A Prophet Like Moses A Narrative-Theological Reading of The Elijah Narratives

Durham E-Theses
A prophet like Moses? A narrative-theological reading

of the Elijah narratives
Dharamraj, Havilah
How to cite:
Dharamraj, Havilah (2006) A prophet like Moses? A narrative-theological reading of the Elijah narratives,
Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2666/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses

• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP
e-mail: e-theses.admin@dur.ac.uk Tel: +44 0191 334 6107
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
A Prophet Like Moses?
A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Narratives
Havilah Dharamraj
The copyright of this thesis rests with the

author or the university to which It was
submitted. No quotation from It, or
information derived from it may be published
without the prior written consent of the author
or university, and any information derived
from it should be acknowledged.
0 9 JUN 2006
Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Theology
University of Durham
March 2006
Abstract

Havilah Dharamraj
Ph. D. Thesis submitted to the University of Durham, March 2006
If one reads the Moses and Elijah narratives in their canonical order and arrangement,
the typical reader's response, since rabbinic times, is to note the manifold parallels
between them. These parallels appear at all the various levels of any discourse: they
may be found at the verbal level, recognizable in significant words and phrases; at the
level of story, they emerge in the framework of the narrative, in the progression of the
plot and in characterisation; most significantly, the parallels colour the conceptual
level, in terms of both significant motifs and overarching themes. This cumulative
resonance peaks at I Kgs 19 and 2 Kgs 2, two critical components of the Elijah cycle,
compelling an appraisal of the character Elijah against the character Moses.
Such a comparison becomes a legitimate exercise considering the promise in Deut.

18: 18 of another like Moses. With Moses established as Israel's prophet par
excellence, the debate often turns on deciding whether Elijah follows the paradigm or
falls short of it. Thus, 1 Kgs 19, which relates Elijah's experiences at Horeb, is
regularly read as Elijah's critical failure as a Mosaic prophet; he indicts Israel rather
than intercedes for them. This thesis argues that such a reading dislocates the parallels
the narrative carefully builds up between 1 Kgs 19 and Exod. 32-34; further, this
negative portrayal of Elijah makes it difficult to reconcile 1 Kgs 19 with the
remainder of the Elijah narratives, notably, with 2 Kgs 2, where Elijah is accorded an
exit that indubitably affirms his service as prophet. An alternative reading is offered
which is particularly sensitive to any inner-biblical exegesis as may be mediated by
the Mosaic resonance. This reading identifies the theological thrust, and the
implications for the larger narrative of the "primary history" of Israel, of Elijah being
read (and perhaps, presented by the narrator), as a prophet like Moses.
Statement of Copyright

Havilah Dharamraj
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be
published in any format, including electronic and the Internet, without the author's
prior written consent. All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged
appropriately.
Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Theology
University of Durham
March 2006
iii
Declaration
This work has been submitted to the University of Durham in accordance with the
regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It is my own work, and none of it
has been previously submitted to the University of Durham or in any other university
for a degree.
Havilah Dharamraj
Signed
Date
IV
Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................. ix
Chapter One: Introduction: What May be Expected of a Prophet Like Moses?

1. A Prophet Like Moses ................................................................................. 1
2. The Critical Method Applied ..........................••..•••.•................•.........•..••.•••.•4
3. The Text Under Stu.dy .............................................................................. 6
Chapter Two: 1 Kgs 16:29-17:24: The Drought

1. Ahab Begins his Reign ................................................................................7
2. The Drought ............................................................................................9
2.11 Kgs 17: 1-7: Elijah Predicts a Drought ................................................ 9
2.2 1 Kgs 17:8-16: The Oil and the Flour. .................................................. 13
2.3 1 Kgs 17:17-24: The Widow's Son ...................................................... 15
3. Conclusion .............................................................................................20
Chapter Three: 1 Kgs 18: The Resolution of the Drought

1. Towards the Resolution of the Drought ................................•..••••....•......•.••.•• 22
1.11 Kgs 18:1-16: Ahab and Obadiah (vv.1-6); Obadiah and Elijah (vv.7-16) ....... 22
1.2 1 Kgs 18: 17-19: Ahab and Elijah ....................................................... 26
2. The Contest at Carmel .............................................................................. 27
2.11 Kgs 18:20-24: Either/Or Rather than Both/And ..................................... 27
2.2 1 Kgs 18:25-40: The LORD vs. Baal.. .................................................. 31
2.3 1 Kgs 18:30-46: The Covenant Affirmed ............................................. 36
3. Conclusion .............................................................................................41
Chapter Four: 1 Kgs 19: Horeb

1. 1 Kgs 19:1-10: Moses, Elijah and the Death Wish •••.•..............•••••...........••••••••••44
1.1 Moses and the Death Wish .............................................................. .44
1.1.1 Moses' Intercession at Sinai (Exod. 32:31-32) ............................ .44
1.1. 2 Moses' Complaint at Kibroth-hattaavah (Num. 11 :4-15) ................ .47
1.2 Elijah and the Death Wish (1 Kgs 19:1-10) ............................................ .49
1.2.1 Elijah's Complaint under the Broom Tree (1 Kgs 19:1-4) ............... 51
1.2.2 Towards Elijah's Second Complaint (1 Kgs 19:5-9a) ..................... 54
1.2.3 Elijah's Complaint at Horeb (1 Kgs 19:9b-10) ............................ 57
v
1.3 Revisiting the Resonance between the Death Wish Narratives ..................... 74
2. 1 Kgs 19:11-13a: The Earthquake, Wind, Fire and ",p .................................. 76
2.1 The Text of 1 Kgs 19:11-13a ............................................................. 76

2.1.1 Verbal and Story Level Correspondences with Exodus Narratives ...... 77
2.1.2 Resolving the Grammar of the Text. ........................................ 78
2.1.3 ;,p, ;,~~, "1p ............................................. ······ ...... 80
2.1.3.1 "1p ............................................................. 81
2.1. 3.2 ;,p, ............................................................ 83

2.1.3.3 ;,~~,;Job 4:12-16 ................................................ 84
2.1.3.4 The Two ""1p"s ................................................... 93
2.2 The LORD's Absence and Presence in vv.ll-13a ..................................... 97

2.3 Reconsidering the LORD's Absence and Presence in vv.11-13a .................. 104
2.3.1 Exod. 19-20 ................................................................... .110
2.3.2 Exod. 33-34 ................................................................... .111
2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................. 112
3. 1 Kgs 19:13-18: Elijah Receives his Commission ••••..•••.•.........•..••••••••...........••• 113
3.1 1 Kgs 19:13: The Second Question ................................................... .113
3.1.11n1,~:l ,~m ~"~, ,;,~"~ lmw:;, ~;,~,.. .......................... 113
3.1.2 :-t1!1~:-t nn::l ,~!1~, ~~~1.. .......................................... 115
3.1.3 1:-t~"~ :-t::l l" ;,~with reference to Jotham's Fable, Israel's Demand
for a King and the "Death" of Joseph .................................. 116
3.21 Kgs 19:14:TheSecondResponse ................................................... 125
3.3 1 Kgs 19:15-18: The Commission ...................................................... l31
3.3.1 nnn and its Implications .................................................... 133
3.3.2 The root 1~W and the Remnant Motif ..................................... 139
3.3.2.1 Noah: Gen. 7:17-24 .............................................. 141

3.3.2.2 Joseph: Gen. 45:4b-8a .......................................... .143
3.3.2.3 An Israel Within Israel. .......................................... 146
3.4 Comparing the Story Outlines ofExod. 32-34 and 1 Kgs 19 ...................... .151
3.5 The Reliability of the Character Elijah ................................................ 152
3.5.1 Levels of Knowledge ......................................................... 153
3.5.2 Time- Objective and Internal. ............................................. 156
3.5.3 Conclusion ..................................................................... 160
VI
4. 1 Kgs 19:19-21: Elisha becomes Elijah's Minister ........................................... 160
4.1 The Question of Elijah's "Lapses" ..................................................... 161
4.1.1 The Appointments of Hazael and Jehu .................................... 162
4.1.2 The "Anointing" of Elisha ................................................... 167
4.2 Mosaic Resonances ....................................................................... 169
5. Concluding Summary to 1 Kgs 19 ............................................................... 170
Chapter Five: 1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18: Elijah and Ahaziah

1. 1 Kgs 22:51-53: Regnal Resume ................................................................. 173
2. 2 Kgs 1: The Themes Revisited .................................................................. 174
2.1 Baal versus the LORD ................................................................... 174
2.2 The Affirmation of the Prophet. ........................................................ 180
3. 2 Kgs 1 in the Context of the Elijah-Elisha Cycles .......................................... 183
Chapter Six: 2 Kgs 2: Elijah's Ascension and Elisha's Succession

1. 2 Kgs 2 ................................................................................................ 186
1.1 Elijah's Ascension and Elisha's Succession .......................................... 186
1.1.1 2 Kgs 2: 1-6: Elisha accompanies Elijah ................................... 186
1.1.2 2 Kgs 2:7-8: Elijah parts the Jordan ........................................ 195
1.1.3 2 Kgs 2:9-10: Elisha asks a "hard thing" .................................. 198
1.1.4 2 Kgs 2:11-12: Elijah is "taken" ............................................ 204
1.1.5 2 Kgs 2: 13-15: "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha" .................... 212
1.1.6 2 Kgs 2:16-18: The Search for Elijah ...................................... 217
1.2 Structure and Focus of the 2 Kgs 2 Narrative ......................................... 221
1.3 Interim Conclusion ....................................................................... 224
2. Exod. 14-15 and Josh.1, 3-5 ...................................................................... 225
2.1 The Two Great Water Crossings ....................................................... 225
2.1.1 Verbal Parallels ............................................................... 225
2.1.2 Story Level Parallels ......................................................... 227
2.2 Interim Conclusion ....................................................................... 229
3. The Red Sea Crossing, the Jordan Crossing and 2 Kgs 2: Conceptual Parallels ...... 229
3.1 The Dynamics of Authoritative Leadership: Moses and Joshua; Elijah and
Elisha ................................................................................. 230
3.2 The War Theme in Exod. 14-15 and Joshua 1-5; Implications for 2 Kgs 2 ...... 234
4. Conclusion .................................................................................. , ........243
Chapter Seven: Conclusion: Is Elijah a Prophet Like Moses? .............................. 244
vii
Appendix ..•.•••.••.•••.•.•••...••••...............••••••••••....•.•••......••••.•••••••••••••....•..•••• 252
Works Consulted ............•.••••.•.••.••••.............•.....•.•..•..•.•.••••••...•.•....•••.••••••• 255
viii
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABR Australian Biblical Review
AJSL American Journal for Semitic Languages and Literature
Ant. Jewish Antiquities
ASV American Standard Version
AT ANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BOB Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-
Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin and Company. 1906. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
2000.
Bib Biblica
BSC Bible Student's Commentary
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
cc Continental Commentaries
ETL Ephemerides theologicae louvanienses
EvT Evangelische Theologie
EVV English versions
ExpTim Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature
GKC Gesenius, William and E. Kautzsch. Gesenius-Kautzsch Hebrew
Grammar. Translated by Collins, G. W. Revised h)' A. E. Cowley.
Oxford: Clarendon. 1898.
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament.
HBD HarperCollins Bible Dictionary
HSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
/SBE International Standard Bible Encylopedia
.· .fiJ.fYE$CU .fqyr,n(l,lof tbe. f\ncierg N.e,ar ~astern $ociety of Columbia University
lAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JB Jerusalem Bible
ix
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
J oiion-Muraoka Joiion, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised
by T. Muraoka. Vol. 1. Reprint of 181 edn. with corrections. Subsidia
biblica 14/1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1993.
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPS Jewish Publication Society
JPSA Jewish Publication Society of America
JSOT/ JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTC Journal for Theology and Church
JTS Journal ofTheological Studies
JTSA Jewish Theological Seminary of America
KJV King James Version
L.A. B. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
NAB New American Bible
NASV New American Standard Version
NCB New Century Bible
NEB New English Bible
NIBC New Interpreter's Bible Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
OT Old Testament
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
PEQ Palestine Exploration Qtly
Per Perspectives
Proof Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History
Rom. Ant. The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
~sy Reyis~dStCllldard Xersion ~.
SBLMS Society" of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
X
Schol Scholastik
Sem Semeia
sg. singular
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SR . Studies in Religion
T. Ben}. Testament of Benjamin
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
Tg. Jon. Targum Jonathan
Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos
Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
vv. verses
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
we Westminster Commentaries
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift fiir die alttestametliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
lQS Dead Sea Scrolls; Rule of the Community
xi
Chapter One
Introduction: What May be Expected of a Prophet Like Moses?
1. A Prophet Like Moses

Deuteronomy's epitaph to Moses declares him the prophet unsurpassed: "Never since
has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses"; ;,lli~:;, ',~1ilr:l ,,l' ~~:l) cp ~',1;
(Deut. 34: 1Oa). The pronouncement suggests that Moses was the paradigm that
prophets were to follow; their performance was to be benchmarked by his. While
Moses forever remains a prophet without equal, hope that the prophetic line would
yield another of Moses' fibre rests on the LORD's promise through Moses, made in
response to Israel's request for a mediator between them and God (Deut. 18: 15-22).
The promise assures Israel a prophet "like" Moses, and in this text, the accent is on
mediation of the divine word to the people. The prophet will deliver this word
faithfully, and the people will be held accountable should they not heed it. They will
know the word and the prophet who spoke that word as true in retrospect, by virtue of
it fulfilling itself.
While the OT associates Moses with Samuel in the context of intercession (Jer. 15:1;
Ps. 99:6), the comparative field opens up to include the entire life and work of Moses
in the stories of the Elijah cycle as recounted in 1 'Kgs 17-21 and 2 Kgs 1-2. Though
the narrative does not once mention Moses by name, the richness of the intertexuality
between this set of stories and the Moses stories set down in Exodus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy invites a comparison of these two prophets. The resonance spills over
into the succession stories, encouraging a secondary setting up of parallels between
Elisha (2 Kgs 2) and Joshua (Josh. 1-6), which reinforce and accentuate the primary
comparison.
Lists of these parallels between Moses and Elijah abound, a Midrashic compilation
possibly being the earliest of the more exhaustive ones. 1 On setting up these
correspondences, a comparative evaluation becomes possible, and indeed natural.
Thus, for example, Walsh concludes his remarkably comprehensive engagement with
c t)le intertexuality asJollows:
1
Piska 4.2, Pesikta Rabbati. See Appendix.
The effect of the pervasive allusions to the Moses traditions, then, is to depict Elijah
as almost the equal of Moses [emphasis added], but as ultimately failing to meet the
standards Moses set. This redounds to the glory of Moses in that he remains the
unquestioned paradigm of prophecy in Israel. Ironically, it redounds to the qualified
glory of Elijah as well, since he is many ways, though not all, a Moses redivivus. 2
This is a possible line of approach, but not the only one, and sometimes it may subtly
skew the reading of the text in that it may distract the reader's attention from the more
significant issue of the purpose that the resonance works in its immediate textual
context. 3
Here, we recognize that the resonance is mediated to the reader through two
channels-the character Elijah, and the narrator. In the Hebrew narrative tradition of
the self-effacing and covert narrator, the character Elijah is brought to the foreground
in the Kings stories; his speech and actions convey the parallels. The narrator sustains
and augments the resonance by creating the correct background. This he does by
carefully selecting the material for the narrative, by skilfully orchestrating the
structure and progression of his plot, and by adding evocative story detail. The end to
which the character and narrator work in tandem is-as is usual in Hebrew
narrative-to lead the reader to adopt the narrator's point of view and espouse his
evaluation of characters and situations. The key component of this leading, it appears,
is the evoking of a paradigmatic event in Israel's history (namely, the Exodus) and its
principal player (namely, Moses); hence the need to pay close attention to the function
of these resonances within the discourse.
2
Walsh, (1996), 288-89.
3
A good example of such distraction is provided by one strand of early Jewish engagement with a
certain instance of parallelism between the Moses and Elijah stories, namely, the passing of the two
prophets. Here, labour is directed towards reconciling the death of Moses with the exception made for
Elijah, the underlying assumption being that non-death is the ultimate affirmation of a life of
extraordinary virtue. Thus, disregarding the biblical account of Moses' death, it argues that he was
translated. Sotah 13b; cf. Sifre to Deueronomy 357. Philo follows this interpretative tradition in Sac. Of
Abel 8, cf., arguing that "the end of virtuous and holy men is not death but a translation and migration
(Ques,' 'On Gen; h~86)," :Josephus; -more,subtly,•links"Moses with~Enoch.,with the unusual expression
av(qWpTJOE npoc; to 8E1ov (he "returned to the divinity") (Ant. 1.85; Ant. 4.326, cf. 3.96), and Moses
with Elijah with the verb aQ!av((o~cn (to "disappear") (Ant. 4.326; Ant. 9.28). Thus, reading a sense of
competition into the resonance may create more problems than it solves.
2
Given the resonance with stories in Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Deut. 18:18
becomes relevant as a possible handle to reading the Mosaic resonance. This returns
us to the key preposition, :l, here used as the (often poetic) variant ,~:l. 4
5
:l has a more pronounced substantival character than do the other prepositions, and
"expresses a relation of either perfect (equality), or imperfect (resemblance)

