israel has for YHWH, should be eradicated. The passage then provides various examples of ways in which Israel might be tempted to fall away from their devotion (13:2–18). The first case that might “cast Israel out of the way” focuses upon the influence of prophets. The text proposes that if a prophet appears and produces signs and miracles and then, afterwards, suggests that the witnesses follow the prophet in the worship of and service toward other gods, Israel must not listen to that prophet (vv. 2–4a). The signs and miracles are, clearly, not signs of anything; the miracles do not lead to any further significant fact. They are worthless and the prophet must be ignored. One might ask, what is the criterion by which Israel should judge the words of a prophet who produces signs? Deuteronomy answers succinctly with a six-fold affirmation in v. 5:

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 217 ‫אחרי יהוה אלהיכם תלכו‬ ‫ואתו תיראו‬ ‫ואת־מצותיו תׁשמרו‬ ‫ובקלו תׁשמעו‬ ‫ואתו תעבדו‬ ‫ובו תדבקון‬ It is after YHWH your God that you must follow! It is him that you must fear! It is his commandments that you must keep! It is his voice that you must heed! It is him that you must serve! It is to him that you must cling!

That is, if a prophet—even a miracle-working prophet—appears and speaks anything more, or less, or other than these affirmations, Israel must not listen to that prophet. This is the central (and only) message that any prophet must proclaim. All prophetic pronouncements must accord with and lead Israel toward a focused love and devotion toward YHWH. The Deuteronomic legislation concludes by stating that any prophet—even a miracle-working prophet—who thus attempts to lead Israel astray must be put to death. Nowhere in the legislation is there a suggestion or a presupposition that the overwhelming number of prophets in Israel are basically good, wholesome, trustworthy individuals whom YHWH has sent to lead the people in the right way that they should go. No, the presupposition of the passage is, instead, that prophets are extremely persuasive, especially if they can produce miracles, and because of that fact, they should be treated with the utmost suspicion and their messages must be always held up to the Deuteronomic criterion of authenticity. In the second passage, Deut 18:15–22, the rhetoric paints a slightly— but only slightly—different scene. In this text, YHWH announces that there will be, in fact, a prophet who will be raised up to teach Israel and provides a short midrash on Exod 19 to explain the office of this prophet (vv. 15–17). Like the dangerous prophet in Deut 13, the prophet of Deut 18 also has particular and important characteristics, the most important of which is that this prophet will be like Moses (v. 18a). Just as Moses speaks to the people in Deuteronomy, even so this prophet will echo his words, because YHWH will place the divine word in his mouth. In Deuteronomy, the subject of “word/words” is very important, if not central, to the book as a whole. Occasionally, ‫ דבר‬/ “word” is used in phrases reflecting what the people say or think (1:25, 34; 5:28; 15:9; 17:9) or the quality of a treaty (“words of peace”; 2:26) or a plan proposed

218

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

by the people (1:23). However, in the overwhelming number of cases, whenever YHWH refers to “my word(s)” or the text refers to a “word” associated with YHWH, this consistently refers to, and is essentially identical to, either the Ten Words (4:2–13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2) or, more often, the book of Deuteronomy as a whole (e.g., 5:31; 6:1–9; 11:18–23; 12:28–32; 15:15; 18:18). As such, the words of Deuteronomy—that is, the word of YHWH—are also called “the words of this Torah” (17:19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58; 19:28; 31:12, 24; 32:46) or “the words of the/this covenant” (28:69 [ET 29:1]; 29:8 [ET 29:9]). The word of YHWH, for Deuteronomy, is Deuteronomy. Therefore, at the same time that the law of the prophet of Deut 18 is granting, on the surface, the Mosaic prophet a great deal of power, the text also levels that power out: • Yes, it is true that the prophet will have YHWH’s words in his mouth and he will say everything that YHWH commands. On the other hand, every single Israelite must receive and recite the book of Deuteronomy, that is, YHWH’s words (30:14; note also 6:7; 11:19). • Yes, it is true that the prophet will be given YHWH’s words and the prophet will speak them so that Israel may know YHWH’s will and intentions. On the other hand, this is true for every single Israelite, as well (4:1, 10; 11:19). • Yes, it is true that anyone who does not heed the words of the prophet will suffer punishment (18:19). On the other hand, this is true for every single Israelite who does not heed the words of the Deuteronomic Torah (11:26–28; 28:15–68). • Yes, it is true that any prophet who suggests that the people worship other gods, or who speaks anything more, or less, or other than YHWH’s word, must die. On the other hand, again, this is also true for every single Israelite (13:6–17; 17:2–5). The Mosaic prophet, in the most central aspect of his office—speaking and proclaiming YHWH’s word—replicates and fulfills the requirements that are laid upon every single Israelite. The law of the prophet ends with a curious turn of phrase. Instead of stating, “You may say to yourself, ‘How can we know a word that YHWH has spoken?’,” the text instead posits: ‫וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע את־הדבר אׁשר לא־דברו יהוה‬ You may say to yourself, “How can we know a word that YHWH has not spoken?”

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 219

The significance of the question is vitally important. Because every single Israelite has been given YHWH’s words and knows YHWH’s will and intentions and keeps those words and teaches them to each successive generation, Israel already knows the word that YHWH has spoken. It is the Deuteronomic Torah itself. What of prophets who presumptuously pretend to speak something more, or less, or other than YHWH’s word? Deuteronomy responds that such a word will never come to fruition, it will not be (‫ )ולא־יהיה הדבר‬or come about (‫)ולא יבוא‬. Those words, and the prophets that speak them, are nothing to heed or respect. Those prophets who are like Moses, proclaiming and declaring the teachings of the Deuteronomic Torah, are to be heeded; those who do not, must not be followed. This Deuteronomic way of understanding prophecy is also mirrored in the review of the history of Israel after the fall of Samaria in 2 Kgs 17. Beginning in v. 7, the narrator provides a theological excursus upon the reasons why the Northern Kingdom was taken into exile. The reasons are listed: they had sinned (v. 7a), they worshiped other gods (vv. 7b–9a), they built shrines and performed rituals for other gods (vv. 9b–11), and they served idols (v. 12). Israel did all these things even though YHWH had consistently admonished them by means of prophets throughout their history: ‫ויעד יהוה ביׂשראל וביהודה ביד כל־נביאו כל־חזה לאמר‬ ‫ׁשבו מדרכיכם הרעים‬ ‫וׁשמרו מצותי חקותי ככל־התורה‬ ‫אׁשר צויתי את־אבתיכם‬ ‫ואׁשר ׁשלחתי אליכם ביד עבדי הנביאים‬ YHWH warned Israel and Judah by each prophet and each seer: “Turn from your evil ways! Keep my commandments, my statutes, and all the Torah that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets!”

The excursus continues by remarking that Israel was stubborn, hated the covenant, rejected the commandments, set up shrines containing two calves, worshiped Baal, and practiced various religious rituals of foreign nations (vv. 14–17). The central declaration of the work of the prophets corresponds closely with the ideology of the Mosaic prophet described in Deuteronomy. Each prophet and seer was supposed to, like Moses, encourage Israel to turn away from evil lifestyles and to keep YHWH’s commandments, statutes, and Torah—in other words, to keep the whole of Deuteronomy. This Torah, the same one YHWH commanded Israel’s ancestors, is identical

220

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

to the one that YHWH sent repeatedly to Israel by means of the prophets. In the beginning and the end, in Deuteronomy and in 2 Kgs 17, the role of the prophet is consistent: simply reminding Israel about the teaching of Deuteronomy and declaring it to the people. Whenever, therefore, the History speaks of prophets, or describes prophetic figures, or relates long or short stories, or even cycles of stories, of prophets, we might expect that those characters would correspond closely to the template created by both Deuteronomy and by 2 Kgs 17. This is, however, not the case. For example, in the stories about Samuel, the prophet appears in a highly nuanced and complex way. Furthermore, this complexity is not just related to the artistic genius of the author/narrator in creating a memorable and remarkably interesting literary figure. The complexity of Samuel is almost always found precisely in those episodes when he claims to be delivering the “word of YHWH,” but the surrounding narrative calls that claim into question in various ways. Moreover, the narrator also uses the accumulated suspicion that the reader might have about Samuel in such a way that even it is overturned; occasionally, Samuel is revealed to have been right—in Deuteronomic language, YHWH was, indeed, putting the divine word in Samuel’s mouth! But often, in a later episode, this claim again is called into question. By the end of the Samuel cycle, it is not clear how often or in what circumstances—or if ever—Samuel was dependably portrayed as the Mosaic prophet. In the present study, this has also been true with the characters of Elijah and especially Elisha. B. The Characterization of Elijah, Elisha, and YHWH In Chapter 2 of this study we saw that the characterization of Elijah was of a prophet who had an active relationship with YHWH, but whose motivations—at least as they were discernable from what he did and said—were sometimes positive, sometimes negative, usually ambiguous, and occasionally completely opaque. When Elijah takes on the role of the Deuteronomic Prophet like Moses, he is a near-perfect example of what all Israel was called to be, according to Deuteronomy: faithful, careful, and completely devoted to YHWH alone. During the contest on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:17–46) and in the judgment proclaimed against Ahab and Jezebel in the aftermath of the murder of Naboth (21:17–24), Elijah’s words and actions mirror those of Moses in Deuteronomy and of the description of “each prophet” in 2 Kgs 17: warning Israel (or its rulers) about their evil way, calling them to repentance, and encouraging them in their relationship with YHWH. As such, repentance and mercy is the result of his words and works (18:36–39; 21:27–29).