similitude; the meaning may therefore be exactly like, or more or less like, but in
many cases without any precise nuance." 6 Relevant here is Fishbane's study of
inner-biblical typological exegesis, not only because he identifies :l as a lexical
indicator of this exegetical procedure, 7 but because the procedure itself is of interest to
our undertaking. He explains these typologies as follows:
... inner biblical typologies constitute a literary-historical phenomenon which isolates
perceived correlations between specific events, persons or places early in time with
their later correspondents ... [I]n so far as the 'later correspondents' occur in history
and time, they will never be precisely identical with their prototype, but inevitably
stand in a hermeneutical relationship with them. The reasons for this are twofold. On
the one hand, while it is in the nature of typologies to emphasize the homological
'likeness' of any two events, the concrete historicity of the correlated data means that
no new event is ever merely a 'type' of another, but always retains its historically
unique character. Moreover, and this is the second factor, nexuses between distinct
temporal data are never something simply given; they are something which must
always be exegetically established. Indeed, in the Hebrew Bible such nexuses are the
product of a specific mode of theological-historical speculation-one which seeks to
adapt, interpret, or otherwise illuminate a present experience .. .by means of an older
datum ... By this means it also reveals unexpected unity in historical experience and
providential continuity in its new patterns and shapes. 8
By way of example, he demonstrates the role of Deut. 18: 18 in typologies of a
biographical nature. A prophet "like" Moses is evoked in the motif of the preparation
of the prophet's mouth to speak the divine word; it has its origin with Moses (Exod.
4:10-16), and re-emerges in the commissioning accounts of Isaiah (Isa. 6:5-8),
4
BOB, ;::,, 453-56.
5
Joiion-Muraoka, § 133g. Cf. GKC, §lOla,§ 102.2; Waltke and O'Connor (1990), 11.2.9a-b .
6
. Joiion:Muraoka, §133g. ·,-:
7
Fish bane proposes this function for fixed rhetorical terms such as 1~ ... ,WK~ and non-technical
variants using;::,. (1985), 352-53.
8
Fish bane ( 1985), 351-52.
3
Jeremiah (Jer. 1:9) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:8-3:3). 9 The homology creates
"spiritual-historical continuities." 10
In the task that lies ahead, that of studying the parallel texts, Fishbane's approach is
worth bearing in mind, though any conclusions we draw with respect to the
compositional intention in the Elijah stories can only be submitted as a tentative
construct. In the present context, Fishbane's remarks inform us on the possible
function of the preposition ;:,, directing us to conclude thus: the Elijah material in
Kings does lend itself to being read against the corresponding Moses stories, and
provokes an evaluation of Elijah vis-a-vis the promise of Deut. 18:18. A reasonable
approach to evaluating Elijah as a prophet would be, not in terms of whether he is a
Moses redivivus, but rather, in terms of how he does or does not reflect in the practice
of his calling the qualities and virtues that mark Moses.
Further, we remind ourselves that the prophet's discharge of his duties is in the
context of the covenant that binds Israel and the LORD. As such, our starting point is
the history of Israel as recounted under the Omride kings, Ahab and Ahaziah. It is a
troubled period, and one that creates opportunities for prophetic intervention towards
the securing of Israel's relationship with God. Perhaps Elijah's moves will recall
Moses' in analogous situations either in favourable comparison or contrast. All along,
the need is to keep the ear sensitive to the pattern of the resonance; its rise and falling
mark out the episodes key to the evaluation of Elijah. When we conclude our study of
the implications of the intertexuality, we will return to answering the question of
whether Elijah is a prophet like Moses. We may be able then to appreciate fully how
distracting is the.exercise of deciding who is the greater of the two.
2. The Critical Method Applied

We propose to engage in a narrative reading of the Elijah and Moses stories. Any
comparison of texts immediately raises historical questions of composition, namely,
source, dating and redaction. These are valid questions, and attempting answers to
them would contribute to our understanding of the background of the text and inform
9
Fishbane (1985), 374. At a critical juncture, Elijah is affirmed by the truth of the word of the LORD
in his mouth; 1 Kgs 17:24.
1
° Fishbane (1985), 373.
4
our reading of it. However, the literary approach, privileging the received text and the
canonical order, has been established as an alternate primary line of inquiry. It
recognizes the primary story covered by Genesis-2 Kings as a complex discourse,
regulated by the skilful interplay of ideological, historiographic and aesthetic
concerns. This discourse, as we have noted, is inherently "dialogic" in nature, the
restraint of the narrator inviting the reader's response. Locating the Elijah narratives
within Genesis-2 Kings, we may read and respond to them vis-a-vis the "earlier"
Moses stories. While conceding the subjectivity of such a strategy, as against the
self-claimed objectivity of the historical methods, we operate within the demands of
the discipline and rigour of the literary approach, attempting a close reading of the
text that is sensitive to its theological implications.
As concerns the Elijah corpus itself, we acknowledge the compositional and textual
issues. There is disagreement on the unity of the main body of the prophetic narrative,
viz., 1 Kgs 17 -19; 11 and 2 Kgs 1 is customarily regarded as two independent
narratives reworked into one. 12 As regards textual problems, 2 Kgs 1:17-18 presents
difficulties with regnal synchronization between Israel and JudahY More
significantly to our reading, there is debate on 1 Kgs 19:9-14 on the issue of sequence,
as posed by the doublet of question and answer. 14 Preferring to privilege the final
form of the text, we will not engage with these issues. However, traditio-historical and
form critical proposals will be drawn upon where they nuance the narrative reading.
In our exegesis, we compare the MT with the LXX, noting how this earliest rendering
construes the Hebrew text. Largely, we do not engage in translation issues; thus, for
convenience, we note the NRSV (unless specified otherwise) alongside the LXX. We
have not included the MT because of constraint of space.
11
For attempts to recover the history of the text/the historical Elijah, see e.g., Seebass (1973), 121-36,
on 1 Kgs 18; Jepsen (1971), 298-99 on 1 Kgs 18; Stamm (1966), 327-34 on 1 Kgs 19; Nordheim
(1978), 154-59 on 1 Kgs 19. Smend (1975 2), 525-43 treats the redaction of the section 1 Kgs 17-19. Cf.
Carlson (1969), 416-39. Arguing literary unity are, e.g., Cohn (1982), 333-50, on 1 Kgs 17-19; Jobling
,_ -- ---- · (l978);··63-86;"<m t·Kgd7"18;'Hobbs•(l984);-327c34;'on"l'Kgs 1"2.
12
Koch (1969), 187-88; DeVries (1978), 62.
13
See Hobbs (1985), 3-4.
14
For a survey of proposals, see Wi.irthwein (1970), 152-166.
5
We will find ourselves identifying in the Elijah stories theological emphases from
Deuteronomy, and this is relevant considering that Deuteronomy belongs to the
Mosaic corpus; and, of course, this is compatible in historical-critical terms with the
compositional hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History.
3. The Text Under Study

We recognize 1 Kgs 16:31-1 Kgs 22:40 as the chronicle covering the reign of the
Omride, Ahab. It records the famine in Ahab's reign, his wars against Aram, the
irregularities in his administration (as in the incident of Naboth), and his joint
campaign with Judah against Aram, which results in his death. As in most other
regnal accounts in Kings, in each of these accounts Yahwist prophets play a part;
some named, like Elijah and Micaiah ben Imlah, some anonymous; some operating
individually, some in groups; some straightforward, and some, like the 400 consulted
before the battle of Ramoth-gilead, not so straightforward.
I Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 1: 18 is the account of the reign of Ahab' s successor Ahaziah, and
this account also contains a prophetic component, forming part of the Elijah
narratives. 2 Kgs 2, curiously, stands outside the flow of regnal history, between
reigns, and relates a story of prophetic succession.
We will pick out the Elijah "cycle" from this general framework of regnal chronicle,
and not engage with the other prophet of significance in the Ahab narrative, Micaiah.
Our interest lies in tracking resonance with the Moses stories, and we find that 1 Kgs
19 and 2 Kgs 2 are richest in this respect. Thus, we will treat these at greater length.
Of the textual chapters in which Elijah appears, 1 Kgs 21 will not be studied on its
own, but referred to in the course of discussion on 2 Kgs 2, since the Naboth incident
is more Ahab's story than Elijah's.
There are two OT texts outside the Elijah-Elisha cycles where Elijah finds mention,
namely, 2 Chron. 21:12 (which is textually problematic) and Mal. 4:5. We shall not
engage with these, since neither would contribute to our particular study.
6
Chapter Two
1 Kgs 16:29-17:24: The Drought
As is common in the regnal accounts in Kings, the prophetic narrative is embedded

within the account of the king's reign. Given the tenor of his opening speech, Elijah's
entrance is forceful and dramatic; it adds to the tension of the narrative that he is
introduced with neither antecedent nor title. It becomes the reader's task to work out
his reliability as the narrator develops Elijah's character in the context of the plot.
Alongside this exercise, we keep our ear sensitive to any resonance with the Moses
stories, to see how this would nuance our reading of the text.
1. Ahab Begins his Reign

Ahab's reign is introduced with the usual regnal resume (1 Kgs 16:29-33), expanded
to accommodate instances in proof of the increasing wickedness of the Omrides. His
taking of Jezebel of Sidon for queen recalls the narrator's censure of Solomon's
Sidonian wives ( 1 Kgs 11: 1-5). The association anticipates a severe political corollary
(cf. 1 Kgs 11:9-13).
The narrator selects for attention the cultic consequences of the alliance, namely, a
series of projects,' and brackets the list with the assessment of Ahab's sins as
unprecedented (vv.30, 33b): "more than all before him"-,~JE:l'? 1tliN '?::l~. Indeed
the concentric structure of the resume heavily emphasizes Ahab's cultic sins. 2 It fits
the logic of the larger narrative of Kings that the entrance of Elijah, pronouncing
prophetic judgment, should almost immediately follow the inclusio of indictment.
V.34 is the briefly narrated episode of the rebuilding of Jericho, seemingly

unconnected with the narrative in progress, since, it is neither part of the introductory
regnal resume, nor of the extensive prophetic traditions that follow. 3 Conroy argues
for both lexical and thematic links. At the verbal level, both Ahab and Hiel are seen to
engage in construction projects, and both projects are contrary to the will of the
1
Emerton (1997), 295.
2
A v.30 General religious evaluation
-B· vv .ll ~ 33a Specific instances of irreligious behaviour
C v .33b General religious evaluation
Conroy (1996), 213.
3
So Jones (1984 2), 298; Tov (1992), 346-47.
7
LORD. If Ahab's buildings directly contravene the covenantal obligations, Riel's is in

defiance of the ancient curse on the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh. 6:26). Both Ahab and
Riel are each the subject of three verbs that belong loosely in the semantic field of
"construction"---./t:np, --.fm:J, --./iifJJ!J and --./iiJ::J., --./10\ --.f::J."jJ respectively.
Thematically, Conroy argues three parallels which emerge in the larger narrative.
First, like Riel's sons, two of Ahab's sons and successors die untimely deaths. 4
Secondly, there is the motif of the prophetic word. Both sets of sons die by the
fulfillment of it (2 Kgs 1: 17; 9:26). Thirdly, the town mimes Bethel and Jericho recur
in 2 Kgs 2, a narrative that revolves around Elijah and Elisha, each prophet having to
do with the death of one of Ahab's sons. 5 Thus, concludes Conroy, the Riel incident
performs at once, both an analeptic and a proleptic narrative function. It links back to
Josh. 6:26, and more immediately to the preceding section, namely, 1 Kgs 16:29-33.
The latter contact sets up an analogy between Ahab and Riel which, in turn, may be
read as proleptic as regards various aspects of the Elijah-Elisha material. 6 Conroy's
thesis is not implausible.
Another possibility is that this construction is an addendum to the list of Ahab's other
prohibited projects, stated earlier, in the sense that it would have required the king's
patronage, or at the very least, his overriding permission. 7 Certainly, a deep sense of
foreboding is created by the stirring up and actualization of this ancient curse,
reaching far back into the history of Israel. Long's summary is appropriate: "It is as
though the editor saw that the troubles that were to beset Ahab's reign were
anticipated in this little event. With irony, perhaps, normally praiseworthy building
activity revives a dormant curse as a sort of omen for the regime." 8
4
Thus, following the general practice for Israelite kings who die unnatural deaths, neither Jehoram nor
Ahaziah are given burial notices. (Ahab is an exception). Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991), 192.
5
" ••• we would propose that the function of this building notice in 1 Kgs 16, 34 is to pave the way for
the mention of Jericho in the 'Ascension of Elijah' unit in 2 Kgs 2." Bailey (1990), 166-67, n.145.
6
Conroy, (1996), 214-16.
7
E.g., Wiseman (1993), 163; Rice (1990), 138-39; Fretheim (1999), 92. Brueggemann may be cited to
represent another angle: if by Hiel, a building project sponsored by Ahab is intended, and if the sons
are ·seen as "foundation sacrifice;" then;-- "the futictioil' of this ·verse is· to make clear how Ahab has
degraded covenantal practice, how cheap life is, and how arrogant royal practice has become." (2000),
204.
8
Long (1984 ), 174.
8
2. The Drought
2.11 Kgs 17: 1-7: Elijah Predicts a Drought
The reticence of the narrator is a striking feature of the introduction of Elijah into the
story of Ahab's reign. He is introduced "midcareer, at an indeterminate age, with no
biographical details preceding or to follow ." 9 Though his name itself is suggestive of
the direction of his religious loyalties (1i'T,',~-"my God is YHWH"), at this point,
the reader has only Elijah's word to assess him by. The narrator allows ambiguity by
preferring not to use the usual introductory titles ("prophet"/"man of God") for such a
person. Since he claims intimacy with and obedience to the LORD (as the phrase
"before whom I stand" implies), 10 the implication is that his communication
ei:J1 ,E:l',/"the mouth of my word") is of the LORD. Moreover, Elijah covers the
content of his message with a grave oath, which offers, as Long observes, a divine
sanction for the truth of what the prophet is about to say. "Like a prophecy, the oath
announces to King Ahab an irrevocable state of affairs bound to weigh on his rule." 11
However, there is opacity here that the narrative to come must dissolve, and indeed,
Elijah's relationship with and representation of the LORD will form one of the themes
of this chronicle, culminating in 2 Kgs 2:12 with his being "taken." The narrator
prefers to tell Elijah's story subtly; rather than lead the reader with his own
assessment of Elijah, as he has done with Ahab, he prefers to create a string of
opportunities for the reader to work out for himself the reliability of Elijah's opening
declaration.
A second case in point of the narrator's reticence is that he neither confirms nor
denies either by his own comment or through Elijah that the drought follows on the
list of the sins drawn out earlier. 12 It is for the reader to make the connection between
the sins catalogued and the announcement of the drought, not only because of·their
juxtaposition, but from the deuteronomic echoes created. "The LORD will change the
rain of your land into powder and only dust shall come down from the sky until you
9
Brichto ( 1992), 123.
10
Elijah will use the expression again with the same asseverative force in l Kgs 18:15, as does his
successor Elisha (2 Kgs 3: 14; 5: 16).
··
11
:ton~!((l'984); 179. Blank (1950/51) 73':c95;Lehrriarui (1969) 74-92.
12
Fretheim is representative of the consensus that the "spirited stories about Elijah ... address directly
issues of idolatry that have been raised in the preceding chapters, but the narrator .. .is less visible; the
stories themselves carry the freight of his concerns." (1999), 94.
9
are destroyed" (Deut. 28:24) should Israel forsake ('J:J.t'SJ) the LORD (Deut. 28:20)
and follow other gods ('1m~ --Jl',;"T) (Deut. 28: 14). 13 These echoes become keenly
relevant to this particular apostasy, for Elijah's declaration not only reminds that the
LORD he champions is "the God of Israel," but makes abundantly clear who is in
control of rain. 14 Ahab's choice to serve another "lord," Baal of the thunderstorm, is
challenged head on. 15 Indeed, the belief that the absence of rain means the absence of
Baal is not only invoked, but also ingeniously deployed against him; this will tum out
to be the first strike in an elaborate deconstruction of Ahab's favoured deity. 16 As for
the deuteronomic formulaic verbs for apostasy --J'J.i'SJ and '1m~ --Jl',il, the narrator
will introduce them at key points in the narrative to come (1 Kgs 18: 18), confirming
the connections the reader is making at this early stage.
A third subject on which the narrator is covert, yet creates anticipation of, is that of
the people since they, ultimately, will be the primary casualties of the punishment
pronounced by Elijah. In the light of the deuteronomic caveat that Israel's apostasy
will invite the punishment of drought, the reader is invited to ponder Israel's
culpability. The critical role of the "character" Israel in directing the route of the
narrative emerges gradually (1 Kgs 18; 19:10, 15-18), and comes to a resting point
with Jehu's purge of the Omrides and Baalists (2 Kgs 9-10).
Thus, in opening his narrative with the announcement of the drought, the narrator
brings together his three key characters. The narrative following will play out their
13
"In nothing did the ancient world recognize the hand of God more directly than in the giving and
withholding of rain." Skinner (n.d.), 223. In OT belief, the LORD is the only God who can give rain
(Jer. 14:22; cf. Isa. 30:23; Jer. 10:13; 30:23; 51:16; etc). Obedience to him brings the blessing of
abundant rain (Lev. 26:4), but sin causes him to withhold it (Deut. 11:10-17; 1 Kgs 8:35-36; Jer. 5:24;
14:3-4). Thus, Jeremiah's confession on behalf of Judah (Jer. 14: 1 ff) and Zechariah's urging to ask
the LORD for rain (Zech. 10:1). Patai (1939), 252-53.
Jer. 14 laments the great drought on the land, confessing the cause to be Israel's sins (v.7). Cf. 2 Sam.
21:1-10.
14
Extrabiblical evidence on Canaanite myth helps set the story within its ancient context: "The
Canaanites' equating of fertility with the presence of a live and vibrant Baal, who as the storm god sent
the life-preserving rains onto the land, and their equating of drought and famine with the periodic death
of Baal, set the stage for the stories in 1 Kings 17-19." Hauser and Gregory (1990), II. Bronner (1968),
pursues this polemic exhaustively over the motifs of oil and corn (77-85), rain (65-77), resurrection
(106-122) and fire (54-65), all relevant to the stories of 1 Kgs 17-18. Cf. Cross (1973), 147-194.
15
See footnote above. Also, Ap-Thomas (1960), 151-52.
16
That Baal, who appears to be the' till'gerof the-poleritic that permeates 1 Kgs 17, is never mentioned is
noteworthy, especially with reference to the narrator's "reticence," since appreciating this style of
storytelling will have a significant bearing on our reading of the larger narrative, especially of Elijah at
Horeb.
10
interactions with each other within the covenantal framework that relates their
destinies.
Elijah's announcement of the drought is immediately followed by the divine

command to go into hiding. Not only does this seal the authority of God on the
subsequent action, but the reader is also alerted that Elijah's representation before the
crown has been at the risk of his life. 17 The narrator records Elijah's obedience in
what Walsh calls a "'command and compliance' pattern," not uncommon in Hebrew
narrative. "The effect of the verbatim repetition," he elaborates, "is to emphasize that
the obedience is absolute and complete: Elijah fulfills Yahweh's commands to the
letter." 18
li1"i1 "JEl ',11 1fli~ n"1=> ',m:J n1noJ1 i1~ip 1" n"JD1 m~ 1"
i11i1" 1:::li:::> Wl1"1 1",.,,
li1"i1 "JEl ',11 1fli~ n"1:::> ',m:J :Jfli"1 1"",
Elijah is sustained at Cherith in exactly the way he had been promised. The period
comes to an end with the wadi drying up, a reminder that in the larger world of the
story, the drought is well under way.
Even at this early stage of the Elijah narrative, the reader may pick up resonance with
the Moses traditions, basically prompted at the lexical and .story levels. First, both
"careers" open with the hero making himself persona non grata with the existing
political structures. Moses unadvisedly and criminally interferes with Egyptian
authority and has to flee the country to save his life (Exod. 2:11-15). Elijah's
challenging of the crown is apparently in obedience to his calling, but the result is the
same; he too must flee. Both halt their flight by a watering hole in the wild; Moses by
a well (Exod. 2: 15), and Elijah by the wadi Cherith. 19
17
E.g., Montgomery (1951), 294; House (1995), 213; Hauser and Gregory (1990) 13-14. Ahab will
later put Micaiah into prison for his oracle against him (1 Kgs 22:26-27).
-18 'Walsh (1996); 228. - .- - ··c. ·.
19
Fretheim picks up a different (but just as valid) resonance: "Elijah is a towering figure, a new Moses,
who bursts upon the scene from outside normal channels (Gilead is east of the Jordan, away from the
centres of power) and confronts the power structures in uncompromising terms." (1999), 95.
11
Secondly, 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. 15:22 ff) 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. Walsh rightly recognizes the significance of the lexical correspondence in
operation between Exod. 16 and 1 Kgs 17. 20 In Exod. 16, Israel craves a return to the
time "when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread" (Exod. 16:3)? 1
l1:JiD', en', 1J',~N:J 1il1:Ji1 ,,o ',l1 1Jn:J!Li:J
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):
:J1l1:J 1il1:11 en',i 1p::l:l 1il1:11 en',
Further, the regular and miraculous provision of bread ("morning by morning"; Exod.
16:21) continued for Israel till they came to a habitable land, namely, to the borders of
Canaan (Exod. 16: 35; cf. Josh. 5: 12), just as Elijah's supply of bread and meat
continued unfailingly until it was time for him to move to an inhabited place, namely,
Zarephath.
Thirdly, there is the parallel of the prophet's obedience to divine command. This is
not as obvious at this point in the narrative as it will be in retrospect, at the end of the
Elijah narrative. Even so, one may note that the "command and compliance pattern"
that Walsh sees as significant in the delineation of the contours of Elijah's service as
prophet is very much the same as in the Plague narrative. There too the narrator
20
Walsh (1996), 228, 285. Walsh also rightly recognizes the significance of deviations from verbatim
repetition, and notes here that the expansion of the LORD's statement that ravens will feed Elijah to the
· det!iiled"notice·in-17:6ais'in"order to set up an analogy with Exod. 16:8, 12. Cf. for example, Skinner
(n.d.), 224; Fretheim (1999) 97.
21
Besides Exod. 16, Elijah at Cherith also recalls the episode recounted in Num. 11 where again,
supply of meat is an issue and is mentioned along with manna.
12
relates the divine command to Moses and Moses' compliance thereof in parallel, and
this could be read as a literary device employed to call attention to Moses' obedience.
Examples may be found in the episode of the plague of frogs (Exod. 8:5-6), the
plague of gnats (8: 12-13; EVV 16-17), the plague of boils (9: 8-1 0), the plague of
darkeness (10:21-22) and in the crossing of the Red Sea (ch. 14: cp. vv.16 and 21; and
vv .26 and 27). In the plague of the water turning to blood, the description of the
aftermath of Moses' act of obedience closely follows the prediction (ch.7: cp.
vv.17-18 with vv.20-21). 22 In both the Exodus and the 1 Kings stories, the prophet's
obedience is in essence an act of faith, and as such, an endorsement of the prophet's
service.
The episode closes with the first indication that the word of Elijah has taken effect;
the rains have failed and the wadi dries up.
2.2 1 Kgs 17:8-16: The Oil and the Flour

The two Zarephath stories, arranged as they are in ascending climactic order,
progressively build on the existing tension. Rather unexpectedly and ironically, Baal
country is to be Elijah's next hiding place; 23 and rather illogically, a widow, among
the weakest and most vulnerable socio-economically, is to be his host. That he cannot
return yet to Israel speaks of the continuing risk to his life from Ahab. As
commanded, Elijah sets off for Zarephath. Continuing his compliance, he seeks out a
widow. The ensuing dialogue reveals the full effect of Elijah's calling down a
drought. There was no prior indication that it would distress the surrounding peoples,
least of all Baal's home country. Here, a woman juxtaposes verbs in disquieting
paradox speaking of a meal: " ... we will eat it and we will die" (,Jn~, ,m',::l~,). This
is more an inverted funerary meal than a meal for sustenance. Even before Carmel,
Baal has lost.
22
Earlier examples are in the call narrative in the episodes of the staff turning into a snake (Exod. 4:3)
and the leprous hand (4:6-7). In a conversation punctuated with Moses' reluctance to be obedient, these
two events particularly stand out; Moses obeys without question and the LORD's point is proved.
23
Fensham asserts that in fact the main purpose of these two stories set in Sidon is "to demonstrate on
'-Phoenician soil; where Baal· is worshipped; -that Yahweh ·has·power·over things on whicli Baal has
failed." (1980), 234. Thus, in Zarephath, the LORD provides food while the god of fertility and
vegetation lies impotent in the netherworld, and what is more, even prevails over Baal's slayer Mot in
reversing death.
13
Elijah's response unveils a further glimpse of the contours of his prophetic service. He
employs the classic divine formula of encouragement, used regularly where the one
encouraged is being called to exercise faith under threat to life, 24 and follows it up
with the authoritative prophetic formula "thus says the LORD" which functions as
preface to his salvation oracle. But more significantly, for the first time in the Elijah
narrative, the narrator affirms the validity of Elijah's role as the LORD's agent and
spokesperson. He does this both implicitly and explicitly. To begin with, he
re-employs the literary device used in the previous episode (vv.4, 6) of creating a
lexical parallel between prediction and outcome (vv.l4, 16).
10nn K', 1~~;, nnEl~, ;,',:m K', n~p:-t 1;:,
Sandwiched between word and event, in both episodes, is a summary statement of

obedience.
17:5a m:-t~ 1:l1;:, illlr, 1',~,
17:15a ,;,~',K 1:l1;:, :-ttvlm, 1',n,
Thereby, an auxiliary parallel is created between the two episodes, and specifically
between the two prediction makers, which is sharpened by the commonality that both
predictions concern miraculous sustenance in the face of famine. As the LORD is to
Elijah, so Elijah is to the widow; and as much as the widow's unquestioning
obedience is to her credit, so is Elijah's. Through these intersecting equations, the
narrator skillfully orients the reader as regards Elijah's reliability as prophet.
In addition, the narrator concludes the episode with an explicit coalescing of the
prediction makers-Elijah's word is "the word of the LORD that he spoke by Elijah"
(17:16b). This assertion has implications for the previous prediction that the reader
has heard Elijah make. Elijah's "my word" before Ahab is now placed beyond doubt
as regards its origin.
24
Though sometimes used by persons in authority to assure safety to life-e.g., David to Abiathar (I
Sam. 22:23), David to Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:7), Elisha to his manservant (2 Kgs 6:16)-it is
regi.ilarty ·adi vine ·guarantee of ·tife~;g;•;·to Jacob;< as"he<prepares' to '!fo to· Egypt iri his' old age {Gen.
46:3), to Moses, challenged by Og of Bashan (Num. 21 :34), to Joshua before the second battle with Ai
(Josh. 8:1) and the battles with the Amorite and Canaanite coalitions (Josh. 10:8; 11 :6), and even to
Elijah himself, as he hesitates to face Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1: 15).
14
Chapter Two: I Kgs 16:29-17:24: The Drought
As regards the resonance with the Moses stories, the continuing theme of drought
recalls again the stories cited earlier, namely, from Exod. 16 and Num. 11. In the
wilderness of Sin too, as in Zarephath, the dreaded expectation of Israel is of death by
starvation: "you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill us with hunger"
(:ll11:l iTtiT ',iTpiT ',~ n~ n~oiT',; Exod. 16:3). Walsh brings up here, "less obvious
verbal allusions that connect the stories of manna with the second episode in 1 Kings
17 ." He points to the words "cake" (iTJl') and "oil" (lOW) in the dialogue between
prophet and widow, as recalling Num. 11:8: "and they made cakes of it; and the taste
of it was like the taste of a dainty made with oil."
10WiT ill.i', Cl'~~ 10l1~ iT~iT1 n1)l1 m~ 1Wl11
Further, says Walsh, the unique word nn,D~ used to describe the flat round shape of
the manna (Exod. 16:31) recurs in nnD~, the (possibly flat and round) juglet in which
the widow kept her oil. 25 Indeed, since the word nnD~ itself is rare, 26 it is interesting
that the narrator uses it in connection with the food that saw this Sidonian household
through the drought, and the possibility cannot be ruled out that he intends a subtle
link with the food that stood between Israel and starvation over the wilderness years.
And, just as in the case of Israel, where there was sufficient manna for all those
lodged in a given tent (',iTp; Exod. 16: 16) for a great length of time (the idiomatic
"forty years"; Exod. 16:35) till Israel came to Canaan, so also, the oil and flour
sufficed for the widow and those of her house (n~:l) for (many) days (c~o~),
presumably (following Elijah's prediction) till the rains returned.
2.3 1 Kgs 17:17-24: The Widow's Son