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 221

The character of Elijah, however, is uneven. He occasionally seems self-aggrandizing, as in his declaration of the famine, which would last until “his word” called a reprieve (17:1). He can also appear selfish, as when he requires the widow of Zarephath to make him a cake “first” before she can see the fulfillment of the oracle of YHWH (17:13). During almost the whole of ch. 19 he appears petulant and fearful, running from Jezebel’s ridiculous threat, wishing himself dead, and accusing “all Israel” of deserting YHWH and wanting to kill him (19:10, 14, 20b). He also is disobedient to YHWH’s explicit instructions to go to Damascus and anoint Hazael, and then to go to Israel to anoint Jehu (19:15//19:19). He furthermore is described as unreliable, at least by Obadiah, a character who unequivocally worships YHWH and actually protects and provides for those who serve YHWH (18:9–14). Finally, Elijah is downright dangerous to any who question his authority, as with the two groups who were sent simply to bring him before King Ahaziah in order to pronounce his oracle (2 Kgs 1:9–14). In all these cases, Elijah does not line up with either Deuteronomy’s vision or 2 Kgs 17’s description of the function of prophets.1 Through each of the episodes, however, the character of YHWH appears, explicitly or implicitly, within the narratives. It is the character of YHWH that serves as a narrative reminder of the Deuteronomic standard of the function that a prophet must serve. According to Deuteronomy, YHWH has spoken through Moses himself by means of the book of Deuteronomy. According to 2 Kings, it is YHWH who sends the prophets who warn Israel about their evil ways and call them back to the Torah. When Elijah speaks those words—nothing more, nothing less, nothing else—and conducts his life in a way that fulfills those words, he causes Israel and even Ahab to trust in YHWH, with their whole heart and mind and strength (Deut 6:1–5; 13:4). In those cases, the reader knows—even as “all Israel” comes to know—that Elijah is YHWH’s servant and has done all these things according to YHWH’s word (1 Kgs 18:36). However, throughout the discussion of the Elisha narratives offered in Chapter 3, we noted that one major element is missing: YHWH. The

1.  It is important to note that Elijah is not merely portrayed as a character with human weaknesses or foibles. In most of the cases of his more ambiguous characterizations, his words and actions are centered precisely in how he performs his role as prophet: how to proclaims (or does not proclaim) YHWH’s word, how he serves (or does not serve) Israel or those who are in danger, and how he encourages (or does not encourage) Israel in their relationship with YHWH. The ambiguity of his character is precisely focused upon his role as prophet.

222

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

God of Israel appears very, very rarely in the Elisha stories.2 While YHWH is mentioned by Elisha or by other characters, and even though the narrator often mentions in hindsight that the word of YHWH was fulfilled by this or that event (4:44; 7:16), YHWH never speaks directly to Elisha or to anyone else in these stories. • The only miracles that the characters or we see are those performed by Elisha.3 • The only divine words that the characters or we hear are those spoken by Elisha. • The only contact with the divine that the characters or we have in the story is through Elisha, alone. This might lead the reader to expect that in the Elisha cycle, the prophet takes on the role of YHWH, as that role appears in the Elijah cycle. Elisha, perhaps, is characterized as the transparent representative of the divine in the stories.4 2.  By my accounting, YHWH speaks in the Elijah narratives eleven times (17:2, 8; 18:1; 19:9, 11, 13, 15; 21:17, 28; and as the “messenger of YHWH” in 2 Kgs 1:3, 5) and acts three times (17:22, 18:38, and in 18:46 as the “hand” of YHWH), not counting events which fulfill earlier speeches (e.g., 17:4//17:6; 17:9//17:15; etc.). In the Elisha narratives, YHWH never speaks and only acts in five episodes of the narrative (out of 21 episodes), and even in these the actions are indirect or intermittent. In the first, the ascent of Elijah in 2 Kgs 2, the narrator reports that, later in the episode, YHWH will take Elijah up to heaven (v. 1), which does occur later in the episode but without the divine name mentioned (v. 11). The second episode, during the war with Moab, ‫ ותהי עליו יד־יהוה‬/ “the hand of YHWH was upon him [Elisha].” In the third, the episode concerning Naaman, the narrator reports that, even before the episode begins, YHWH had given Syria victory through the great general (5:1). In the fourth episode, during the Syrian siege of Dothan, YHWH opens Elisha’s servants eyes to see the divine host in the mountains (6:17), blinds the Syrian army (v. 18), and opens the eyes of the Syrian soldiers (v. 20). In the final episode, during the siege of Samaria, the narrator reports that, the previous night, YHWH had caused the Syrian army to hear the sound of chariots, which had caused them, in turn, to flee their camp. In the first, third and fifth episodes, the action of YHWH is presented as occurring either later or before or outside of the main narrative, not within the narrative. In the second, the action of YHWH is described in a very tangential way. Only in the fourth, does YHWH act clearly within the episode. This episode, coincidentally, provides the clearest example of Elisha acting as the Mosaic prophet. 3.  With the four rare exceptions mentioned in the preceding footnote. 4.  Thus, many interpreters will see the Elisha cycle as a type of “gospel” wherein Elisha embodies or incarnates the divine in the world of the narrative. As such, Elisha is always given the benefit of the doubt, is never questioned, his actions are always

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 223

Yet the narrator never allows this identification to stand unquestioned. In practically every story, the narrator fashions the plot in such a way to cause tension, complexity, irony, and ambiguity to arise. The text never allows Elisha to become a replacement for YHWH. Elisha clearly has prescient knowledge of things that happen far away, or in the future, or that are invisible to other characters. However, the extent of his knowledge and how he uses that knowledge are very often called into question.5 He clearly knows, for example, that Gehazi has met with a man in a chariot and received gifts from him, even though Elisha was not present (2 Kgs 5:26). Elisha also seems to know what the king of Syria says to his military leaders and, perhaps even, what he says within his bedroom (6:8–12). Elisha also knows of Jehoram’s rash threat on his life, even though he is sitting inside his house when the king says it on the wall of Samaria (6:31–32). He also predicts events that will happen in the future. He claims to know that Elijah would be taken from him “today” (although it seems as if the sons of the prophets—a decidedly unrespectable group—also claim to know this throughout 2 Kgs 2:1–6). He knows, during the expedition in the desert, that pools of water would miraculously appear and provides an oracle of YHWH to back up his prediction (3:16–19). He can also, however, predict future events without reference to YHWH: he knows the woman of Shunem would have a son the next year, which she does (4:16–17). Elisha knows during the siege of Samaria that, within a day, food would be readily accessible and, therefore, either cheap or at least affordable (7:1, 16). Elisha also predicts to Joash that he would defeat the Syrians three times (13:19), a prediction that the narrator relates as true (13:25). Elisha also knows about the divine army surrounding the city of Dothan, which his servant only learns about when his eyes are opened by YHWH (6:17).6 It is clear that sometimes Elisha can see and know things other characters cannot. assumed to be directed by YHWH, and his words are always assumed to be a true reflection of YHWH’s words (even when interpreting Elisha in this way is extremely difficult). See, particularly, Dillard’s Faith in the Face of Apostasy and Hobbs’s 2 Kings commentary for this type of interpretation. Needless to say, often large sections of the text need to be ignored for this to be upheld. Even commentators who hold Elisha in very high regard are occasionally troubled by his characterization (e.g., Nelson, 1 & 2 Kings; Moore, God Saves; Provan, 1 & 2 Kings; Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings). 5.  The discussion about the ambiguity of Elisha’s abilities in Kissling’s Reliable Characters is particularly clear. 6.  Kissling also includes, among episodes where Elisha can see things other characters cannot, his watching Elijah ascend to heaven (ibid., 177). In my discussion

224

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

On the other hand, he cannot discern important information that would help him understand a situation—for example, during the episode of the death of the Shunammite woman’s son (4:27). During the excursion in the wilderness, although Elisha rightly predicts the appearance of pools of water, he also predicts a victory over Moab, a prediction that does not prove true in the end (3:18–19, 27). He predicts a famine of seven years to the woman of Shunem, a famine that, it appears by the end of the episode, seems never to have taken place (8:1, 6b). Furthermore, occasionally Elisha seems to know the future, but intentionally uses deception in order to manipulate his hearer to a particular action. He predicts complete victory to Joash over the Syrian army (13:17), then reverses his statement and says the opposite (13:19), claiming that the difference is based on the disobedience of Joash to a command that Elisha did not give in the first place. This seems to be a case where Elisha acts disingenuously toward the king. Elisha also acts in a clearly deceptive manner while dealing with Ben-hadad during his illness; he instructs Hazael to lie and, therefore, instigates the plot for Hazael to kill his king (8:10, 12, 13b). In all these cases, it is precisely Elisha’s prophetic ability to know things other characters cannot know and how he uses that information to manipulate other characters that is called into question. Elisha also has the ability to perform miracles. This is, perhaps, the most striking and consistent trait of Elisha’s character throughout his cycle. The sheer number of miracles, the means used to perform them, their variety, and the demonstration of the power involved in them clearly outweigh those performed by Elijah in each aspect. As Kissling notes: It seems as though Elisha can do virtually anything. He can do something as difficult as raising the dead (2 Kgs 4:18–37) or something as comparatively simple as making an iron implement float (2 Kgs 6:1–7). He can heal the bad waters of Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19–22) or use the dirty water of the Jordan to heal a leper (2 Kgs 5:1–14). He evidently has power over inanimate objects (2 Kgs 6:1–7), over animals (2 Kgs 2:24), and the bodies of people (2 Kgs 4:18–37; 5:1–14, 27). He can make existing food

of the scene, I assume that the reason the sons of the prophets do not see Elijah ascend can be credited to their being too far from the scene because they stay on the other side of the Jordan. They see Elisha come back only once he has crossed the river. This would indicate that they could not see anything that might have happened once Elisha and Elijah had crossed over away from them. This is a simpler and more straightforward explanation.