This final episode in the drought series continues to explore the theme of Elijah's
legitimacy as prophet. In fact, the narrator appears intent on leading the reader to a
decision on the issue before he opens up the narrative to allow in the two other
characters in his "triangle," namely, Ahab and Israel.
25
Walsh (1996), 285.
26
It occurs in only one other place outside the Elijah stories, namely, in 1 Sam. 26:11-16. Within the
Elijah corpus it recurs in 1 Kgs 19:6, where again, the circumstances immediately recall the miraculous
feeding of Israel in the wilderness.
15
The widow's son takes ill and dies.Z 7 The narrator's development of his
characterization of Elijah proceeds through the creation of another parallel, this time,
of dialogue. The widow addresses Elijah thus:
1;"1'"K "K 1~Kn,
t:l'iT"Ki1 W'K 1"1 '" ;,~

'Jll7 nK 1';:,T;," '"K nK:l
'J:l nK n'~i1",
Elijah relays the widow's need to God thus:

1~K~1 mn' "K K1p',
';"l"K ;"11;"1'
n1.l71;"1 n~.l7 11,Jn~ ':IK 1WK n:I~"Kn ".l7 CJ;"l
m:l nK n,~n"
The widow's opening phrase minimizes the relationship between herself and the
prophet; 28 Elijah opens his address with an acknowledgement of the personal and
intimate relationship between him and the LORD. The distraught mother turns upon
her guest, the "man of God," accusing him of unjustly visiting her sins upon her son.
The prophet, in tum, berates the LORD for treating the widow, and indirectly him,
with (undeserved) malevolence. Both are in agreement that a certain agency is
responsible for the lad's death; the widow places the culpability on Elijah, and Elijah
in turn projects it on the LORD.
If the woman speaks her frustration out to Elijah, Elijah cries out to the LORD. In
this, the narrator exploits the opportunity to reveal the reciprocity in the relationship
between God and prophet. Walsh comments: "Just as Elijah receives and acts upon
27
It is regularly, though not always (e.g., Gray (1964), 342, following Josephus, Ant. 8.325) noted that
any ambiguity in the narrator's description of the boy's condition-i1~tdJ ,:::1 i11nU ~"-is clarified
by the widow's and Elijah's use of "-'n,~, and by the narrator's account of his revival:
,n,, ,:::11p".!1 ,",;, tdDJ ::Jtdm.
Given the context of Canaanite myth, it is not unexpected that the boy should die while the land labours
under the rule of Mot, Baal's triumphant adversary. The biblical narrator then exploits this with
polemical intent: in reviving the lad the LORD neutralizes Mot. See Hauser and Gregory (1990), 1-2,
t9.:2o: , ·
28
Literally, "What do you and I have to do with one another?" Cf. 2 Kgs 3:13; Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam.
16: 10; 19:23 EVV 19:22. In all contexts the idiom expresses the speaker's dissociation with the
addressee.
16
Yahweh's word, so Yahweh in tum is responsive to Elijah's." 29 He argues that since

the phrase "to listen to the voice of' (',,p:l ...JlJ~!Ji) is the usual idiom for "to obey,"
the "command and compliance pattern" seen hitherto is now reversed so as to make
the LORD the one complying. 30 As Elijah requests, so it comes to pass, and the
narrator reports it in almost identical language, just as he did with Elijah's compliance
with the LORD's instructions:
,:l,p ',lJ miT ,t,,iT !Ji£l) ~) :l!Jin
,n,, ,:l,p t,lJ ,t,,n !Ji£l) :l!Jin,
This insight into the dynamic of the liaison between Elijah and God anticipates the
occasions to follow when the LORD will hearken to the voice of this prophet at
Carmel and atop an unnamed hill. In less unambiguous situations, such as at Horeb (1
Kgs 19), there is the possibility that the prior instances of the LORD honouring
Elijah's representation by acting in accordance with it could bias the reading of the
story in Elijah's favour.
This second episode at Zarephath creates an anti-parallel to previous one. Earlier,

Elijah's position as prophet is affirmed in that he successfully represents the LORD to
the widow. Here, he is affirmed in that he successfully represents the widow to the
LORD. The two stories complementarily delineate Elijah's mediatory role as prophet,
and prepare the reader for the narrative that follows, in which he will play out that role
on a far grander scale.
As we noted, the telling of the miracle of the meal and oil is neatly rounded off by
narratorial comment recognizing Elijah's authority as prophet. With this next miracle,
the narrator takes the acknowledgment further, by having a character articulate it.
Though the narrator is on a higher level of knowledge, and generally his statement
carries the greater force, the widow's confession is particularly significant for two
reasons. First, the confessor is non-Israelite. When she was first introduced, the reader
noted that she immediately recognized and honoured Elijah's religious affiliation, as
evidenced by her oath CTiT',~ miT, ,n). Later, the reader hears her address Elijah by
the title "man of God," and understands that she is conscious of her sinfulness
29
Walsh (1996), 235.
30
Walsh (1996), 235.
17
vis-a-vis this his position. Thus, her pronouncement following the revival of her son is
rather unexpected:
n~~ TE:l:l :-n;,~ 1:l11 ;,n~ C"i1"~ iV~~ ~~ ~nl71~ m i1nl7
It appears that her second experience with Elijah has impacted her belief system in a
way the first had not. This spontaneous confession forms an inclusio with the opening
verse of the chapter where Elijah claims authority for the word he speaks (~1:li ~:h).
Long is right in observing, "Structurally and thematically, the narrative comes to rest
in this woman's recognition and confession." 31 This arrangement moves the climax
from the restoration of the boy to the statement of faith, suggesting that the thrust here
is to lead the reader to consolidate his decision on Elijah's integrity. 32
Provan raises a point here that should be interacted with. He thinks that, in a way, the
story ends strangely, since the widow's faith is focused on Elijah rather than on God
himself. "It is Elijah's credentials as a man of God that have been validated (v.24) by
the miracle, rather than God's ability to act." 33 There is something in this. 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. It is essential however, to see that her faith per se rests in the
"word of the LORD"; it is that which has proved itself to her as trustworthy. As 1 Kgs
17 demonstrates so skillfully, this is the word that Elijah unleashes as "my word" (and
it does his bidding) and also the word that "comes to him" (to which he deferentially
submits). The dynamic operating between God and his representative is too intricate
an enmeshing to be teased into isolated strands. The issue will be contested for much
31
Long (1984), 186; cf. Brichto (1992), 127. The LXX glosses the opening verse to correspond even
more .closely with the· final verse; deliberately strengthening the inclusio, and indicating the
interpretative emphasis on it: OLa at<Jf.l!noc; A.oyou f.10u-"through the word of my mouth."
32
So for e.g., Long (1984), 187; De Vries (1985), 207; Nelson (1987), 108-09.
33
Provan (1995), 134.
18
higher stakes at Carmel (18:36). Meanwhile, at Zarephath, the widow has already put
34
her finger on a complex truth.
Secondly, the declaration carries proleptic hints. 35 The Sidonian woman recalls the
other daughter of Sidon the narrative has introduced earlier, "Jezebel daughter of King
Ethbaal of the Sidonians" mentioned together with the account of Ahab's servitude of
Baal. The narrator will later cast Jezebel against Elijah, and this Sidonian widow's
putting herself on Elijah's side seems a blow already dealt against the queen. Looking
to the narrative immediately following, the widow's reproach anticipates that of Ahab
(1 Kgs 18: 17). Further, the indisputable control that the LORD and his champion
exercise over the spectrum of natural order and over human life and death, presage
both the issue and outcome of the confrontation at Carmel. Most significantly, the
events in Sidon look ahead to an Israel pressed to declare their religious allegiance,
and the mood of the Zarephath story may be extrapolated to foreshadow a victory for
Elijah; at Carmel, as in Zarephath, the operative verb with respect to confession will
be knowing (--Jl11\ 1 Kgs 18:37).
As regards resonance with the Moses narratives, Walsh proposes that the allusions are
not drawn randomly, but that each chapter echoes specific passages, and that 1 Kgs 17
recalls precisely, Exod. 16 and Num. 11. Walsh's case for Num. 11 is based on two
lexical links. Firstly, Num. 11:8, as noted earlier, uses two words for manna, which
are also found in the episode of the meal and oil; secondly, immediately following
this description of manna, is Num. 11: 10-12, which "has verbal and thematic links
with the third episode in 1 Kings 17. In both the prophet accuses Yahweh of
mistreating someone who deserves better; the prophet's complaint in both cases is
hare 'otii, literally 'have you done evil?' Moses compares the Israelites to a child
carried in the bosom; Elijah takes the child from his mother's bosom." 36
Walsh's second verbal correspondence is weakened somewhat by the fact that Moses
uses the same term to express a similar frustration at what he sees as the LORD's
34
It is regularly noted that the widow's statement of faith recalls the confessions of other notable
non-Israelites who come to know the LORD's power even more directly. E.g., Rahab (Josh. 2:9~ ll),
Jethro (Exod. 18:11) and Naaman (2 Kgs 5:15).
35
Cf. e.g., Long (1984), 187; Nelson (1987), 112; Cohn (1982), 348.
36
Walsh (1996), 285.
19
unfair treatment of the Israelites (:"'tnl11:-t; Exod. 5:22). More comprehensively, as we

will argue later, the highlight of Moses' expressed frustration in Num. 11: 11-15 is his
death wish, and as such, this sequence is readily recalled in 1 Kgs 19 where Elijah
expresses a desire to die at the LORD's hands.
3. Conclusion
In a shift that undermines the house of Omri, what began as a regnal account has
quickly turned into a prophet narrative. Ahab's following after other gods proves to be
his undoing. In the face of the deuteronomic curse, he is discredited as king in that he
is now unable to secure the well-being of his people, and that prerogative has passed
to Elijah.
The nature of the curse on the land reveals the intent of Elijah. On behalf of the God
he serves, he has opened the first round of hostilities against the god Ahab has given
himst<lf to in servitude. However, the collage of stories so far is not to be reduced to
preparatory work for the major event of chapter 18. These stories have their own
integrity. 37 On one hand, they introduce and witness to Israel's God, and on the other,
they establish Elijah's authenticity to the reader. As regards the latter, we note that
form critically, the three stories are regularly placed in the category for stories that
"extol the admirable qualities of the prophets and .. .inculcate proper attitudes towards
them and the power they represent." 38 In 1 Kgs 17 Elijah's credentials are gradually
built up: in the first story he is the obedient, yet passive, beneficiary; in the second, he
mediates the oracle of salvation between God and the widow; in the third, he
aggressively petitions God and is listened to: 39 " ... as though there might be some
question in the reader about the reliability of a prophet's word that propels the main
drama (17:1), the events in vv.2-16 and 17-24 attest to Elijah's truth." 40 Having
37
Cf. Fretheim ( 1999), 96.
38
Nelson (1987), 109; See Long for a detailed survey. (1984), 181-82, 186. However, one must avoid
the temptation to centre the narrative on Elijah just so as to make one's point as does, e.g., DeVries. He
classifies the first two drought stories as "prophet-authorization narrative"-"a marvelous story
demonstrating the power of a prophet to prevail over institutional rivals, enhancing belief in prophetic
authority to challenge usurpations of Yahweh's supremacy"-and the third as "prophet-legitimation"
narrative-"a marvelous story demonstrating the scope and nature of a prophet's empowerment,
identifying tharprophet as,·geniline." DeVries (1985)~ 207.
39
E.g., Nelson (1987), 108.
40
Long (1984), 187. Cf. Cohn (1982) 335.
20
accomplished that objective, the narrative is now ready for the re-introduction of
Ahab in 1 Kgs 18.
With respect to Mosaic resonance, the narrative framework immediately establishes

nascent associations-it would be unrealistic to expect exact correspondences-with
that of the Moses stories (Exod. 2-6). Both the protagonists open their careers with an
offensive against the existing political structures; both flee the repercussions and find
refuge at watering places in the wilderness.
1 Kgs 17 with its motif of miraculous provision of food (at Cherith and Zarephath)
primarily recalls Exod. 16. That said, the secondary resonance with the Plague
narratives (Exod. 7-12) must not go unmentioned. In both cases, the calamity
descends at the prophet's word. A distinction is made for Israel as the plagues
increase in severity (Exod. 8:18 EVV 8:22, 9:4-6; 9:26; 10:23; 11 :7; 12); in the end,
Israel's firstborn escape death. This finds a faint echo in the peculiar providential
preservation, in the midst of life-threatening circumstances, of the prophet and the
household that honors him; even death is defeated as the lad is revived.
Thematically, the confrontation, as in the Moses stories, is between a disobedient king

and an obedient prophet, with the prophet being at risk from royal reprisal (cf. Exod.
10:28). A second plane of confrontation is emergent, namely, between the LORD and
his rival deity/deities (cf. Exod. 12: 12); this theme will gradually occupy centre stage
in the course of the episodes recounted in 1 Kgs 18.
21
Chapter Three
1 Kgs 18: The Resolution of the Drought
The narrative thus far sought to establish to the reader the reliability of Elijah through
the narration of a series of displays of power; the last of these elicits a confession, and
the reader is led to understand this as the appropriate response to Elijah as a "man of
God." The narrative also introduced associations with the Exodus stories, generating
expectancy of a development of these parallels. The narrative now re-introduces
Ahab, so that the story of the drought may be resolved. In the course of its three
episodes, 1 Kgs 18 develops the characters of Ahab and Elijah, bringing them
face-to-face once again. The conflict logically creates opportunity for the introduction
of the party bearing the consequence of the drought, namely, Israel. With this, the
resolution of the drought becomes compounded with the issue of Israel's allegiance,
and with a demand for Israel to decide the reliability of Elijah and his God as against
that of Ahab and Baal.
1. Towards the Resolution of the Drought

1.11 Kgs 18:1-16: Ahab and Obadiah (vv.1-6); Obadiah and Elijah (vv.7-16)
The narrative technique employed in 1 Kgs 17 is recognizable in the opening verses
of chapter 18. For the third time, the word of the LORD is used to dislodge the plot
from its current resting point and drive it forwards. The explanation following the
customary imperative 1" is however, not as straightforward as in the previous cases.
The purpose of Elijah's showing himself to Ahab is in order that the LORD may send
rain (1~~ ;"TJnllt,) on the earth, but how the one will bring about the other is not
clarified. However, the reader recalls that in the case of Zarephath, though the LORD
assured that he has ordained a widow to feed Elijah, the unfolding story of Elijah's
compliance revealed Elijah's own initiative in actualising this arrangement.
Extrapolating this model, the likelihood is that it is up to Elijah now to work out the
modus operandi for bringing the drought to an end. 1
1
Cf. Rice (1990), 14 7.
22
As before, the prophet's submission to the order is immediate and complete, and this
is indicated-again, as before-in the use of parallel language to describe command
and compliance (here, the verbs --11',;, and --ii1~1).
Obadiah's role is significant in that it develops the characterisation of the two main
players of the larger narrative, namely, Ahab, an account of whose reign it is, and
Elijah, whose life work it becomes to counter Ahab and his house. Obadiah is
introduced by his official position at the palace, and with a summary theological
evaluation; the latter is immediately supported with an example of his deeds-a
hundred Yahwist prophets owe him their lives (vv.3-4). 2 It invites comparison with
Ahab's regnal summary, and Ahab does not come off well. Neither does Jezebel. The
mention of Jezebel appears incidental to the recounting of Obadiah's zeal for the
LORD, but two other purposes are served. Mainly, it introduces the darkest actor in
the affairs of the house of Ahab, and that on a suitably disquieting note. Secondarily,
it creates a lexical link with Ahab through the verb --in1';) (vv.4-5). While she "cuts
off' Yahwist prophets, the concern that occupies Ahab is that his livestock is not "cut
off." Ahab's culpability is amplified by this juxtaposition3 and by being linked with
his viciously Baalist queen.
Next, Obadiah's long and distraught response to Elijah's command does nothing to
improve Ahab' s image. Rather than follow the path of repentance that Solomon sets
out for a nation distressed by drought (1 Kgs 8: 35-36), Ahab is seen to be turning his
energies to seeking out Elijah, and that not with kind intent, as the LORD's protective
hiding of his prophet suggests. 4 This means that unlike Obadiah or even the Sidonian
widow, Ahab is unable to make the connection between his own sin and the threat of
2
Like Elijah, Obadiah bears a theophoric name, declaring he is in the LORD's service. True to his
name, his behaviour mirrors the LORD's. He protectively hides prophets, and sustains them with bread
and water.
3
"On the surface of it, the king's concern is admirable ... [b]ut.. .the narrator creates a context that puts
Ahab in a very bad light. .. [in] contrast between himself and Obadiah: because of the drought, Ahab is
unable to provide sustenance for his animals; despite the drought, Obadiah is able to provide bread and
watedonhe prophets ofYahweh:'~'Walsh(l996);•239~·
4
The LXX makes an exegetical substitution into Obadiah's statement reflecting its particularly severe
characterisation of Ahab as one capable of wanton destruction: " ... and if they said, He is not [here],
then has he set fire to the kingdom and its territories, because he has not found thee" (18:10).
23
death that lies over his land. 5 From his own mouth, the reader will hear him deflect
the troubles of Israel onto Elijah. Obadiah's fear is not so much that he must inform
Ahab of Elijah's reappearance-indeed, he would welcome clues to his whereabouts
-but that Elijah may disappear as is his wont. 6 Ahab's rage at having his raised
expectations unmet, would seek satisfaction, even if it meant the death of an
apparently trustworthy and high-ranking official (v.12a). Obadiah repeatedly
endeavours to impress this on Elijah (vv.9, 12, 14); indeed he uses it to both open and
conclude his defence of his reluctance to obey Elijah. Of the three references Obadiah
makes to his death at Ahab's hands, it is interesting that he uses the verb ~J1'it twice
(vv.12, 14), and these occurrences frame the use of the same verb for his account of
the actions of Jezebel (v.13). This is a brutal synonym of the euphemism ~n1~ that
the ·narrator used earlier to link husband and wife, and creates a second lexical
association between the royal couple along the lines of the first. Ahab's sword, it
appears, can be as unrestrained and as misdirected as Jezebel's. Indeed, as Walsh
observes, "Obadiah parallels his own likely fate at Ahab's hands to the persecution of
other faithful Yahwists perpetrated by Jezebel." 7
Though the object of Obadiah's frantic speech-with its grisly refrain, "he will kill
me!"-is self-preservation, it ends up being all about Ahab and Jezebel. Not a
statement but refers to their deeds and intentions, and the picture that emerges is of a
crown flagrantly consolidating its apostasy by raw abuse of power. Faithful Israel,
rather than the ambivalent Israel at Carmel, whom Obadiah and his hundred prophets
represent, cowers in caves and under cloaks of anonymity, their fear of the LORD (cf.
Obadiah's claim; v.12b) totally eclipsed by their dread of Ahab and Jezebel.
It appears, then, that the narrator has mainly set up the two interactions (Ahab and
Obadiah; Obadiah and Elijah) not so much to advance the plot as to set the scene for
the Carmel episode by developing the characterisation of king and prophet using
Obadiah. Long sums up well:
5
The three-year famine reminds of the one in David's time. Contrary to Ahab, David "inquired of the
LORD" in order to set right any failings of which the famine could have been a consequence (2 Sam.
21:1). Wiseman (1993), 167. Cf. Rand's exploration of the contrast between David and Ahab in the
matter of tlie murders dfUfiali and Naboth:::...:(1996) 90~97-and Chinitz' s paralieling of 1 Kgs 21 with
2 Sam 11-12-(1997) 108-113.
6
Provan (1995), 137; House (1995), 216-17; Rice (1990), 148; Hauser and Gregory (1990), 108.
7
Walsh (1996), 242.
24
The two scenes together. .. retard the decisive action m the interest of narrative
complexity and suspense. We now know how severe is the drought, and how
thoroughly powerful is Elijah's word (17:1). We recognize how deadly earnest is
Ahab's pursuit of Elijah, and how necessary was his secretive existence east of the
Jordan (17:3) .. .It is clear that Elijah's pursuit of God's word threatens his own person
as much as it does King Ahab and the land. Gradually, the contours of confrontation
have taken shape, sketched in dialogue, suggested in circumstance, implicit,
8
foreboding.
The result is that the dramatic tension now centres on Elijah's final word to Obadiah.
Knowing that he has been in hiding from possible hostile repercussions to his calling
down the drought, the reader waits to see how he will react to this gruesome bulletin
from Obadiah. It appears that there is all the more reason now-now that the crown's
negative reactions have actualised-for Elijah to return to a safe house. His response
to Obadiah crowns the drama of the first two scenes, and sets the tone for the one to
come. Elijah swears with solemn force that his intention is to appear before Ahab the
selfsame day.
1~',~ ;,~;~ 01~:1 ~::> 1~:15:)', ~n,~l7 itl.i~ m~~~ :11:1~ ~n
This is the third time that the oath ;,;,~ ~n is heard since Elijah used it in his
declaration to Ahab (17: 1). The widow and Obadiah, fearful of death, have used it to
assert their inability to comply with Elijah's command; Elijah uses it to affirm his
determination to comply with the LORD's command in the face of a very real threat
to his life. (The verb --J;-y~; links back to v.1, as does the idiom for obedience "before
whom I stand"; 01~:1 suggests the keenness to comply without delay.) Further, since
the reader has encountered this oath twice already, the change Elijah introduces to it
leaps out. He swears by the LORD of Hosts, referring to God by his military title. 9
The battle for the loyalty of Israel has moved to the next higher level. 10
8
Long ( 1984 ), 192. One tends to agree less with his reading of the Elijah-Obadiah encounter as a
"proleptic evocation of the prophet-king confrontation to come." He thinks that Obadiah, like Ahab,
assumes the worst of Elijah; under his polite and circumspect language lies the fear that "Elijah wants
to have me slain by catching me up in his devious escape from Ahab's net!" (1984), 191. It appears
more likely, as we have argued, that the narrator's intent to censor Ahab is better served by setting up
Obadiah as a foil.
9
Treated in the sections on 1 Kgs 19 (v.IO) and 2 Kgs 2 (v.2). Elisha uses it as well, and in a military
context; 2 Kgs 3:14.
10
The contest that follows recalls l Sam; 17, the story ·of Bavid and Goliath. There too, the battle lines
are clearly drawn; a challenge is issued; the terms of the contest, that is, the obligations of the defeated,
are agreed upon; and, the LORD is invoked by his military title, n,N::::l~ mi1\ The LORD's
representative is clearly disadvantaged but triumphs resoundingly, following which Israel slaughters
25
1.2. 1 Kgs 18:17-19: Ahab and Elijah

The first words the reader hears Ahab speak reveal his opinion of Elijah, and in so
doing, carry Ahab's characterization further. Here, one last opportunity is seized to
stand Obadiah in the spotlight of narratorial favour, his shadow darkening Ahab. The
latter's question on recognition, as Walsh observes, is identical in structure to
Obadiah's but opposite in tone 11 : ',K1ill~ 1~11 itt i1nKi1 he asks, as against
Obadiah's ,;,,',~ ~J,~ i1T i1nKi1 . Ahab does not use the label "troubler" lightly. 12
The word always describes a negative action, one which has a social dimension in that
it has a harmful consequence on another person, or even the entire nation. 13 A likely
possibility is that the Baalist Ahab believes that Elijah's intransigent stance re the
LORD has offended Baal and caused him to withhold Israel's rain, 14 and eliminating
15
this "Achan" might be the solution (cf. Jeroboam and the prophet from Bethel; 1
Kgs 13: 1-1 0). 16 There is something in this possibility, especially since Elijah
immediately turns the accusation against Ahab, and faults him for the trouble of
drought, in that he has given himself to the service of the wrong deity. (Here is a hint
of the Achan-like fate that awaits Ahab; in the immediate context, as Provan points
out, the state-subsidised Baalist prophets reap the fatal consequences of bringing
trouble on Israel. 17 )
The language of Elijah's indictment is characteristically deuteronomic: Ahab and his

father before him have abandoned ('/:JTl1) the LORD's commandments (mi1~ m~~)
and he, particularly, is guilty of following after Baal (cf. c~1nK c~i1',K ~1nK ..J1',i1).
(E.g., Deut. 28:13-14./ 8 Elijah takes his life in his hands in standing up to a
the enemy. If the reader should make these associations, it adds to the other proleptic hints of a victory
for Elijah at Carmel.
11
Walsh (1996), 243; Nelson (1987), 115.
12
Cf. Brueggemann (2000), 222; Jones (1984 2 ), 315; Nelson (1987), 116. DeVries translates, "Is that
· you, 0 Israel's hex?" and perhaps takes it too far in suggesting that ,;:)l1 implies "one who is
consorting with dark supernatural forces in order to do harm." (1985), 217.
13
Mosis (2001), 70; Jobling (1978), 70. Cf. its use of Simeon and Levi (Gen.34:30), and Achan (Josh.
7:25).
14
Walsh (1996), 243; Rice (1990), 148-49.
15
The noun form that Ahab uses of Elijah is used of Achan in I Chron. 2:7, which, curiously, names
him ,:ll1, rather than l;:)l1. Saul is one other instance of a "troubler" ('h;:)l1) in the instance of his
handicapping the army with his ill-advised oath (1 Sam. 14:29).
1
~'Pr6van-(1995');"·137: ~ · ,. ·
17
Provan (1995), 139.
18
· The case of the Ornrides recalls Israel following the death of Joshua, as recounted in the summary
introduction to the book of Judges. They recurrently and regularly abandoned the LORD and served
26
powerful monarch, especially considering the ad hominem nature of the argument. 19

Further, he demands rather than solicits Ahab's cooperation in requiring that "all
Israel" 20 is to be gathered to him [Elijah], along with the sundry prophets that Jezebel
patronizes. Having heard of Jezebel's murderous activities from the narrator and
more vividly from Obadiah, and with this fresh information that she promotes the
worship of Baal and Asherah at state expense, 21 the reader appreciates the scale of
Elijah's demand. Thus, it is as unexpected as this new tum of events set in motion by
Elijah's instructions that the ferocious Ahab of the episodes past meekly complies (v.
20).
The general note of resonance with the Moses stories is that of the confrontation
between king and prophet. Like Pharaoh, Ahab is stubborn. The "plague" of drought
called down by the LORD's representative does not prompt self-searching. He
continues unrepentant, his anger directed misguidedly at the prophet (cf. Exod.
10:28). Meanwhile, as in Egypt, the land, the people and the livestock bear the brunt
of the "plague." Like Moses, Elijah presents himself before the king repeatedly,
persevering undaunted in the face of severe resistance. As with Moses, his obedience
to the divine command is to the letter, and his representation of the LORD is
authoritative. The issue at stake continues to be the LORD's people, Israel.
2. The Contest at Carmel

2.11 Kgs 18:20-24: Either/Or Rather than Both/And
As repeatedly seen over the narrative, compliance is once more indicated lexically.
Elijah's imperatives are obeyed-Ahab "sends" and "gathers" (...Jn'-,m, ...Jr~p) the two
groups ('-,t(1W~ '-,~. c~t(~~)il) to the designated place ('-,~1~il 1:1 '-,K). 22 When used
Baal and the Ashtaroth (n,1n~l7", "l7::l" ,1::ll7', ;,,;,, nN ,::lTl7',). Therefore, "the hand of the
LORD was against them to bring misfortune, as the LORD had warned them and sworn to them; and
they were in great distress." (Judg. 2:13, 15). This theological logic underlies the regnal accounts in
Kings, and drives the climactic oration over the fall of Israel (2 Kgs 17:5-23).
19
Gray (1964), 349.
2
° Cohn comments on the repeated "all" (',;:,) Israel in 1 Kgs 18: 19-21, 24, 30, 39 as stressing
hyperbolically, the historic significance of the event now taking place. (1982), 340, n.17. See Flanagan
(1976) for a traditio-historical hypothesis of the Deuteronomist's use of the phrase ',K1iD' ',;:, as a
technical term.
21
'Cf:TSam.'9:9-lT;TKgs 2:7:- .
22
It is regularly noted with puzzlement that the 400 prophets of Asherah receive no mention. However,
it is not explicitly stated that they are absent, either. It is possible that they are included in the group of
prophets Ahab has gathered at Carmel. Cf. Long (1984), 193. One surmises that since the immediate
27
with a pair as unlikely as Elijah-Ahab, the command-compliance pattern is richly

ironical. As concerns characterisation, the effect is to reinforce the authority of the
prophet, and somewhat weaken Ahab's portrayal as Pharaoh to Elijah's Moses. The
latter could be intentional, for it prepares the reader for a new face to play Pharaoh.
Ahab will drop into the role of non-participant at the contest and then continue in
compliance with Elijah, moving over for Jezebel. 23 The sharing out of this role
between the royal pair is consistent with the narrator's portrayal of Jezebel as Ahab's
active partner in crime.
Elijah's opening statement at once clarifies that the party that is foremost in his
concerns is Israel, and that the issue that moves him is their religious loyalty. It also
spells out Elijah's position-he is intolerant of the idea that Israel may accommodate
more than one deity into their religious allegiance, and imposes that view upon the
people, challenging them to a choice. Fretheim's puts it well when he says, "This
story might be called a dramatized form of the First Commandment ... " 24
Walsh correctly evaluates the situation thus: "Since Yahweh Is on the side of
exclusivism and Baal is not, even a willingness to consider choosing moves one
toward Yahweh." Thus, Israel's silence communicates not only their refusal to be
drawn into choice, but also their inability to see the two deities as rivals. Elijah then
proceeds to address the latter by setting up a contest that will pit the two against one
another. The expectation is that one of the two will emerge victorious, again a
Yahwist premise. Significantly, this draws Israel into responding favourably. "They
begin, without realising it, to adopt a Yahwistic point of view," foreshadowing which
party will soon emerge victor. 25
The scene is strongly evocative of deuteronomic texts at various levels. First, at the
story level, the assembling of Israel with the purpose of rehearsing their covenant
obligations is reminiscent of Moses' addresses to the people in Deuteronomy.
issue is the return of rains, it is germane that the Baalist prophets (representatives of the god of rain)
merit the narrator's focus. They are pitted against Elijah, who proves them false and enforces on them
the penalty for false prophets (Deut. 13:1-11; 18:20).
2
hSee Triole~~for a ptovocativl'nliscussion<ofi'the-reHttionship between Elijah a:nd Jezebel in terms of
complex polarities. (1995) 3-19.
24
Fretheim (1999), 102-03.
25
Walsh (1996), 245-46. Cf. Nelson (1987), 117, 121-22.
28
Secondly, and of critical significance, is the conceptual resonance, embedding within