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 225 edible (2 Kgs 4:38–41) and cause an inadequate amount of food to stretch miraculously so that there is a surplus (2 Kgs 4:42–44). He can heal bodily maladies (2 Kgs 5:1–14; 6:20) or cause them (2 Kgs 5:27; 6:18). He can bring about a miracle by quoting a message revealed to him by Yahweh (2 Kgs 2:21); by prayer to Yahweh (2 Kgs 6:18–20); or by simply declaring that a miracle will occur without reference to Yahweh at all (2 Kgs 4:16). By his word he can bring about the birth of a child (2 Kgs 4:17) or cause the death of forty-two boys (2 Kgs 2:24). In fact even after his death his rotting bones can perform miracles (2 Kgs 13:20, 21)! Actually Elisha is very much like Yahweh in that he has the power “to kill and make alive; to wound and to heal” (Deut 32:39).7

If the only criterion for being the Mosaic prophet were the performance of miracles, then Elisha would clearly pass the test with room to spare. However, according to Deuteronomy, miracles are the means by which treasonous prophets are able to entice and deceive Israel to forsake their focused devotion to YHWH (Deut 13:1–3). Miracles may also, by implication, be manifested by the Mosaic prophet since Moses himself could perform miracles on behalf of Israel for their safety, faithfulness, and life. But even in this case, the miracle would not be the sole, or even primary, characteristic for recognizing the Mosaic prophet. That criterion is centered in whether the prophet speaks the word of YHWH truly to Israel (Deut 18:18). For this reason, while Elisha performs many miracles, the narrator is always careful to describe them in such a way that while Elisha may seem to be very much like Yahweh, in fact the comparison consistently shows Elisha to be lacking in terms of competence, morality, and purpose. In two episodes, Elisha’s abilities seem to be called into question. In his first miracle, the crossing of the Jordan, the Hebrew text of the story reveals that Elisha strikes the water with Elijah’s mantle and nothing happens. He then calls on “the God of Elijah” and nothing happens. Only when he strikes the water for a second time does the river part and he crosses. The narrator, while using the same phrases and images for the initial crossing by the power of Elijah, omits the phrase “on dry ground” with Elisha’s crossing. Elisha, it seems, has trouble both initiating the miracle as well as bringing it up to quality standards. In the episode concerning the death of the son of the Shunammite woman, Elisha is not only unaware of the reason for her distress, he also plans to raise the dead boy by means of his staff (perhaps mimicking Moses?) sent by the hand of his servant Gehazi. We soon learn that the 7.  Ibid., 193.

226

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

plan was a failure. The child remained dead even after the staff was laid upon his face. Elisha then goes into the room with the boy and closes the door. First he prays to YHWH, the means by which Elijah had raised the widow’s son (1 Kgs 17:20–21). Nothing happens. Elisha then lies upon the boy. The corpse grows warm (which might be expected), but nothing happens further. He walks about the room. Nothing happens. He lies on the boy again and, finally, the child sneezes and revives. Of course, this halting and piecemeal plan of action is unseen by both Gehazi and the mother of the boy. All they see is a dead boy and the prophet enter the room and, later, a living boy and the prophet within the room. A story that calls into question just how powerful Elisha might actually be is later declared as Elisha’s greatest miracle, at least in the words of Gehazi and the mother (8:4–6). Elisha’s moral character is also questionable in the performance of some miracles. When young boys mock him for his baldness, Elisha uses his miracle-working power not only to kill many of them, but to do so in a particularly heinous, vicious, and violent way (2:23–25). The text never excuses the behavior of the children. Nevertheless, the description of their destruction is relatively expanded in such a short episode. Clearly, part of the point of the text is to highlight the quality of the punishment in comparison with the infraction that they perpetrated.8 Another character with whom Elisha seems to take a personal affront is the captain who questions Elisha’s oracle about the abundance of food during the siege of Samaria. Although Elisha proclaims an oracle in the name of YHWH about the abundance of food immediately before the question by the captain (7:1), once the captain expresses doubt, Elisha does not issue a response from YHWH. Instead, the petulant reply comes only from Elisha himself: “You will see it with your own eyes, but you will not eat from it” (7:2). As with the episode of the bears, the judgment inflicted upon the captain is highly detailed and, in fact, compulsively

8.  On a personal note: During the research and writing of this book, I have told friends about the subject when they asked what I was writing on. I very often would receive a reaction that, on the surface, discredited the moral character of the Bible as a whole: “What silly/cruel/inhuman stories!” I often heard. “Elisha calling out bears to kill children! What a horrible, violent story!” I usually responded that, in fact, the narrator is just as appalled as my friends. The story is only inhuman if Elisha is being presented as the model prophet of YHWH. If, however, Elisha is being described as an ambiguous character, then we should naturally expect some episodes to be positive, some unclear, and some completely negative like this one. Consistently, this is a perspective that many had not considered.

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 227

told and retold (7:17–20). The message is clear: Elisha causes the death of anyone who questions his ability.9 Finally, even apart from his miraculous power, Elisha appears to see himself as more important than he truly is, even acting in inappropriate ways that confuse his role with that of YHWH. As mentioned previously, he sometimes pronounces oracles in the name of YHWH (2:21; 3:16; 4:43; 7:1, 16; 8:1, 10, 13; 9:3).10 More regularly, he pronounces oracles that are not attributed to YHWH, either by himself or by the narrator (3:18–19; 4:3–4, 7, 16, 41; 5:10, 27; 6:7; 7:2b; 8:12). Just as YHWH sends prophets to proclaim the divine word, Elisha also communicates through intermediaries, even when doing so creates an absurd scene (4:11–16, 25–31; 5:10; 9:1–3). Finally, Elisha sees himself as the center of Israelite faith and life (5:8). As opposed to Deuteronomy’s clear vision of the role and purpose of prophets, Elisha often is presented in a way that is ambiguous concerning his competency, morality, or purpose. The question becomes, therefore: What is the relationship between YHWH and YHWH’s prophet? The answer to this question is never completely resolved or answered in the narratives focused on either Elijah or Elisha. And that is precisely the perspective that the text achieves: an ambivalent attitude toward prophetic activity that neither discredits it as merely scheming and magic nor considers it as always (or, perhaps, even usually) expressing fully the mind and intention of YHWH. The role of the prophet is to mirror Moses; to speak according to the words of Deuteronomy; to warn Israel of their evil way; and to encourage them to follow the Torah. Anything more, or less, or other, is unacceptable. C. The Evaluation of Prophecy By way of a conclusion, I would like briefly to suggest a possible answer to the question of purpose or result: why do the Elijah and Elisha narratives 9.  There is a question about the appropriateness of the leprosy inflicted upon Gehazi because of his greed (5:20–27). It appears that in the world of the text, leprosy is not a debilitating disease that causes the sufferer to be excluded from all society, but is rather something perhaps similar to a rash or relatively minor skin disease. As such, whether the punishment fits the crime in this case is truly ambiguous. In any case, it does not appear to be on the same level of cruelty as the cases mentioned above. 10.  Even with the oracles pronounced in YHWH’s name, there are often complicating factors that question either the veracity of Elisha, the clarity of his knowledge of the oracle, or both; e.g., 8:1 (the famine which does not occur); 8:10 (telling Hazael to lie about the oracle); and 9:3 (sending the oracle by means of a young prophet, who expands it greatly).

228

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

portray their main characters in such an ambiguous light? A few recent studies have shown that, in particular, the stories of Elisha do not describe the prophet in completely positive terms.11 Fewer studies have done so for the stories of Elijah.12 The discussion often is left at the level of literature or artistry. That is, the question of whether the texts portray the prophets as ambiguous, or, if they do, how they portray them as ambiguous is at the center of the studies. The larger question of what the narratives achieve and why their originators or editors might have wanted to achieve such a result is often unaddressed.13 While there is a relatively wide swath of probable historical contexts for the writing, compiling, and editing of the Elijah and Elisha cycles and the wider History itself, most scholars posit the historical context to be that of the late monarchy or, more probably, the Exile. Another biblical book set during this historical context is Jeremiah, which also wrestles actively with the question of how individuals were to know which prophet or prophets were speaking “the word of YHWH” and which were either lying or sincerely mistaken or simply insane.14 11.  In particular, Bergen, Elisha; and Gilmour, Juxtaposition. See also the relevant chapter in Kissling’s book, Reliable Characters. 12.  In addition to the relevant chapter in Kissling, Reliable Characters, see also: Walsh, 1 Kings; and Garsiel, From Earth to Heaven. In Dharamraj’s study, A Prophet Like Moses?, she often notes the ambiguity of the description of Elijah in the stories, but then attempts—often with a heavy hand—to resolve them consistently to show that Elijah is always and completely identified with the Mosaic prophet. 13.  The closest explanation that I have found to understand the inherent ambiguity of the stories is in Bergen, Elisha. Bergen posits that Elisha stands as the realistic endpoint of “prophetism” (the active role of prophets in Israelite/Judean society). After Elisha, the leadership of the nation is given much more into the hands of kings, with prophets playing only a minor and supporting role in the story. Bergen, however, does not seem to address why the narrator or author or editors might have wanted to promote this view of the history of Israel/Judah. Of course, the issue of “authorial intention” is fraught with problems. I, therefore, ask the question here and tentatively suggest an answer not from a purely historical or personal foundation, but rather as a question of rhetoric. What social or political contexts give rise to the possibility of presenting major characters in an ambiguous light? In those contexts, what purposes might the ambiguity of those characters serve? Are those possible purposes consistent with what has been presented in the Elijah and Elisha cycles as well as in other, contemporaneous texts? 14.  When the young prophet arrives to anoint Jehu secretly, both Jehu and his companions view the youth as “insane” (2 Kgs 9:11). The question of what we might call “mental disorder” and its impact upon the view of the phenomenon of prophecy would be a rich area to research. Unfortunately, I find that little work has been done recently on the topic.