its matrix, the linguistic. A brief reference to two texts will help make the point.
In Deut. 11:26-28, Moses succinctly brings to focus the alternatives he has been
setting out so painstakingly (starting Deut. 5:1). Relevant to 1 Kgs 18 is that one of
the motivations that Moses uses to force a choice concerns seasonal rain. The promise
of Canaan as one "watered by rain from the sky, a land that the LORD your God
looks after ... from the beginning of the year to the end of the year" is turned into a
conditional blessing and curse. If Israel serves the LORD, "then he will give rain for
your land in its season"; but if Israel allows itself to be seduced into serving other
gods, "the anger of the LORD will be kindled ... and he will shut up the heavens, so
that there will be no rain and the land will yield no fruit." ((Deut. 11: 11-17).
Underlying the proposition is a vein of polemic. Nelson observes, "The subject of rain
and fertility seems to lead naturally to the topic of 'other gods,' to whose power these
good things might be credited." 26 The warning is communicated in no uncertain
terms, as is Moses' summing up of the alternatives: blessing for obedience; curse for
turning away to follow new gods.
Moses returns to amplify this theme as he ties up the threads that have run through his
exhortations. It is, as Wright observes, a "powerful summary ... charged with
evangelistic energy, emotion and urgency (cf. Ezek. 18:30-32)."27 The repetition of
"today" (C1~i1; thrice in Deut. 11 :26-28; four times in Deut. 30: 15-20) emphasizes the
immediacy of the decision. He lays out the choices in polar opposites so as to rule out
any possibility of ambiguity whatsoever: life cc~~n) as against death (m~) (v.15);
prosperity (:J1~) as against calamity (.V1) (v.15); to increase (,,i1:J1) as against to
perish ('h:J~) (vv.16-17); blessing (i1:;,1:J) rather than curse (i1',',p) (v.19); in short,
the LORD (i11i1~) rather than "other gods" (C~1n~ c~i1',~) (vv.l6-17). Yet, as
forcefully as Moses champions the choice of i11i1\ he can do no more than set the
choice before Israel; the decision-making rests with Israel. 28
26
Nelson (2002), 139; cf. Wright (1998), 155.
27
Wright(l998), 291.
28
The summoning and gathering together of all Israel at Carmel reminds too of the assembly at
Shechem (Josh. 24). There also, a prophet initiates the meeting, the solemn purpose of which is to lead
Israel to choose whom they will serve-the LORD or "other gods." Joshua mediates a renewal of the
29
At Carmel, in the third year of a life-threatening drought brought on by apostasy,

Elijah's address to Israel is marked with an urgent and piercing minimalism
reminiscent of Moses' (C"DlJO;"T "nW ',l) C"nOD en~ "n~ 1l1)?9 He makes
precisely the same unequivocal demarcations (1"in~ 1:;,', ',l)::l;"'T 0~1 1"in~ 1:;,',
C";"'T',~;, ;"11;"1" C~) confronting Israel with a choice between the LORD and the
"other god," Baal, and draws the lines clearly between the two camps of prophets-
himself all alone (;"11:-t"', ~"::lJ) 30 and the group of 450 (',lJ::l;"'T "~"::lJ).
The reader notes here that Elijah moves on the assumption that his God will prove
himself. The reader also notes that the narrator (presumed "omniscient") has preferred
not to notify the reader as to whether Elijah's project is at the LORD's prompting or if
not, whether it has, at least, the LORD's authorization. But if, for the interim, we
assume that Elijah operates under the licence granted to initiate moves towards a
divinely decreed end, then his actions are indicative of the vigour of the
interdependence and co-operation that drives the partnership between prophet and
God. Simultaneously, the episode is also indicative of the intense evangelistic zeal
that constrains Elijah (he speaks of it in 1 Kgs 19:10, 14) to appeal to Israel in the
most persuasive manner available to him. Both features are so powerfully evocative
that this point in the Kings narrative becomes the first of the key superimpositions the
narrator mediates between the characters Elijah and Moses. The reader cannot but
check his stride and tum his head for a second glance at this prophet so "like" Moses
(Deut. 18: 18).
covenant, as (we will argue) does Elijah. There is no altar here, as in Exod. 24 and 1 Kgs 18, but a
stone plays a part in the ceremony.
29
It is debated whether or not there are two distinct verbs in biblical Hebrew with the consonants nOD.
BDB, 820, suggests there are, and discusses noD I, "to pass over" and nOD II, "to limp." KB, 769, does
not differentiate between roots I and II.
There are only three uses of nOD II in the OT. (1) 2 Sam 4:4, "and he (Mephibosheth) fell and
'became limpname' ." (2) 1 Kings 18:21, "How long will you go limping with two different opinions?"
(3) I Kings 18:26, "and they (the priests of Baal) 'leaped' upon/'hobbled' upon the altar," presumably
in a reference to ritual dance.
Walsh cites Lev. 21:18, where nOD is listed among the disqualifying defects for priesthood. "As long,
then, as the people continue to psfz, they will be unfit for membership in Yahweh's cultic community.
And so Elijah insists on a clear, exclusive choice between Yahweh and Baal." Further, the word creates
a verbal link between the Israelites and the Baalist prophets, "underscoring that the people's 'limping
with two different opinions' is, in effect a Baaliststance." ( 1996), 245, 248.
30
Elijah uses the verb 'hn\ "remain," to describe his survival of Ahab's dishonourable intent and
Jezebel's pogrom. We will note its contextual significance vis-a-vis its synonym -v,KW in 1 Kgs 19.
30
As we move further into the story of the contest, this setting up of Elijah as one like
Moses becomes increasingly evident. This is accomplished through two motifs: the
LORD as Israel's God (vis-a-vis Baal), and the covenant.
2.21 Kgs 18:25-40: The LORD vs. Baal

The story of the contest, especially in retrospect, is seen to be thick with proleptic
hints as to the outcome. These clues, carefully planted by the narrator, consistently
expose the inadequacy of Baal as an option for the position of "God." Let us follow
this theme through the Carmel story.
It was noted earlier that the first intimation comes when Israel accedes to the contest.
In doing so, they unconsciously adopt the Yahwistic presupposition that one of the
parties will prove himself at the expense of the other. Jobling calls this "the volitional
turning point." 31 Another hint comes when the command-compliance pattern is turned
against the proponents of Baal, this time, his 450 prophets. 32 Just as he directs them
to, they ready the sacrifice and call on the name of their god (--JitilJlJ; --J~1p---cp. vv.
25-26). While Elijah needed to dialogue with Israel and obtain their consent for his
proposal, with the Baalist prophets there are no such courtesies recorded. Elijah turns
to them with orders, and they wordlessly act upon those orders, establishing the norm
for the proceedings that follow.
An indicator of Elijah's attitude towards the opposing deity may be seen in vv.24-25.
The reader notes that in repeating instructions to the Baalist prophets, as in his laying
out the rules of the contest before Israel, Elijah refers to Baal, not by name, but in
relation to the addressee. Thus in v .24, he requires that Israel must call on the name of
their god-
-as in v.25, he requires that the prophets do similarly:

t:l~"it"~ t:l!li::l ,~,p,
The namelessness of the opposition's deity, when juxtaposed with the name of
Elijah's. God creat~s a verbal imbal~n~e in fa\'our of the latter. There is a, subtle
31
Jobling (1978), 71,73-74.
32
Walsh (1996), 247.
31
dilution of the nameless one's potency, a potency his name would have conferred on
him (Baal: "lord"/"master"). Elijah's disregard for Baal reflects on Israel's choice
when he pointedly alludes to Baal as "your god" when addressing them. It subtly
entrenches the charge that they have chosen unwisely.
Elijah's disregard shortly turns to open contempt. Half a day has passed since the
Baalists have prepared their sacrifice, and called on Baal unceasingly, accompanying
their cries with ritual perambulation of their altar. Elijah flagrantly provokes the
Baalists with bawdy humour, egging them to cry louder to catch the attention of a god
whose energies are directed towards other activities. The command-compliance
pattern is deployed with devastating irony (cp. vv.27 and 28: ',,,J ',,p~ ..JN1p). On
its heels comes an ominous note of anticipation. The Baalists gash themselves till
blood pours out (..Jl£llli) from them in futile libation, a clever prolepsis of the
slaughter to come. 33
The Baalist endeavour climaxes in a two-stage negation (vv.26, 29). Leading up to

this is the motif of the Baalist advantage over Elijah, which is played out, first subtly
and then in increasingly bolder tones, by intersecting similarities with contrasts. The
motif emerges even as Elijah draws up sides: he stands outnumbered, one against 450.
The procedures for both parties are laid out in laboriously repetitious terms
(vv.23-34), but the verbal parallels serve to throw Elijah's handicapping of himself
into relief. He allows the opposition the first choice of sacrificial bease4 (and the risk
here is that Elijah may be left with a substandard animal), and chooses to let them take
their tum first (giving Baal the clear opportunity to preempt Elijah). As the contest
progresses, he will further stack the odds against himself: he allows the Baalists to
encroach into his half of the day (v.29); he soaks his sacrifice, wood and all, till his
altar stands islanded in a pool of water. Against these contrasts is the lexical
correspondence between the prayers of the opposing parties: "0 Baal, answer us!"
(,J)li ',li~ii) and "Answer me, 0 LORD, answer me!" (,))li mii, ,))li). The
climactic contrast that the plot is leading up to is the responses to these two prayers.
33
Holt s-uggests prolepsis in the Baalists' 'ritual self..:mutilation in that the rites being forbidden in Israel
(Lev. 19:28; 21:5; Deut. 14:1), they put themselves under penalty. (1995), 89.
34
Perhaps the procurement of the animals is also up to the Baalists: "Let them give us ... " (v.23), but
this is difficult to harmonize with "And they took the bull which he gave them ... " (v.26).
32
Here, commentators rightly identify the verb "answer" as a keyword (cf. vv.21, 24,
26, 29, 37). 35 Baal's answer is recounted at two points. At midday, there was "no
voice, and no answerer" (:"TJ.U rK, t,,p rK,; v.26). Walsh makes some significant
observations here on the implications of this statement for Baal:
... the narrator does not say, "Baal did not answer," as if Baal exists and can answer
but for some reason remains silent. By phrasing the sentence in terms of absence
("There is no") rather than presence, the narrator hints at Baal's nonentity ... the
sequence "no voice, no answerer" .. .implies a causal relationship: there is no voice
because there is no one to answer when Baal is invoked. 36
Still, Baal is generously offered an extension of time to prove himself. 37 The

conclusion is the same, and the narrator's repetition of the words ring with a damning
finality. It powerfully moves the reader to pause to assess if this is to be understood as
an isolated instance of Baal's non-cooperation, or moving beyond it, as an unqualified
judgment on the nonexistence of Baal. "There was no voice, and no answerer, and no
one paying attention (:!!lip rK, :"TJ.U l"K, t,,p l~K,; v.29)." 38 Brueggemann cites the
poem of Isa. 41:21-29, presented as an imagined court case in which the claims of the
other gods are examined and demolished. 39 The verdict, as at Carmel, is to nullify
them into a state of nothingness: rK~ cnK F'T (v.24; cf. v.29).
The third item in the negation-:!ll.ip l"K,-not only reiterates the absence of the
deity being invoked, but may also be applied in another direction-the Baalists have
lost their audience; even Israel has stopped paying attention. This would lead
smoothly into the next contrast: Elijah summons Israel to draw near and they, who
had rewarded his challenge with sullen silence, now promptly heed him.
Symbolically, the gap between Elijah and Israel begins to close.
35
E.g., Provan (1995), 138; DeVries (1985), 226.
36
Walsh (1996), 248. Cf. e.g., Parzen ( 1940), 69-96; Nelson (1987), 121.
37
While the MT grants Baal the possible status of deity at least till he is proved otherwise, Tg. Jon. is
less generous, eliminating it at the very start. Elijah challenges Israel: "How long are you to be divided
into two divisions? Is not the Lord God? Serve before him alone. And why are you going astray after
Baal in whom there is no profit?"
38
The LXX departs from the MT in v.29: "And they prophesied until the evening came; and it came to
pass as it was the time of the offering of the sacrifice, that Elijah the Tishbite spoke to the prophets of
the abominations, saying, Stand by for the present, and I will offer my sacrifice. And they stood aside
ano"'deparTed:" tnol.fgtiihe-oeparture Of thtfBaalist ptophets~wmild contradict their availal5ility iif\1.40,
their removal seems to follow logically on the removal of Baal from the competition: the god is proved
nonexistent, his adherents disappear.
39
Brueggemann (2000), 223.
33
The climactic contrast, as we have said, is the one between Baal's non-answer and the
LORD's spectacular response. The second half of Elijah's prayer is relevant here. He
asks that he be answered so that Israel might come into knowledge on two counts: (a)
"that you, 0 LORD, are God"; (b) "that you, you have turned their heart backward."
o~n~Kn mn~ nnK ~~ nm t:nm 11',~, ~JJlJ mn~ ~JJlJ
The correspondence of the first part to the rules of the contest is plain enough-"the
god who answers by fire is indeed God (v.24)":
o~n~Kn K1:"1 !VK:l ml'~ 1lliK o~n~Kn n~m
Thus, unlike the non-answering Baal, the LORD answers and proves himself. The
fire, falling from above, "eats" d~~K) the sacrifice and the wood; then it goes beyond
what a fire would naturally consume, devouring the very stones of the altar and not
sparing even the dust that remains in its place. Reaching the trench, it just "licks up"
cVln~) the water. The verbs used of the activity of the heavenly fire are loaded with
polemic against the Baal myth. While his rival lies lifeless in the grip of Mot, unable
to receive the sacrifice his prophets prepare for him, the LORD is vigorously alive; he
"eats" and "drinks" heartily of the "meal" offered him.
Though with this Baal has been more than sufficiently demolished, perhaps there yet
is one further strike against Baal, embedded in the (b) half of Elijah's prayer. Elijah
attaches a corollary to the proof that the LORD is God, and this is as intriguing and
ambiguous as it is unexpected. Nelson sets out the two possible readings: 40 "While the
natural assumption is that this means God will have turned the people back to
fidelity, 41 it could also be taken as an assertion that God had previously caused their
apostasy to Baal 42 ." The latter reading is the more sensitive and sophisticated, and
Walsh's engagement with it is representative. He notes that the verb .V:l:lO is in the
past tense though Israel has not yet come back to the LORD, and further, that this
40
Nelson ( 1987), 118.
41
So Tg. Jon.:" ... may this people know by your doing for them the sign, that you, Lord, are God, and
by your loving them you are asking for them by your Mernra to bring them back to fear of you."
42
E:g., M6ritgolnety, citing Rashi (''Thoifgavest them place to depart from thee, and in thy' hand it is to
establish their heart toward thee") adds, "the divine Providence, not the heathen Baal. .. was the cause
of the people's backsliding, all ad majorem gloriam Dei, as in the 'hardening of the heart of the people'
in Egypt, and the temptations in the desert." (1951), 305; cf. DeVries (1985), 230.
34
expression is not the usual one for the sense of conversion. 43 Indeed, --/:J,Ili is
regularly used in this sense. 44
Furthermore, the emphatic pronoun suggests that without this revelation, the people
will probably credit the turning of their minds to Baal rather than to Yahweh.
Startling though it may be, Elijah seems to be attributing to Yahweh the popular
confusion of Yahweh and Baal that the contest is intended to resolve. If the people of
Israel have been turned away from Yahweh, only Yahweh himself could have done it.
In other words, Elijah does not even credit Baal with enough reality to be an effective
rival to Yahweh. 45
With the devastation of Baal accomplished, attention turns to his prophets. Elijah
brings them down to Wadi Kishon and slaughters them there, 46 demonstrating a
double victory: not only has he dispatched Baal's prophets to join Baal in
non-existence, but also, he has proved Israel's conversion in that they seize the
Baalists on his orders. 47 House proposes that perhaps there is here, on Elijah's part,
obedience to Moses' injunction that prophets who lead the nation astray should be
dealt with thus. 48 If so, it contributes to the growing evidence that Elijah models his
role as prophet after his paradigmatic predecessor.
In essence, the Carmel episode is an encounter between Israel and their God. In story
detail, the scene incredibly echoes another encounter, indelible in Israel's memory
(Exod. 19). There is the mountain, at which Israel is gathered at a prophet's leading;
the expectation of an experience of God; and the supernatural fire that grips the
people with dread (cf. Deut. 5:4-5, 22-27). Carmel becomes Horeb as the fire of God
43
Walsh (1996), 252.
44
BDB, ::l,W, 997; Graupner and Fabry (2004), 484-512.
45
Walsh supports his reading with examples that show that "the idea is not unusual in Hebrew thought.
Yahweh can lead a people into error to trap them (1 Kgs 22:19-23), to gain glory through their
downfall (Exod. 7:1-5), to chastise them (2 Sam. 24), to test their faithfulness (Deut. 13:1-3), and even
for reasons unknown (lsa. 63:17). 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." Walsh (1996),
252-53.
46
Ap-Thomas relates the slaughter to 2 Sam. 21:8 ff where seven Saul ides are ritually executed to end
a three-year famine. (1960), 154. In such a case, the technical term v~nW which is used of the act is
particularly relevant.
7
• The Canaanite· myth is applied· ironically: figuratively, Baal "dies" at Cannel; and in actuality, so do
his prophets. The death howeve·r, is meted out not by Moth, but by the LORD's prophet and people.
48
Deut. 13:1-11. E.g., House (1995), 220; Nelson (1987), 119. Thus, it is relevant to their fate that the
Baalists "prophesy"-,~::lm,, (1 Kgs 18:29).
35
falls: 49 "And the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on
the top of the mountain in the sight of all Israel (Exod. 24: 17)."
',Kiill" "J~ "J"lJ" i:-t:-t !liKi~ n',~K lliK~ m:-t" ,,~~ :-tKi~,
Ahab's Israel participates, even if only in part and for a fleeting moment, in the
experience of their forefathers.
Significantly for the 1 Kgs 18 narrative, there is a conceptual, theological overlap