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 229

Throughout the book, the prophet Jeremiah (whom the reader knows to be a “true” prophet from the very first chapter) contends with other Jerusalemite prophets who provide oracles whose messages are contrary to Jeremiah’s.15 Occasionally, Jeremiah notes that, through the prophets, YHWH seems to have deceived the people by providing false oracles (4:9–10). Most of the time, however, the question of veracity in prophecy revolves around who is truly speaking the word of YHWH, Jeremiah or the “other prophets”/“your prophets” (1:5; 5:13, 31; 6:13; 8:10; 13:13; 14:13–15, 18; 23:9–40; 26:1–24; 27:9–16; 28:15–17; 29:8, 15, 26; 32:32; 37:19). The argument often comes to a head with Jeremiah denouncing the rival prophets, and them denouncing him in a standoff which is only resolvable by means of, for example, an ambiguous sign (28:17). The frustration of Jeremiah—both the frustration of the prophetic character within the book, as well as the frustration experienced by the reader of the rhetoric of the book itself—is palpable. The option chosen by the book of Jeremiah, in such a context, is to choose a side, rail against the opposition, and hope that future events bear out the predictions of the side one has chosen. From the perspective of post-colonial studies as well as literature produced from marginal groups, ambiguity is a central means by which issues of power or privilege are engaged.16 Social groups outside of positions of power employ ambiguity as a means of simultaneously moving between various modes of being and critiquing assumed realities in the dominant culture: “It thus seems that ambiguity, or its lack, may be the entrance to different domains, determining in turn the possibility—which is also our potentiality—to move at ease between modalities of discourse and being.”17 In a context in which the phenomenon of prophecy is generally believed to be an objective means by which divine realities are known by human beings and, simultaneously, any particular example of prophetic speech or action is highly contested, the narrator of the Elijah and Elisha texts could have proceeded rhetorically in one of various ways. The narrator could have, as Deut 13:1–6 hints, discounted the entire phenomenon 15.  For the topic of “true” and “false” prophecy in Jeremiah in recent research, see: Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets; Tarrer, Reading with the Faithful; Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment; Gallagher, “Discerning True and False,” 4–13; de Jong, “Fallacy,” 1–29, and “Why Jeremiah Is Not Among the Prophets,” 483–510; Hibbard, “True and False Prophecy,” 339–58. 16.  Note the discussion in the first chapter, “The Significance and Power of Ambiguity” (8–16). 17.  Bartoloni and Stephens, “Introduction,” 1–2.

230

The Characters of Elijah and Elisha

of prophecy as invalid. Prophecy, in this view, is a mere projection or construct built upon smoke and mirrors. It is thoroughly fraught with problems and is neither actually or even theoretically a possible means of knowing the divine mind, will, or intention.18 On the other hand, the narrator could have, as 2 Kgs 17:13 hints, selected various prophets who were held as “true” (e.g., Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, etc.) and portrayed those prophets within their various narratives as pure and transparent incarnations of the divine will and any rival prophet as evil and deceptive. The true prophet always proclaims the word of Deuteronomy. The true prophet pronounces oracles in the name of YHWH that unfailingly accord with the Deuteronomic Torah. If those oracles involve a promise of YHWH’s future care or judgment of Israel, they consistently come true. The prophet produces miracles in the name of YHWH which Israel receives as signs of the overarching truths of Deuteronomy: YHWH’s care and fidelity to Israel and, in turn, Israel’s steadfast, single-minded, and complete devotion to YHWH alone. The narrator of the Elijah/Elisha stories as well as the witness present in the final form of Deut 13 and 18 do not choose either of these options.19 Instead, both in Deuteronomy itself and in the narratives in the History dealing with (Samuel and) Elijah and Elisha, the literary narrator produces an ideology and theology of prophecy that is nuanced, insightful, and more compelling than either of the other two options. Prophecy is to be understood as a valid and accessible means by which the divine will, mind, and intention is revealed to human beings. YHWH has, indeed, called, empowered, and used prophetic figures in the past, who proclaimed the right way in which Israel was to live and who directed people—kings, commoners, and even foreigners alike—in their choices 18.  This is, perhaps, the view of the Wisdom tradition within the Hebrew Bible. 19.  In the list of the prophetic texts under consideration, I would also include the narratives focused on Samuel. See Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy. I hope, in a third volume, to discuss the remaining, minor prophetic characters in the History and the ways in which their portrayal also contributes to an overarching theology of prophecy. I also hope, in that volume, to expand my analysis of the sociological context that the texts might be addressing, which I only briefly lay out here at the end of this study. What sociological contexts might produce the ambivalent evaluation of the phenomenon of prophecy that are in the prophetic stories throughout the History? I hope to explore further, by means of sociological analysis of analogous communities, the question of why the narrator (and, behind the narrator, the historical authors or editors or compilers of these texts) might portray (have portrayed) their prophetic characters in such a way, resulting in an evaluation of the prophetic experience as less than trustworthy.

4. Elijah, Elisha, YHWH, and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy 231

that had personal and communal importance. YHWH has used prophets and prophecy to draw people into fidelity and focused devotion to himself. Prophecy should, therefore, not be rejected. Prophecy, however, only has validity when it accords with the book of Deuteronomy. It is Deuteronomy itself, and only Deuteronomy, that is the product of the premier prophet, Moses, against whom there could never be any later rival (Deut 34:10–12). The phenomenon of prophecy, therefore, is valid, but any particular instance of prophecy—whether an oracle pronounced by Samuel, or a prediction made by Elijah, or a miracle produced by Elisha—should only be granted validity if it accords with the words and overarching themes of Deuteronomy. In any particular scene or story, does the prophet’s oracle, or prediction, or miracle cause its hearers and witnesses within the narrative (and, by extension, does it cause us readers, as well) into a more confident and devoted relationship with YHWH, as that relationship is expressed in Deuteronomy? If so, then they (and we readers) are being trained through that experience to recognize the possible voice of the Mosaic prophet in our own day. If not, then they (and we) are, likewise, being trained to be suspicious of the voice of those who, through words or signs, would lead them and us to distraction and, eventually, to destruction. These prophetic stories hold up prophetic experience as a central theme in Israel’s past and, simultaneously and consistently, subjugate it to the true word of YHWH, that is, Deuteronomy. For this purpose and to this end, the narratives that focus on the prophets Elijah and Elisha are beautifully complex, rhetorically multi-layered, and portray two prophets who are thoroughly ambiguous.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Abrams, M. H. In Search of Literary Theory. Edited by Morton W. Bloomfield. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972. Albertz, Rainer. Elia: Ein feuriger Kämpfer für Gott. Biblische Gestalten 13. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2006. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. ––––––. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Barstad, Hans M. “Comparare necesse est? Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy in a Comparative Perspective.” Pages 3–11 in Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives. Edited by Martti Nissinen. SBLSymS 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. ––––––. “The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy.” SJOT 8 (1994): 236–51. Bartoloni, Paolo, and Anthony Stephens. “Introduction.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 12, no. 4 (2010): 1–2. Beardsley, Monroe C. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958. Beck, Martin. Elia und die Monolatrie : ein Beitrag zur religionsgeschichtlichen Rückfrage nach dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben. New York: de Gruyter, 1999. Bergen, Wesley. Elisha and the End of Prophetism. JSOTSup 286. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Booth, Wayne C. Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Brenner, Athalya. “Gender in Prophecy, Magic and Priesthood: From Sumer to Ancient Israel.” Pages 3–18 in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel. Edited by Deborah W. Rooke. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Bronner, Leah. The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics Against Baal Worship. POS 6. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Brueggemann, Walter. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2000. ––––––. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. Buber, Martin. The Kingship of God. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Butler, Rebecca R. “Seven Types of Ambiguity.” Pages 1–4 in Masterplots II: Nonfiction Series. Edited by Frank N. Magill. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Salem, 1989. Camp, Phillip. “Review of R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment.” Review of Biblical Literature (2007). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org. Campbell, Antony F., and Mark A. O’Brien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Carroll, Emmett H. “A Biblical Encounter with Magic in Literature.” Christianity and Literature 50, no. 4 (2001): 703–14.

Bibliography

233

Carroll, Robert P. “The Elijah–Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel.” VT 19 (1969): 400–415. ———. When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses in the Old Testament Prophetic Traditions. London: SCM Press, 1979. Childers, Joseph, et al. “Ambiguity.” Pages 9–10 in Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Clements, Ronald E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In vol. 2 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988. Coggins, Richard J. “On Kings and Disguises.” JSOT 50 (1991): 55–62. Cohn, Robert L. “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V.” VT 31 (1983): 171–84. Conner, Marc C. “How to Read and Understand Shakespeare.” The Great Courses. Course 2711. The Learning Co., 2013. Cronauer, Patrick T. The Stories About Naboth the Jezreelite: A Source, Composition, and Redaction Investigation of 1 Kings 21 and Passages in 2 Kings 9. LHBOTS 424. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. Culley, Robert C. Themes and Variations: A Study of Action in Biblical Narrative. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Dafni, Evangelia G. “RWḤ ŠQR und falsche Prophetie in I Reg 22.” ZAW 112 (2000): 365–85. De Beauvoir, Simone. The Ethics of Ambiguity. Translated by Bernard Frechtman. New York: Philosophical Library, 1949. De Jong, Matthijs J. “The Fallacy of ‘True and False’ in Prophecy Illustrated by Jer 28:8–9.” JHS 12 (2012): 1–29. ———. “Why Jeremiah Is Not Among the Prophets: An Analysis of the Terms ‫ נביא‬and ‫ נבאים‬in the Book of Jeremiah.” JSOT 35 (2011): 483–510. Deist, F. “Two Miracle Stories in the Elijah and Elisha Cycles and the Function of Legend in Literature.” Pages 79–90 in Studies in Isaiah. Edited by W. Wyk. Pretoria: University of Pretoria Press, 1979. Dharamraj, Havilah. A Prophet Like Moses? A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2011. Dillard, Raymond B. Faith in the Face of Apostasy. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1999. Dixon, Paul B. Reversible Readings: Ambiguity in Four Modern Latin American Novels. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1985. Durand, J.-M. Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. ARM 36. Paris: Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1988. Ellul, Jacques. Politics of God and the Politics of Man. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity. New York: New Directions, 1947. Epp-Tiessen, Daniel. Concerning the Prophets: True and False Prophecy in Jeremiah 23:9–29:32. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012. Ervin, Hazel Arnett. Handbook of African American Literature. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004. Eslinger, Lyle M. Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12. Decatur, GA: Almond Press, 1985. Ewald, Heinrich. The History of Israel. London: Longmans Green, 1878.

234 Bibliography Fergusson, Francis. “Macbeth as the Imitation of an Action.” Pages 31–43 in English Institute Essays. Edited by Alan S. Downer. New York: AMS, 1952. Fritz Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings. Continental Commentary. Translated by Anselm Hagedorn. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Fuchs, Esther. “The Literary Characterizations of Mothers and Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 117–36 in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Adela Y. Collins. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Gallagher, Paul. “Discerning True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah.” Asia Journal of Theology 28 (2014): 4–13. Garsiel, Moshe. From Earth to Heaven: A Literary Study of Elijah Stories in the Book of Kings. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2014. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Gillespie, Michael Patrick. Oscar Wilde and the Poetics of Ambiguity. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1996. Gilmour, Rachelle. Juxtaposition and the Elisha Cycle. LHBOTS 594. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Gottwald, Norman K. All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Gras, Vernon W. “Deconstruction.” Pages 277–82 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry & Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Greenberg, Moshe. “Religion: Stability and Ferment.” Pages 79–142 in The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society. Edited by Abraham Malamat. Jerusalem: Massada, 1979. Gudas, Fabian. “Ambiguity.” Pages 40–41 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Gunkel, Hermann. Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal. Edited and translated by K. C. Hanson. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2004. Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. JSOTSup 14. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1980. Hamilton, Jeffries M. “Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God.” CBQ 56 (1994): 649–63. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Heims, Neil. “Paradox, Ambiguity, and the Challenge to Judgment in The Great Gatsby and Daisy Miller.” Pages 58–71 in Critical Insights: The Great Gatsby. Ipswich, MA: Salem, 2010. Heller, Havilah. A Prophet Like Moses? A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2011. Heller, Roy L. Conversations with Scripture: The Book of Judges. New York: Morehouse, 2011. ———. Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose. HSS 55. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ––––––. Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteronomic Evaluation of Prophecy. LHBOTS 440. New York: T&T Clark International, 2006. Helms, N. R. “Conceiving Ambiguity: Dynamic Mindreading in Shakespeare’s ‘Twelfth Night’.” Philosophy and Literature 36, no. 1 (2012): 122–35.

Bibliography

235

Hibbard, J. Todd. “True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy.” JSOT 35 (2011): 339–58. Hobbs, T. R. 2 Kings. WBC 13. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Holt, Else. “ ‘…urged on by his wife Jezebel’: A Literary Reading of 1 Kgs 18 in Context.” SJOT 9 (1995): 95–96. Im, Yeeyon. “Poetics of Ambiguity: Reading Shakespeare’s Chronotope” (in Korean). Journal of English Language and Literature 56 (2010): 3–23. Jeffers, Ann. “Magic and Divination in Ancient Israel.” Religion Compass 1, no 6 (2007): 628–42. ———. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. New York: Brill, 1996. ––––––. “Magic from Before the Dawn of Time: Understanding Magic in the Old Testament: A Shift in Paradigm (Deuteronomy 18:9–14 and Beyond).” Pages 123–32 in Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment. Edited by Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Jenni, Ernst. “Dtn 16,19: sar­ā Falschheit.” Pages 201–11 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor. AOAT 212. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981. Jeppesen, Knud. “Is Deuteronomy Hostile Towards Prophets?” SJOT 8 (1994): 252–56. ———. “Nabots Vingård i Palæstinensisk Udlægning.” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 70, no. 1 (2007): 25–37. Kaplan, Abraham, and Ernst Kris. “Aesthetic Ambiguity.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8, no. 3 (1948): 415–35. Karalis, Vrasidas. “Disambiguating the Sublime and the Historicity of the Concept.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 12, no. 4 (2010): 2. Kissling, Paul J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Kitz, Anne Marie. “Naboth’s Vineyard after Mari and Amarna.” JBL 134, no. 3 (2015): 529–45. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Nashville: Nelson, 1983. Kluge, Sofie. “An Apology for Antony: Morality and Pathos in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.” Orbis Litterarum 63, no. 4 (2008): 304–34. Klutz, Todd E. Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon. New York: T&T Clark International, 2003. Kooij, Jan G. Ambiguity in Natural Language: An Investigation of Certain Problems in Its Linguistic Description. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1971. Kwalotswe, Obed. “The Grabbing of Naboth’s Vineyard: The Economic Implications of the 1958 Land Policy in Botswana and its Challenges to the Mission of the Church in Botswana and Southern Africa.” Scriptura 92 (2006): 225–39. Lasine, Stuart. “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6.24–33): Solomon’s Judgment in an Inverted World.” JSOT 50 (1991): 27–53. Lehmann, Manfred R. “Biblical Oaths.” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92. Lohfink, Norbert. “Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18–18:22.” Pages 336–52 in Song of Power and the Power of Song. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. SBTS 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Long, Burke O. 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. FOTL 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. ———. “2 Kings 3 and the Genres of Prophetic Narrative.” VT 23 (1973): 337–48.

236 Bibliography Mack, Maynard. Everybody’s Shakespeare: Reflections Chiefly on the Tragedies. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. Magdalene, F. Rachel. “Trying the Crime of Abuse of Royal Authority in the Divine Courtroom and the Incident of Naboth’s Vineyard.” Pages 157–245 in The Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective. Edited by Ari Mermelstein and Shalom E. Holtz. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Marsden, Simon. Emily Brontë and the Religious Imagination. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. Marx, Alfred. “Le miracle dans l’Ancien Testament.” Foi et Vie 108, no. 2 (2009): 35–43. Matthews, Victor H. Social World of the Hebrew Prophets. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. McKenzie, Steven L., and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Mead, James K. “ ‘Elisha Will Kill’? The Deuteronomistic Rhetoric of Life and Death in the Theology of the Elisha Narratives.” PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1999. Meier, Samuel A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Miller, J. Maxwell. “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach.” Pages 11–28 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. Moberly, R. W. L. “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah as a Test Case.” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003): 1–23. ———. Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ——. “To Speak for God: The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah.” Anvil 14 (1997): 243–53. Montgomery, James A., and Henry Snyder Gehman. The Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951. Moore, Rick Dale. God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories. JSOTSup 95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Nakao, Yoshiuiki. The Structure of Chaucer’s Ambiguity. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2013. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. ––––––. First and Second Kings. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987. Nigosian, Solomon A. Magic and Divination in the Old Testament. Portland, OR: Sussex Academic, 2008. Nissinen, Martti. “Falsche Prophetie in neuassyrischer und deuteronomistischer Darstellung.” Pages 172–95 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Edited by Timo Veijola. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Noll, K. L. “Review of R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment.” Review of Biblical Literature (2007). Online: http://www.bookreviews.org. Nwaoru, Emmanuel O. “Magic in the Ancient World and African Culture.” Pages 20–40 in Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment. Edited by Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. London: T&T Clark International, 2007.

Bibliography

237

Nzimande, Makhosazana. “Reconfiguring Jezebel: A Postcolonial Imbokodo Reading of the Story of Naboth’s Vineyard (1 Kings 21:1–16).” Pages 223–58 in African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared Meaning. Edited by Hans de Wit and Gerald O. West. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Otto, E. “ ‘Das Deuteronomium krönt die Arbeit der Propheten’: Gesetz unter Prophetie im Deuteronomium.” Pages 277–309 in Ich bewirke das Heil under erschaffe das Unheil (Jesaja 45,7): Studien zur Botschaft der Propheten: Festschrift für Lothar Ruppert zum 65. Geburtstag. FB 88. Edited by Friedrich Diedrich and Bernd Willmes. Würzburg: Echter, 1998. Overholt, Thomas W. “Elijah and Elisha in the Context of Israelite Religion.” Pages 94–111 in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. JSOTSup 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Park, Clara Claiborne. “Ambiguities, Complexities, Puzzles: A Late Encounter with William Empson.” Hudson Review 59, no. 1 (2006): 53–65. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Perloff, Marjorie. The Poetics of Indeterminacy: Rimbaud to Cage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Petersen, David L. The Roles of Israel’s Prophets. JSOTSup 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 1981. Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Porter, Joshua R. “Bene-hannabi’im.” JTS 32 (1981): 423–29. Provan, Iain W. 1 & 2 Kings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Ramos, Virginia. “Ambiguity.” Pages 43–45 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Ramsey, George W. “Samuel (Person).” Pages 956 in vol. 4 of ABD. Ravela, Jeeva Kumar. “ ‘The Lord Forbid That I Should Give You My Land’: Land Rights in 1 Kings 21 and Its Implication to the Land Rights of Dalits.” Bangalore Theological Forum 43, no. 1 (2011): 121–47. Resane, K. Thomas. “Naboth’s Vineyard: Theological Lessons for the South African Land Issue.” Acta Theologica 35, no. 1 (2015): 174–88. Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. The Concept of Ambiguity: The Example of James. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Roberts, J. J. M. “Does God Lie? Divine Deceit as a Theological Problem in Israelite Prophetic Literature.” Pages 211–20 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Robinson, B. P. “Elijah at Horeb, 1 Kings 19:1–18: A Coherent Narrative?” RB 98 (1991): 513–36. Rofé, Alexander. The Prophetical Stories. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Römer, Thomas C. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. Rowe, Joyce A. Equivocal Endings in Classic American Novels: “The Scarlet Letter,” “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” “The Ambassadors,” and “The Great Gatsby.” New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Ruprecht, Eberhard. “Entstehung und zeitgeschichtlicher Bezug der Erzählung von der Designation Hasaels durch Elisa.” VT 29 (1979): 73–82. Russell, Stephen C. “The Hierarchy of Estates in Land and Naboth’s Vineyard.” JSOT 38 (2014): 453–69.