between Horeb and Carmel. Both are designed to be a faith-defining moment for
Israel. The awesome divine self-revelation is intended to crystallize Israel's loyalty to
this one God. While at Horeb this commitment is secured as a preemptive strike
against Israel choosing any other god (cf. Deut. 4:10, 15ff), at Carmel, this
commitment must be won vis-a-vis Baal. Thus, while at Horeb, the requirement is that
Israel must be satisfied that the LORD is God, here at Carmel, it must be
demonstrated to them that the LORD is God alone. This is done, as we have noted, by
systematically demolishing the rival god and his adherents. The evoking of the Horeb
narratives is of value in that no other background could better set off the
non-negotiable and irreducible tenet on which Israel's faith was birthed, "The LORD,
he is God."
The secondary effect of the resonance developed is to call attention to the Mosaic
quality of the figure of Elijah. He is the prophetic mediator, standing between the
theophanic, consuming fire and an awestruck people, his purpose being to lead Israel
into knowledge of their God-who he is, and what choosing him entails. The
functional semblance is strengthened by the other motif that runs through the Carmel
story, that of the covenant.
2.3 1 Kgs 18:30-46: The Covenant Affirmed

In drawing attention to texts parallel to the Carmel story, Walsh picks two: Exod. 24
as a primary parallel and Exod. 32 as secondary. Let us first examine the latter briefly.
49
Here, Exod. 19: 18 is often cited for the theophanic associations of fire that descends from heaven.
E~g:c, 'Ftetheim ("1999};104:'0therscite,examples of4heophaniccconsuming,fire~Lev:.9:24;cl0:2;· Num.
16:35; Judg. 13:20; 2 Chron. 7:1-3. E.g., Rice (1990), 153; Long (1984), 195. Particularly resonant are
Lev. 9:24 and 2 Chron. 7:1-3: the fire of the LORD "eats" (..f"~~) the sacrifice, and the people on
witnessing it recognize it as theophany and fall on their faces.
36
At the story level, Walsh equates Moses' argument in Exod. 32:11-13 (that the LORD
will destroy calf-worshipping Israel at the risk of his own reputation) with Elijah's
(that the LORD must demonstrate his supremacy for his own glory's sake). Following
both prayers, he notes, is a "bloody scene in which the prophet, with the help of
faithful Israelites, executes a large number of sinners. Moses enlists the Levites and
together they kill three thousand unfaithful Israelites (Exod. 32:25-29); Elijah enlists
the people of Israel and slaughters the prophets of Baal." 50 The chief difficulty with
these parallels is that they are drawn from a story of covenant violation and as such,
sit uncomfortably with the primary parallel Walsh sets up with Exod. 24, where the
thrust is covenant making. Besides, Walsh traces out but an epidermal resemblance. In
Exod. 32, the LORD's expressed desire is to annihilate Israel for faithlessness; 1 Kgs
18 opens with the LORD explicitly announcing the lifting of the penalty for apostasy,
namely, the ongoing life-threatening drought. Equating the bloody deaths of "a large
number of sinners" in the two plots is inexact, since the Exodus group consists of
Israelites who were only recently covenanted, and the other of Baalist prophets (who,
if we assume were "imported" by Jezebel, never had anything to do with Israel's
God). A more convincing parallel to the purge of Exod. 32, as we shall argue in our
discussion of 1 Kgs 19, is the purge declared by the LORD on Baal-worshipping
Israelites (who had but recently confessed the LORD to be God at Carmel and then
lost no time in turning to apostasy, much like their forefathers at Sinai). We conclude
that a more distinct and cleaner note of resonance is obtained on comparing the
Carmel episode with Exod. 24 alone, and turn to examine this.
The term "covenant" (n"1:l) does not appear in the Carmel story, nor are there any
references to either the law or the commandments. However, (a) the announcement of
the contest, and thus the rationale for holding it, flows out of Elijah's accusation of
the house of Omri in general and Ahab in particular of forsaking the commandments
of the LORD, and (b) at least three features in the narrative shape it so as to recall
Exod. 24, the account of Israel's entering into covenant with the LORD at Horeb.
50
Walsh (1996), 286-87. So also, e.g., Cross (1973), 192; Roberts (2000), 637; Long (1984), 193;
Cohn (1982), 341.
37
The most graphic component of the covenant motif is the structure central to the
contest, namely, Elijah's altar. The narrator slows down the pace to note its state of
disrepair and describe Elijah's rebuilding of it. As regularly noted, "the images rivet
this moment to deeply traditional Israelite sensibilities." 51 Twelve stones are used, and
the narrator pauses to make explicit that these are "according to the number of the
tribes of the sons of Jacob," "stones symbolic of Israel's covenantal constitution."52
The act and the explanatory detail recall Moses' covenant sealing ritual: he "built an
altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes
of Israel" (Exod. 24:4). 53
',K,m~ ~~:::llli ,il.ll7 c~Jw', i1:::l~~ ;,,ml7 c~nw, ,;,;, nnn n:n~ 1:::1~,
In Exod. 24, the purpose of the altar is to seal the concord between Israel and God
(vv.7-8). 54 In 1 Kgs 18, the altar is a means to re-establish that concord by confession
of its fundamental article, namely, the LORD's position as the God of Israel.
The altar and its function set up the second and most significant parallel between the
two stories, namely, Israel's collective response to their understanding of the LORD.
At Horeb they speak with one voice (1nK ',,p Cl7:"T ',;::, 111~1) declaring their
acceptance of the covenant and their willingness to obediently discharge their part in
it (Exod. 24:3; cf. v.7). When this mood is evoked at Carmel, the effect is particularly
dramatic because of the marked difference in context. At Carmel, the people have
compromised the covenant and are clearly resistant to Elijah's efforts to change the
status quo. Thus, when the conversion happens, it points to the depth of the impact of
the experience undergone. Jobling calls it "the epistemological turning-point," the
logical progression from the "volitional turning point" when they agreed to Elijah's
51
Long (1984), 193.
52
Long (1984), 193. The four jars filled thrice with water is also read as symbolic of all Israel. E.g.,
Ap-Thomas (1960), 153; Long (1984), 193.
53
Cf. Joshua's stone witnessing to a covenant renewal ceremony (Josh. 24:26-27).
Walsh notes the drenching of the altar with a "libation." Moses dashes sacrificial blood against his
altar, and Elijah uses a liquid no less symbolizing life, particularly under the prevailing condition of
drought. One notes, however, the functional dissimilarities of the two liquids. Walsh also takes as
significant that the prophet "draws near" (-./'JiJ); Exod. 24:2; I Kgs 18:36) as intermediary between God
and the people. Walsh ( 1996), 286. In itself, the last is a very minor detail, but perhaps it does
coTntfiSi:Jfe'towaids ih'e overall resonance': '' . -
54
Childs reads Exod. 24:3-8 as a ceremony of covenant renewal because of the emphasis on a
ceremony at the foot of the mountain and on the people's acceptance of the covenantal law. (1974),
500-02.
38
proposal for the contest. 55 Spontaneously, all the people (Cl1;"'T ',::l) fall to the ground
on their faces as one, declaring in one voice their recognition of the truth that thus far
they have been unable to discern.
Embedded into Israel's response to God, both at Horeb and at Carmel, is Israel's
respect of God's prophet. At Horeb, Israel listens carefully to Moses' every word, as
he sets before them "all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances" and
pronounce their willingness to complete obedience (Exod. 24:3, 7). At Carmel, it is
hard not to notice that Israel's confession is made in the very same words that Elijah
had used in setting out the terms of the contest. Here, Fretheim seems to miss the
point when he comments that the words follow the traditional confession (cf. Ps.
95:7), and notably, nothing is said about the prophet. 56 One sees ii1 1 Kgs 18:39 an
affirmation that goes beyond "The LORD is our God" of Ps. 95:7. The complete
congruence with Elijah's words prior (even the definite article is retained---O";"'T',l'(;"'T)
is noteworthy on two counts. First, it is a credal acclamation of the LORD's absolute
and universal sovereignty, 57 affirming what has been proved over Elijah's years in
hiding. Secondly, in its careful adherence to Elijah it automatically, succinctly, and
undeniably affirms the prophet. Indeed, to say any more would be redundant, and
even detract from the impact achieved by this striking, dramatic minimalism.
The third feature of the covenant motif carries over into the last section of 1 Kgs 18.
This is Ahab's implied eating and drinking on the mountain (..f',:;,l'(; -..J;,nfli), often
read as a parallel to Exod. 24:9-11, where the institutional representatives of Israel eat
and drink (-..J',::ll'(; -..J;,nlli) on Horeb in the presence of God. 58 Roberts treats this
subject at length. 59 She begins with Elijah's command to Ahab to "Go up!" (-..J;,',l1).
The imperative clarifies the location of his meal, as in the case of the elders at Horeb,
who are likewise commanded to ascend the mountain (-..J;,',l1). Both parties comply,
going up to the place of theophany (Exod. 24:9; 1 Kgs 18:42). To illustrate Ahab's
55
Jobling (1978), 71.
56
Fretheim ( 1999), I 04.
51
''The pointof the narrative is not just that Yahweh is the God of Israel, but that Yahweh is God,
Eeriod." Nelson (1987), 120.
8
E.g., Walsh (1996), 286; Provan (1995), 139.
59
Roberts (2000), 637-44.
39
role in covenant renewal as sacral king 60 Roberts then cites the examples of Josiah
and Hezekiah. Josiah's covenant renewal procedures61 included a purge wherein the
priests of the high places were slaughtered, a removal from the temple of all items of
pagan cultus which were then burned in the Wadi Kidron, and the keeping of a
covenant meal in terms of the Passover (2 Kgs 23; 2 Chron. 34:29-35:19). Hezekiah's
desire to renew the covenant62 results in the cleansing of the temple, bringing out the
unclean items to the Wadi Kidron, the demolition of pagan shrines, and the
celebration of the Passover (2 Chron. 29-31: 1). Ahab's case is certainly well removed
from that of these two reformist kings, and his meal is no Passover (the text does not
even clarify if he did eat and drink, using only the infinitives of purpose to say that he
went up "to eat and to drink"). Even so, Roberts' appeal to these two examples to
make out a case for Ahab being prompted to a covenant sealing ritual meal is not
wholly without justification, especially in the context of the resonance with Exod. 24.
On another track, she cites the cases of two other kings, Saul (1 Sam. 9) and David (2
Sam. 6-7), to further her argument that a ritual meal legitimates the enthronement of a
human king and confers divine approval.
Ahab, Roberts argues, is not just a subservient compliant. "The active participation of
the king in covenant renewal requires Ahab's sincere cooperation and devotion. Just
as the people are able to recognize, at that moment, the power of Yahweh in the fire,
Ahab is able to reaffirm his loyalty to Yahweh." 63 The LORD's acceptance of Ahab,
she concludes, is confirmed by the coming of the rain. There is something in this.
Ahab's readiness to submit to correction from a prophet is clearly affirmed in the
Naboth incident (1 Kgs 21: 17-29), and is a possibility at Carmel as well. It fits with
the not entirely negative portrayal of Ahab, 64 and the narrator's efforts to consistently
show up Jezebel as the "blacker" one. It prepares the reader, as we have noted earlier,
6
° Cf. Widengren (1957), 1-32; McCarthy (1981), 285-87.
61
"The king ... made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD, keeping his commandments,
his decrees, and his statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant
that were written in this book. All the people joined in the covenant." 2 Kgs 23:3; cf. 2 Chron.
34:31-32.
62
"Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with the LORD, the God of Israel, so that his fierce anger
may turn away from us." 2 Chron. 29:10.
63
Roberts (2000), 643. Cf. Appler (1999), 60. Contra Brueggemann (2000), 227: "''Ahab is no player.
Ahab has done nothing to turn curse to blessing."
64
'Holt' argues A.Hab's similarity iO Aliaz and'Zeaekiah, gooo kings too lacldiig in backbone to do as
counselled by their respective prophets. (1995), 95-96. See Parzen' s listing of biblical evidence for the
Omrides' not being wholly unfaithful-(1940), 78-81; Waldman for the rabbinic view favouring Ahab
-(1988), 41-47; Feldman for Josephus' picture of an honourable Ahab-(1992), 368-84.
40
for Ahab's role as neo-Pharaoh to be gradually taken over by Jezebel till at the start of
1 Kgs 19, she completely replaces him. Also, it prepares for the logic in the
progression of Ahab's story, when he appears next in 1 Kgs 20. There, he is clearly
under divine favour, twice being granted victories in unequal combat against Aram. 65
All said, Ahab's implied eating and drinking in the sacred place of theophany makes a
significant contribution to the covenant motif.
The postscript to the motif is the return of rain upon the land. It was announced in
prolepsis in 1 Kgs 18:1, in anticipation of Israel's and Ahab's return to the prescribed
faith. Thus, it arrives once both people and king have been shown, in their own ways,
to have renewed their covenantal bond with the LORD. It concludes the contest in a
final and decisive statement for the LORD. 66 As House observes, "Rain is not just rain
here but evidence of the Lord's absolute sovereignty over nature and human affairs." 67
The covenant theme, even more than the anti-Baal motif, showcases Elijah's role as
covenant mediator. Moses-like, he initiates the assembly of "all Israel"; his altar is
built to represent the people whom he leads into a confession of allegiance; he himself
commands the obedience of Israel even as he mediates their obedience to the LORD;
and, he leads the institutional representative into a meal celebrating the event. Thus,
while 1 Kgs 18 is consonant with the relationship between prophets and kings, where
the former are messengers who call the latter into account for failure to keep the
covenant, the Carmel story particularly makes space to display Elijah as a prophet
after Moses.
3. Conclusion
Looking back over 1 Kgs 17 and 18, the reader recognizes the enrichment of the
narrative with Mosaic motifs. Taken individually, these may often be recognized in
65
The LXX has variants in three passages, which combine to paint Ahab even more sympathetically
than does the MT-more weak than wicked, grieved at Jezebel's crimes and quick to repent of his
misdeeds. Thus, "Ahab wept and went to Jezreel" (KocL EK.A•.IHEV KOCL E:nopEUEto AxococP Elt; IE(pocEA.,
rather than "rode and went"; 1 Kgs l8:45b); tears of repentance perhaps? If so, they fit with his
reaction at the news of Naboth's death: "And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth the
Jezreelite was dead, that he rent his garments, and put on sackcloth"; 1 Kgs 21:16 (LXX 20:16).
Siffiilarly, atElijali's defil.iriciation ofhiscdeeo;the'LXX's 'accounrof"his repentance is more elaborate
(1 Kgs 21:27-29; LXX 20:27-29). See Gooding, (1964), 269-80.
66
Cf. Fretheim (1999), 104.
67
House (1995), 221.
41
other regnal accounts as well. It is when they are woven together thick and close as in
this chronicle that a remarkable resemblance to the Moses stories emerges.
First, there is the theme of confrontation between the LORD's representative and
political structures. Ahab's people suffer a bondage they themselves do not recognize,
even though they groan under the oppression of the drought. Elijah challenges this
neo-Pharaoh to desist from "troubling" Israel. Ahab, however, is shown as persisting
in his hardness of heart; the "plague" of drought and resultant famine does not prompt
remorse and obedience, rather, it fuels his misdirected rage against the prophet (cp.
Exod. 10:28-29).68 Thus, the crown's defiance of God becomes a foil for the
consistent and complete obedience of the prophet.
Secondly, there is the polemical nature of the narrative, re the rival "god" (cp. Exod.
12: 12). The "plague" and the miracles associated with it strike a crushing blow to the
credibility of Baal. Rain withheld by Israel's God brings Baal-country to its knees; the
dead is raised in Sidon at a time when the state deity himself lies "dead" in the
underworld; the faithful are miraculously protected from the "plague." The challenge
of Baal heightens to a climax in the Carmel episode. The contest pits prophet against a
state-sponsored faction, echoing the exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh's coterie
of wise men (cp. Exod. 7:11; 7:22; 8:3, EVV 8:7) who eventually stand defeated
(Exod. 8:14, EVV 8: 18). Like the Sidonian widow, these Egyptians recognize the
power oflsrael's God (Exod. 8:15, EVV 8: 15).
These two Mosaic strains create a third, that of the prophet in dual relationship with
God and people. The Carmel story is as much an affirmation of the God of Israel as it
is of his prophet. Nelson demarcates the story using the five proposals Elijah makes-
sequentially, to Israel twice, to the Baalist prophets, to God, and once more to Israel.
Except for the first one, which receives a non-committal response, all the others are
promptly endorsed. 69 In addition, there are the proposals he makes to Ahab on either
side of the contest story proper, and these too are received with submissive obedience.
68
The effort to bring Ahab into "knowing" the LORD (cp. Exod. 9:14) continues into 1 Kgs 20 (vv.13,
28r"'Hdlie eiid;- ttfe erring fliler (Ahab/Phlita:oh)'will'-be ruined in battle (1 Kgs 22; -Exod. 14); the
ultimate disgrace for a king, while the prophet (Elijah/Moses) departs from the world with the highest
honours (2 Kgs 2; Deut. 34).
69
Nelson (1987), 117.
42
Especially in the light of Obadiah's building up of reader expectation of a ruthless and