238 Bibliography Sabar, Galia. “ ‘Was There No Naboth to Say No?’: Using the Pulpit in the Struggle for Democracy: The Anglican Church, Bishop Gitari, and Kenyan Politics.” Pages 123–42 in Religion and Politics in Kenya: Essays in Honor of a Meddlesome Priest. Edited by Ben Knighton. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Schmidt, Brian. “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo.” Pages 242–59 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Edited by Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Shapiro, James. A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Sharp, Carolyn J. Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. Shields, Mary E. “Subverting a Man of God.” JSOT 58 (1993): 59–69. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Tarrer, Seth B. Reading with the Faithful: Interpretation of True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah from Ancient Times to Modern. JTISup 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Tigay, Jeffrey. Deuteronomy. JPS. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996. Timm, Stephan. Die Dynastie Omri. FRLANT 124. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Valdés, Ariel Alvarez. “El enfrentamiento entre profetas y falsos profetas.” Revista bíblica 53 (1991): 217–29. Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Walsh, Jerome. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walzl, Florence L. Ambiguity in the Structural Symbols of Gabriel’s Vision in Joyce’s “The Dead.” Wisconsin Studies in Literature 2. Oshkosh, WI: Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English, 1965. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Wellhausen, Julius. Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah. London: Black, 1891. Westbrook, Raymond. “Law in Kings.” Pages 445–66 in Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Edited by André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Wifall, W. The Court History of Israel. St. Louis: Clayton, 1975. Wray Beal, Lissa M. The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10). LHBOTS 478. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007. Würthwein, Ernst. Die Bücher der Könige. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Ziolkowski, Eric. Evil Children in Religion, Literature, and Art. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 3:6 81 3:9 81 19:11 163 22:1 56 28 78 31:38 123 37 78 37:19 103 39:7 56 40 78 40:1 56 41 78 41:25–36 47 41:53–57 47 42:36 123 45:17 183 49:23 103 Exodus 3:6 83 3:12 22 4:1–9 20, 22 6:6 183 7:19 183 8:1 183 8:12 183 13:15 118 15:22 50 15:23–25 124 16 50 16:8 50 16:9 183 16:12–13 50 17:1–7 50 19 217

20:7 128 23:16 150 23:19 150 23:26 123 24:14 103 33 80 33:5 183 34:22 150 34:26 150 Leviticus 2:14 150 13:45–46 152 21:1 183 22:3 183 23:17 150 23:20 150 25:26 103 26:22 123 Numbers 5:2 152 5:15 57 11 50 14:28 183 17:2 183 18:13 150 19:9 97 20:1–13 50 22:9 81 Deuteronomy 1:3 79 1:15 23 1:21 163 1:23 31, 218 1:25 217 1:34 217

1:42 183 2:26 217 3:2 163 3:23 105 4:1 218 4:2–13 218 4:10 218 4:25 98 4:30–31 193 4:34 21 4:40 31 5:5 82 5:11 128 5:16 31 5:22 218 5:28 31, 217 5:30 183 5:31 82, 218 5:32–33 24 6 73 6:1–9 218 6:1–5 221 6:3 31 6:4–15 155 6:6–7 32 6:7 218 6:16 31 6:18 31 6:22 21 7:3–4 66 7:19 21 9:9 79 9:10 218 9:12–19 82 9:18 79, 98 9:21 31, 86 10:2 218 10:10 82

240 Deuteronomy (cont.) 10:18 54 11:3 21 11:4 161 11:18–23 32, 218 11:19 218 11:26–28 218 12:1–7 17 12:8–12 17 12:11 17 12:13–27 17 12:25 31 12:28–32 218 12:28 17, 31 12:29–31 17 12:29 98 12:32–13:5 ET 4, 17, 216 13 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 33– 36, 40, 49, 54, 59, 72, 84, 116, 205, 217, 230 13:1 19, 31 13:1 ET 21 13:1–6 4, 16–19, 21, 39, 216, 229 13:1–5 44, 72, 84 13:1–3 225 13:2–18 216 13:2–4 19, 139, 216 13:2 21 13:4 33, 153, 155, 221 13:5 19, 27, 59, 139, 158, 216 13:6–17 218 13:6 19, 98 13:15 31 14:21 50 14:28–29 54 15:9 217 15:15 218 16:11 54 16:14 54

Index of References 16:18–17:13 22 16:18–20 24 16:18 23 17 30, 31 17:2–5 218 17:4 31 17:7 98 17:8–13 23 17:8–10 24 17:9 217 17:11 24 17:12 24, 98 17:14–20 22, 66, 108 17:15 30, 190 17:16–17 23 17:18–20 67 17:19 198, 218 17:20 23, 30 18 16, 26, 28, 35, 36, 40, 65, 73, 107, 109, 116, 137, 175, 205, 217, 218, 230 18:1–8 22 18:4 150 18:9–22 184 18:9–14 24 18:12 25 18:14 25 18:15–22 4, 16, 22, 25, 216, 217 18:15–17 217 18:15 26, 28, 29 18:16–17 31 18:17 31, 34, 121 18:18–19 28, 32 18:18 26, 33, 48, 139, 158, 217, 218, 225 18:19–20 158 18:19 201, 218 18:20 28, 33, 48, 72, 114 18:21–22 28, 34

18:22 27, 94, 158 19:1 98 19:13 98 19:18 31 19:19 98 19:28 218 20:3 163 20:5 23 20:8–9 23 21:5 24 21:9 98 21:17 117 21:21 98 22:7 31 22:21–24 98 24:4 98 24:7 98 24:17 54 24:19–21 54 26:8 21 26:12–13 54 27:3 218 27:8 31, 218 27:19 54 27:26 218 28:14 24 28:15–68 218 28:24 48 28:40 139 28:46 21 28:53–57 168 28:58 198, 218 28:63 31 28:69 218 29:1 ET 218 29:2 21 29:8 218 29:9 23 29:9 ET 218 29:20 98 29:28 86 30:1–4 193 30:5 31 30:8–10 193 30:10 198 30:11–14 32 30:14 218

31:6 163 31:12 198, 218 31:17–21 98 31:24 218 31:28 23 31:29 98 32:16 98 32:19 98 32:21 98 32:25 123 32:27 98 32:46 32, 198, 218 34:10–12 26, 50, 78, 231 34:10 30, 80 34:11–12 21 34:11 21 Joshua 8:1 163 8:8 124 8:27 124 8:29 86 10:8 163 10:25 163 11:6 163 Judges 3:7–11 149 4:18 163 6:23 163 19:23 142 1 Samuel 1–16 5, 36 1 36 2:18–21 37 2:22–26 37 2:27–36 48 2:35 39 3:1–4:1 37 3:17–18 33 4:20 163 7:3–17 37 8–12 38 8 39 8:1–3 37

241

Index of References 8:4 37 8:7 38 8:9 38 8:11–17 158 8:22 38 9:1–9 1 9:15–17 1 9:16–17 38 9:27–10:1 190 9:27 183 10:17–19 48 10:18–19 38 12:1–17 48 12:12 38 12:17–18 40 12:20 163 15:11 38 15:17–23 48 15:19 38 15:29 38 15:31 38 15:35 38 16:1 38 16:13 190 22:5 44 22:8 195 22:13 195 22:23 163 23:9–11 1 23:17 163 28 5, 36 28:13 163 30:7–8 1 2 Samuel 1:6 103 7 89 7:2 44 9:7 163 11:22 33 12 89 12:1–15 90 12:7–12 48 13:12 142 13:28 163 15:1 74 15:21 97

18:5 193 20:21 86 1 Kings 1 89 1:2 182 1:5 74 2:2 45 2:4 45 2:6 45 3:1–3 130 3:14 45 3:16–28 167 4:1 139 4:30 45 5:16 45 5:20 45 8:33 105 8:47 105 8:59 105 11:1–8 66 11:29–40 89 11:29 44 11:31–39 48 12:15 89 12:23 183 12:24 124 13 93, 184 13:26 124 14:1–18 89 14:1–4 1 14:4 1 14:6–16 48 14:9–10 98 14:18 33, 124 15:26 130 15:27 195 15:29 124 15:34 130 16:2–3 98 16:7 44 16:9 195 16:12 124 16:20 195 16:29–34 44 16:31–33 48, 180 16:32–33 181

242 1 Kings (cont.) 16:34 124 17–19 106 17 61, 73, 106, 110, 122, 127, 139, 140, 146 17:1–2 7, 40, 133 17:1 41–46, 48–52, 61, 82, 83, 105, 106, 114, 132, 155, 178, 221 17:2–6 49, 51, 106 17:2 49, 61, 222 17:3–4 52 17:4 49, 222 17:5 49, 124 17:6 50, 78, 172, 222 17:7–16 51 17:7 51 17:8–16 107, 138 17:8 51, 61, 222 17:9 52, 222 17:10 52 17:11 52 17:12–13 78 17:12 45, 52, 53, 139 17:13–14 53, 59 17:13 163, 221 17:14 134 17:15–16 56 17:15 222 17:16 55, 124, 141, 172 17:17–24 56, 107 17:17 56, 64, 140 17:18 57, 64, 132, 140 17:19 57, 58, 78 17:20–21 226 17:20 57, 58, 144, 172 17:21–22 57, 146, 210

Index of References 17:21 57, 58, 146 17:22 59, 147, 222 17:23 57 17:24 55, 59, 60, 147 17:30–40 144 18 66, 73, 105, 110, 122 18:1–19 107 18:1–2 61 18:1 42, 222 18:3–16 61 18:3 62 18:4 62, 77, 103, 194 18:5 63 18:6 63 18:7 66 18:8 63, 64, 183 18:9–14 63, 221 18:9 64, 66 18:10 45, 64, 66 18:11–12 64 18:11 64, 66, 183 18:12 64, 66, 122 18:13 64, 66, 69, 103 18:14 64, 66, 183 18:15 45, 65, 82, 83, 155 18:17–46 220 18:17–19 65 18:17 67, 97 18:18 67 18:19–20 68 18:19 180, 194 18:20–46 107 18:20–40 68 18:21 68, 73 18:22–24 69 18:22 69 18:24 69, 73, 128 18:25 69, 70 18:26 70 18:27 127 18:29 70 18:32 128

18:36–39 220 18:36 71, 221 18:38–39 73, 104 18:38 72, 104, 118, 222 18:39 55, 72, 74, 90 18:40 132 18:41–46 73, 90 18:41 74, 78 18:42 74 18:43 74, 78 18:44 74, 183 18:45 118, 172 18:46 222 19 83, 108, 110, 111, 165, 221 19:1–18 108 19:1–4 76 19:1–2 194 19:1 76, 78 19:2 76, 180 19:3–4 180 19:3 77 19:4–9 76, 77 19:4 77, 177 19:5–8 78 19:7 79 19:9–18 80 19:9–10 80 19:10 69, 180, 221 19:11–12 80, 84, 118 19:11 80, 82, 83, 222 19:13–14 80, 83 19:13 80, 82, 222 19:14 69, 83, 180, 221 19:15–18 80, 86, 181 19:15–17 85, 165, 180, 188 19:15–16 112, 152 19:15 88, 213, 221, 222 19:16–17 208 19:16 161, 189

19:17 129 19:19–21 75, 85, 86, 108 19:19–20 112 19:19 88, 180, 182, 190, 221, 222 19:20 86, 87, 221 19:21 87, 88, 112, 156, 180 20 152 20:1–12 181 20:2–4 89 20:5–6 89 20:7–9 89 20:10–12 89 20:13–22 89, 93 20:13 90 20:14–15 90 20:14 90 20:16–21 90 20:21–34 90 20:22 90 20:23–34 181 20:28–43 89 20:28 90 20:35 91, 114 20:36 91 20:38–43 90 20:40 90 20:41–43 90 21 77, 88, 94, 106, 110, 166, 178, 194, 196 21:1–16 180 21:1 56, 95 21:5 117 21:7 99 21:9 99 21:12 99, 177 21:15 95 21:16–19 96 21:17–29 108 21:17–24 112, 220 21:17 222

243

Index of References 21:19

95, 101, 102, 196 21:20–24 180 21:20 97 21:21–24 97 21:21–23 192 21:23 99, 196 21:24 99 21:25–26 99, 193 21:25 177 21:27–29 180, 220 21:27 100, 193 21:28 100, 193, 222 21:51–53 101 22 93, 152, 184, 188 22:1–28 89 22:1–18 1 22:1–4 181 22:5–28 188 22:5–24 186 22:6 91 22:8 91 22:11–12 92 22:14 45 22:15 92 22:17 92 22:18 92 22:19–23 1, 92 22:24–25 92 22:24 93 22:29–40 181 22:36–37 97 22:38 95, 101, 124 22:51–53 188 22:52 188 22:53 130 2 Kings 1

88, 97, 106, 110 1:1–18 101, 108, 188 1:1–10 206 1:1–2 101 1:2 1, 183, 208

1:3–4

1, 102, 112, 181, 194 1:3 177, 222 1:5 222 1:6 102 1:8 103, 127 1:9–14 181, 221 1:9 104 1:10 104 1:11 104 1:12 104 1:14 105 1:15 105, 163 1:16–17 104, 194 1:16 102, 103, 112 1:17 124 1:18 121 2 87, 113, 117, 129, 145, 151, 160, 222 2:1–8:15 206 2:1–8 111, 115 2:1–6 223 2:1 127, 222 2:2–3 114, 127 2:2 113, 145 2:3 113, 116, 189 2:4–5 114, 127 2:4 113, 145 2:5 113, 116, 189 2:6–8 127 2:6–7 114 2:6 113, 145 2:7 104, 113, 120, 121, 177, 189 2:8 116, 119–21 2:9–13 127 2:9–12 116 2:9–10 116 2:9 117 2:11–12 206 2:11 222

244 2 Kings (cont.) 2:12 199 2:13–18 127 2:13–14 119, 150, 207 2:13 119 2:14 119, 120, 201 2:15–25 121 2:15–18 115, 121, 207 2:15 119, 122, 189 2:16–17 104 2:16 122 2:17 122 2:18 127 2:19–22 88, 123, 127, 131, 159, 207, 209, 224 2:19 123, 160 2:20–21 133, 201 2:20 124 2:21 123, 124, 225, 227 2:22 124, 172, 207 2:23–25 41, 123, 125, 174, 207, 226 2:23 127 2:24 154, 224, 225 2:25 129, 132, 144, 151 3 161 3:1–27 130, 159, 208 3:1–3 166, 187, 208 3:1 177 3:2 130, 181 3:3 181 3:4–8 131 3:4–6 131, 188 3:4 177

Index of References 3:7–9 132 3:9–14 131 3:9–10 131 3:9 132 3:10 132, 160, 166, 208 3:11–19 131 3:11 132 3:12 132 3:13 132, 166, 208 3:14 133, 155 3:15–20 131 3:16–19 223 3:16–17 88 3:16 227 3:18–19 184, 224, 227 3:20 131, 135, 172 3:21–26 131 3:24 135 3:25 135 3:26–27 136 3:26 135 3:27 135–37, 150, 184, 188, 224 4 140, 149, 175–77, 201 4:1–6:7 138 4:1–7 88, 138, 159, 209 4:1 127, 177, 189 4:3–4 150, 227 4:5–7 172 4:5 127 4:7 227 4:8–37 141 4:8–18 141 4:8–17 209 4:8 152, 175 4:9 141 4:11–16 227 4:11 142 4:12–13 156

4:12 156, 176 4:13 175, 183 4:14 142 4:15 142 4:16–17 223 4:16 141, 142, 150, 225, 227 4:17 141, 225 4:18–37 141, 143, 159, 209, 224 4:18–25 127 4:25–31 227 4:25–26 156 4:25 151, 156, 176 4:26 144, 183 4:27 144, 150, 156, 224 4:28 177 4:29 145, 156, 184, 201 4:30 145, 146 4:31–37 127 4:31 156, 177, 184, 201 4:32–35 150 4:36 147, 150 4:37 144, 147 4:38–41 88, 148, 159, 210, 225 4:38 156, 176, 177, 189 4:41 150, 172, 201, 227 4:42–44 88, 148, 210, 225 4:42 177, 178 4:43 156, 176, 227 4:44 124, 172, 222 5 143, 159 5:1–19 151, 210 5:1–14 224, 225

5:1

152, 177, 181, 222 5:2 154 5:3 152 5:5 182 5:8 152, 183, 227 5:10 153, 154, 156, 183, 227 5:11 128, 153, 154, 201 5:12 153 5:13 152 5:14 152, 154 5:15 55, 152, 154 5:19 155 5:20–27 156, 176, 211, 227 5:20 156, 176 5:22 156, 159, 189 5:23 156 5:25 176 5:26 157, 162, 223 5:27 159, 176, 224, 225, 227 6 128 6:1–7 159, 211, 224 6:1 189 6:2 160 6:3 160 6:7 227 6:8–9:13 161 6:8–23 162, 212 6:8–14 181 6:8–12 223 6:8 162, 177 6:9–10 166 6:9 183 6:10 162, 183 6:11–14 162, 213 6:15 160, 162, 176

245

Index of References 6:16 163 6:17 128, 163, 176, 199, 222, 223 6:18–20 225 6:18 128, 163, 222, 225 6:19 164 6:20 128, 222, 225 6:21–23 166 6:21 164 6:22 164 6:23 165, 178 6:24–7:20 165, 212 6:24–7:2 166 6:24–30 169 6:24–25 166 6:24 181 6:25 169, 178 6:26–30 166 6:26 166–68, 170 6:27 208 6:30–31 194 6:30 168, 208 6:31–7:2 166 6:31–32 223 6:31 169, 176, 181, 208 6:32 170 6:33 208 7:1–2 174 7:1 88, 166, 172, 223, 226, 227 7:2 166, 171–74, 226, 227 7:3–10 166 7:3–7 173 7:3–4 173 7:3 177 7:6 173 7:8 173, 178 7:9–10 173 7:11–15 166 7:16–20 166

7:16

124, 173, 222, 223, 227 7:17–20 174, 227 7:18–20 166 7:20 174 8 175 8:1–6 142, 161, 175, 194, 208, 213 8:1–2 47 8:1 177, 184, 224, 227 8:2 178 8:4–6 226 8:4–5 178, 205 8:4 156, 176 8:5 179 8:6 184, 224 8:7–15 180, 213 8:7–10 183 8:7 182 8:9 182 8:10–13 183 8:10 183, 224, 227 8:11 183, 185 8:12 185, 188, 224, 227 8:13 185, 190, 224, 227 8:14–15 183, 185 8:14 185 8:16–29 187, 188 8:16 187 8:18 130, 187 8:20–22 187 8:21 187 8:23 205 8:25 187 8:27 130, 188 8:28–29 188 8:28 188 9 188 9:1–14 206 9:1–13 187, 188, 214

246 2 Kings (cont.) 9:1–6 189 9:1–3 190, 227 9:1 189 9:3 191, 227 9:4 191 9:6 191 9:7–10 191, 192 9:11 189, 195, 228 9:12 195 9:13 195 9:14 195 9:25–26 95 9:25 197 9:26 124, 196 9:30–37 97 9:30–33 186 9:36–37 196 10 85 10:9 195 10:14 129 10:17 124 10:18–24 186 10:30 197 10:32 186 12:17–18 186 12:21 195 13 200 13:2 130, 200 13:3–7 186 13:3 198, 201 13:4–5 200, 201 13:7 199 13:9 200 13:10–13 199 13:11 130, 200 13:13 200 13:14–21 206 13:14–19 198, 199, 214 13:14 199, 200 13:15–17 200 13:17 201, 224 13:19 223, 224 13:20–21 148, 204, 205, 214

Index of References 13:20 225 13:21 225 13:22 200 13:23 201 13:25 202, 223 14:19 195 14:24 130, 200 14:25–27 200, 201 14:25 33, 44, 124 15–16 203 15:9 130 15:10 195 15:15 195 15:18 130 15:24 130 15:25 195 15:28 130 15:30 195 16:9 203 16:16 195 17 203, 219–21 17:1–2 131 17:2 130 17:7–9 219 17:7 203, 219 17:9–11 219 17:9–10 203 17:12 203, 219 17:13 31, 33, 205, 230 17:14–17 219 17:17 24, 219 17:23 33 19:2 44 19:6 163 21:6 24 21:10 33 21:23 195 22:14–20 89 22:14 44 22:15–20 48 22:18–20 100 23:16 124 24:2 33, 124 25:24 163

Nehemiah 4:14 97 Job 3:26 145 12:6 145 15:11 193 21:10 123 27:8 145 Psalms 79:8 57 109:14 57 122:6 145 Isaiah 8:6 193 10:33 68 13:16 186 13:18 186 22:1 156 33:21 97 50:8 103 64:8 57 Jeremiah 1:4–10 2 1:5 2, 229 4:9–10 229 5:13 2, 229 5:31 2, 229 6:13 2, 229 7:25–26 33 8:10 2, 229 12:1 145 13:13 2, 229 14:10 57 14:13–15 229 14:13 2 14:14 2 14:15 2 14:18 2, 229 15:7 123 21:1–6 1 23:9–40 229 23:11 2 23:13 2

23:14 2 23:15 2 23:16 2, 3 23:21 2 23:25 2 23:26 2 23:30 2 23:31 2 23:33 2 23:34 2 23:37 2 25:4 33 26:1–24 229 26:5 33 26:8 2 26:11 2 26:16 2 27:9–16 229 27:9 2 27:14 2 27:15 2 27:16 2 28 34 28:15–17 229 28:15–16 229 28:15 2 28:17 2 29:8 2, 229

247

Index of References 29:15 2, 229 29:19 33 29:26 2, 229 31:34 57 32:32 2, 229 34–51 2 35:15 33 37:19 2, 229 44:4 33 44:26 46 51:14 46

Hosea 1:10 97 8:13 57 9:9 57 9:12 123 14:1 186

Lamentations 1:20 123 3:54 161

Obadiah 1:1 2

Ezekiel 5:17 123 6:13 97 14:15 123 17:19 46 20:1–3 1 21:28–29 57 29:16 57 31:6 68 31:8 68 36:12–14 123 36:31 57

Amos 1:3 186 1:13 186 4:2 46

Jonah 4:3 77 4:9 81 Malachi 3:11 123 Babylonian Talmud Soṭah 46b 125

I n d ex of A ut hor s Abrams, M. H. 11, 12 Albertz, R. 5, 43, 111 Alter, R. 38 Arnold, B. T. 61, 134

Dillard, R. B. 43, 79, 111, 125, 129, 154, 164, 166, 203, 204, 223 Dixon, P. B. 13 Durand, J.-M. 35, 36

Barstad, H. M. 27, 36 Bartolini, P. 15, 229 Beardsley, M. C. 10 Beck, M. 5, 6, 43, 111 Bergen, W. 6, 111, 112, 114–17, 123, 125, 128, 131, 135–37, 140, 141, 143– 45, 149–52, 154, 155, 160, 163–65, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 178, 182–86, 189, 191, 201–3, 228 Booth, W. C. 12 Brenner, A. 999 Bronner, L. 6, 43, 51, 62, 111, 143 Brueggemann, W. 38, 77, 152, 205, 223 Buber, M. 999 Butler, R. R. 9

Ellul, J. 155 Empson, W. 8, 10 Epp-Tiessen, D. 3, 229 Ervin, H. A. 15 Eslinger, L. M. 38 Ewald, H. 62

Camp, P. 4 Campbell, A. F. 42 Carroll, E. H. 46 Carroll, R. P. 27, 116 Childers, J. 10 Choi, J. H. 61, 134 Clements, R. E. 30 Cogan, M. 5, 43–45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 60, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 94, 111, 181, 183 Coggins, R. J. 91 Cohn, R. L. 151, 155, 158, 166, 167, 169, 176, 177, 181, 184, 203, 204 Conner, M. C. 13 Cronauer, P. T. 94 Culley, R. C. 171 Dafni, E. G. 91 De Beauvoir, S. 12 De Jong, M. J. 3, 229 Deist, F. 141 Dharamraj, H. 6, 59, 62–65, 70, 72, 73, 77, 79, 80, 82–85, 87, 111, 228

Fergusson, F. 13 Fritz, V. 72, 75, 94, 97, 100, 111, 155, 166, 170, 183, 204 Fuchs, E. 141 Gallagher, P. 3, 229 Garsiel, M. 6, 52, 55, 58, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 94, 97, 100, 111, 228 Gehman, H. S. 72 Gesenius, W. 45, 133, 134, 167 Gillespie, M. P. 12, 13 Gilmour, R. 199, 228 Gottwald, N. K. 162 Gras, V. W. 11 Gray, J. 5, 42, 43, 51, 53, 60, 64, 67, 68, 75, 94, 100, 101, 103, 111, 114–17, 122, 123, 126, 145, 152, 156, 162, 165, 166, 171, 176, 183, 185, 189, 191, 200, 203 Greenberg, M. 17, 18 Gudas, F. 10, 11 Gunkel, H. 5, 43, 72, 75, 111, 114 Gunn, D. M. 38 Hamilton, J. M. 91 Haynes, S. R. 5, 6 Heidegger, M. 12 Heims, N. 12 Heller, R. L. 17, 19, 25, 36, 39, 48, 50, 51, 78, 91, 118, 135, 146, 149, 158, 170, 177, 190, 230



Index of Authors

Helms, N. R. 13 Hentzi, G. 10 Hibbard, J. T. 3, 229 Hobbs, T. R. 136, 146, 158, 169, 171, 191 Holt, E. 6, 73 Im, Y. 13 Jeffers, A. 46 Jenni, E. 19 Jeppesen, K. 27, 95 Kaplan, A. 11 Karalis, V. 15 Kissling, P. J. 6, 111, 183, 223, 225, 228 Kitz, A. M. 94 Klein, R. W. 38 Kluge, S. 13 Klutz, T. E. 47 Kooij, J. G. 10 Kris, E. 11 Kroeze, J. H. 29 Kwalotswe, O. 94, 95 Lasine, S. 167, 170 Lehmann, M. R. 45 Lohfink, N. 23 Long, B. O. 64, 136, 164, 171 Mack, M. 13 Magdalene, F. R. 94 Marsden, S. 12 Marx, A. 47 Matthews, V. H. 5, 43, 70, 86 McCarter, P. K. 38 McKenzie, S. L. 5, 6 Mead, J. K. 112 Meier, S. A. 32 Miller, J. M. 6 Miller, P. D. 18, 26 Moberly, R. W. L. 3, 91, 229 Montgomery, J. A. 72 Moore, R. D. 125, 155, 166, 167, 169, 203, 223 Nakao, Y. 12 Naudé, J. A. 29

249

Nelson, R. D. 6, 17, 23, 28, 43, 56, 57, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 83, 84, 86, 89, 94, 95, 98, 100, 105, 111, 115, 116, 120, 121, 126, 130, 136, 138, 141, 142, 152, 154, 155, 159, 166, 175, 178, 183, 186, 200, 205, 223 Nigosian, S. A. 47 Nissinen, M. 19, 36 Noll, K. L. 4 Nwaoru, E. O. 47 Nzimande, M. 95 O’Brien, M. A. 42 O’Connor, M. 45, 134 Otto, E. 27 Overholt, T. W. 5, 41, 43 Park, C. 9 Parpola, S. 36 Perloff, M. 999 Petersen, D. L. 115 Polzin, R. 38 Porter, J. R. 115 Provan, I. W. 43, 53, 59, 64, 67, 77, 80, 83, 94, 111, 113, 121, 122, 130, 152, 153, 165, 166, 169, 174, 177, 185, 203, 204, 223 Ramos, V. 10 Ramsey, G. W. 38 Ravela, J. K. 95 Resane, K. T. 95 Richards, I. A. 11 Rimmon-Kenan, S. 10 Roberts, J. J. M. 91 Robinson, B. P. 75, 82 Rofé, A. 125 Römer, T. C. 42 Rowe, J. A. 13 Ruprecht, E. 115 Russell, S. C. 94 Sabar, G. 94 Schmidt, B. 47 Shapiro, J. 14 Sharp, C. J. 4 Shields, M. E. 141, 142 Smith, M. 115

250

Index of Authors

Stephens, A. 15, 229 Sternberg, M. 38 Sweeney, M. A. 5, 42–44, 46, 50–53, 56, 64, 74, 77, 79, 81, 84, 87, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 111, 116, 124, 127, 129, 143, 148, 149, 152, 155, 166, 167, 169, 177, 184, 185, 190, 191, 194, 203, 204 Tadmor, H. 181, 183 Tarrer, S. B. 3, 229 Tigay, J. 18, 21, 27 Timm, S. 95 Valdés, A. A. 91 Van der Merwe, C. H. J. 29 Walsh, J. 6, 61, 63–66, 75–77, 79, 80, 84, 87, 88, 94, 97, 111, 228

Waltke, B. K. 45, 134 Walzl, F. L. 13 Weinfeld, M. 19 Wellhausen, J. 62 Westbrook, R. 94 Wifall, W. 114 Wray Beal, L. M. 195 Würthwein, E. 115, 117 Ziolkowski, E. 125