relentless Ahab, the manner in which Elijah dominates Ahab from the start is an index
of his authority as representative of a party superior to the crown.
Nelson observes that Elijah is called "prophet" only well into the cycle of stories, that
is, in 1 Kgs 18:36, as he approaches the altar to petition his God, and as the plot
approaches the climactic moment of truth. Perhaps this is deliberate, "emphasizing his
authority at this moment and underscoring the emptiness of the claim of the Baal
prophets to that title," 70 so-called prophets from the beginning. Elijah's own claim to
be true prophet is implicitly bound up with the contest, since who he is, is dependent
on who the LORD is proved to be. He makes this explicit in his prayer: "Let it be
known (-..J~1~) this day that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I
have done all these things at your bidding" (1 Kgs 18:36). As in the case of the
Sidonian widow, Israel's coming into knowledge will be in terms of two integrally
enmeshed components, the LORD and his prophet. If, as DeVries does, we may
parallel this episode with 2 Kgs 1, where also Elijah requests fire from heaven, then
these are both narratives of prophet authorisation, 71 for clearly, in the latter story, the
fire is to come down "if I am a man of God" (2 Kgs 1: 10, 12). The pattern is not
unfamiliar, for this is the case in the Moses stories as well. At the Red Sea and again
at Sinai, the integrity and dependability of God is meshed with that of his prophet
(Exod. 14:31; 19:9). Like Moses, Elijah is proved to be as reliable as his God.
1 Kgs 18 ends with Elijah outrunning Ahab's chariot to the capital. Enabled by God
he continues, as in the rest of the narrative till this moment, one step ahead of the
Omride.
70
Nelson (1987), 118.
71
DeVries (1985), 230.
43
Chapter Four: 1 Kings 19: Horeb
Chapter Four
1 Kgs 19: Horeb
In 1 Kgs 19, the resonance between the Moses and Elijah stories is at its richest. The
settings are brilliantly evocative, taking the reader from the edges of the inhabited
world deep into trackless wilderness and on to the holy mountain. Here is the only
story outside the Pentateuch to use Sinai/Horeb as locale; here again is the theophanic
triad of earthquake, wind and fire, so significant in Israel's traditions; and on this
mountain once more, a prophet holds dialogue with God. This section of the Elijah
narrative, therefore, merits close examination.
The unity of this chapter with the previous Elijah corpus is argued both ways, 1 one of
the points of debate being Jezebel' s role; with the story having reached a resting point
after Carmel, Jezebel sets the plot in motion again, but is then never mentioned over
the rest of the chapter, even (as we shall discuss) at a point that would warrant it.
However, we continue our close reading of the final form of the text.
1. 1 Kgs 19:1-10: Moses, Elijah and the Death Wish

The key event in this section is Elijah's request that his life be ended. This finds
parallels-largely conceptual-in two similar requests of Moses. It suits the flow of
our argument to treat the Moses texts first.
1.1. Moses and the Death Wish

1.1.1 Moses' Intercession at Sinai (Exod. 32:31-32)
Moses' first request to die comes in the aftermath of the golden calf episode. Moses
has already interceded to stay the LORD's intention to consume Israel. He has
destroyed the image and overseen a bloody purge. His expressed purpose now in
returning up Sinai is to make atonement.
In admitting the degree of Israel's sin, Moses states it, as Moberly points out, in the
language of the prohibition in Exod. 20:23: 2
1
E.g., Steck (1968), who demonstrated the redaction of four prophetic stories into the narrative of I
Kgs 17-19. For arguments for the unity of this text see, e.g., Cohn (1982).
2
Moberly (1983), 57.
44
Exod. 20:23: C;:)', ,Wl1n ~', :l;"TT ~;,',~,
Exod. 32:31: :J;"TT ~;,',~ c;,', ,wl1~,
Yet, in the face of Israel's flagrant law-breaking and deliberate rejection of the
LORD, Moses pleads forgiveness. As Cassuto explains, the apodosis of the
conditional sentence cn~~n ~wn C~ ;"Tnl1,-"well and good"-is not expressly
stated, because it is self-understood, cf. 1 Sam. 12: 14-15. 3 But if the LORD will not
forgive, n:Jn;:) 1W~ l1DO~ ~~ ~Jn~-"blot me out of the book that you have
written."
We may rule out the possibility that this is an "audacious challenge to Yahweh-"lf
you won't do what I want, just kill me!" 4 ; or that it is an "audacious threat" through
which Moses submits his resignation. 5 Either tone is hardly likely, given his tentative
approach-the ~t,,~-into the divine presence, and given the tenor of entreaty in the
intercessions of Exod. 32-24. Thus, Tg. Onk. paraphrases: "And Mosheh returned,
and prayed before the Lord, and said, I supplicate of Thee, Thou Lord of all the world,
before whom the darkness is as light!. .. "
As to how we are to understand Moses' request, there are still at least three possible
readings. The wider view is that Moses could have been requesting to die in the place
of an Israel out of favour with God. Fretheim suggests that Moses probes if one may
stand in for many, with a vivid, though not literal reference to those who are God's
elect people (cf. Ezek. 13:9; Mal. 3:16) and "offers up his place among God's elect
for the sake of the people's future." 6 The concept of vicarious sacrifice is best
associated with Isa. 53, where the Servant makes himself, or may be made, a guilt
offering. The idea of vicarious sacrifice is unambiguously articulated in the
Hellenistic Jewish text, 4 Maccabees. Charlesworth comments: "Doctrinally, the most
significant contribution of 4 Maccabees is the development of the notion that the
suffering and death of the martyred righteous had redemptive efficacy for all Israel
and secured God's grace and pardon for his people." 7 In 6:28f. Eleazar says: "Be
3
Cassuto ( 1967), 423.
4
· Kirsch ('1'998), 272.
5
Coats (1993), 65-66.
6
Fretheim (1991), 290. Cf. e.g., Childs (1974), 571; Enns (2000), 577.
7
Charlesworth (1985), 539.
45
merciful to your people and let our punishment be a satisfaction on their behalf. Make
my blood their purification and take my life as a ransom for theirs." (Also 17: 12f; cf.
2 Mace. 7:30-38). Charlesworth adds that the concept, though sufficiently well
attested in apocalyptic literature (e.g., T. Benj. 3:8) and at Qumran (e.g., lQS 5:6;
8:3f., 10; 9:4), was neither normative nor widespread in Judaism. 8 Though this does
not rule out the possibility of an occurrence of this idea earlier in the canonical order,
it weakens it somewhat.
A second alternative is that Moses could be asking to die along with unpardoned
Israel. Cassuto sees Moses as saying, "I do not wish my fate to be better than that of
the rest of my people. " 9 The assumption here is that Israel still remains under the peril
of destruction-en masse or otherwise. Moses' first round of intercession has won a
concession from the LORD in that he has changed his mind on the annihilation of
Israel. Moses fears that the LORD would destroy Israel over a period of time, either
by his own hand, or by withdrawing his protection and leaving them vulnerable to
being picked off by other peoples.
A third possibility is that Moses was asking for his death, independent of whatever
fate might befall an unforgiven people. Thus McNeile: "It is sometimes thought that
Moses here rose to a great spiritual height of self-renunciation, in asking God to erase
his name from his book rather than leave his people unforgiven." Rather, "[I]f God
will not grant his request, Moses despairingly asks that he may die; cf. Num. xi.15." 10
Similarly, Driver: "Moses would rather not live than that his people should remain
unforgiven." 11 Such a reading would resonate with 1 Kgs 19, where Elijah requests
death out of despair at his inadequacy.
All three readings are possible, the second and the third more so. The point we shall
return to later is that here Moses is on a mission of overwhelming magnitude, namely,
to gain atonement for Israel; not through the known route, that is, the prescribed
cultus, for the High Priest himself stands implicated in the sin of idolatry, but by his
own standing with the LORD. "The basis of all such intercession," says Barr, "is the
8
Chilrleswotth (1985), 539.
9
Cassuto (1967), 423.
10
McNeile (1908), 209.
11
Driver (1918), 356.
46
sense of the freedom of God, the knowledge that even in his wrath he is not tied
legalistically to a precise penalty which he is forced by his own nature to exact, or a
12
procedure which he cannot but follow." Should his attempt fail, Moses will have
reached the end of a cul-de-sac. And he sees no alternative beyond failure other than
death for himself, and so requests that death.
1.1.2 Moses' Complaint at Kibroth-hattaavah (Num. 11:4-15)
Moses' other death wish comes about in the course of yet another of Israel's
complaints about provision. This time, they complain, not because they have nothing
to eat, but because the manna bores them. Understandably, "the anger of the LORD
was kindled greatly." The situation is "evil in the sight of Moses." (v.lO.) On the
other occasions that Moses loses his temper, the object of his anger is clear (e.g.,
Exod. 16:20; 32:19; Lev. 10:16; Num. 16:15; Num. 31:14). Here, it has to be inferred
from his address to the LORD.
Moses opens with l1~l7', nl7ii1 ;,~',-"Why have you dealt ill with thy servant?"
He uses the same verb in another context, that of Pharaoh multiplying Israel's labour,
asking the LORD, i1Ti1 Cl7', i1nl7ii1 i1~"-"Why have you done evil to this
people?" (Exod. 5:22). Moses reasons that he has inadvertently needled Pharaoh into
treating Israel with greater severity than before (5:23); since the LORD is Moses'
commissioner, it is the LORD's door at which the evil treatment of Israel must be
laid. Thus the LORD has used Moses to ill-treat Israel.
Moses uses a similar logic here, in reverse. He accuses the LORD of treating him ill,
in that he has laid the burden of Israel upon him. Thus the LORD has used Israel to
ill-treat Moses. 13 These two parallel cases of reasoning happen in parallel situations.
In Exod. 5 he is caught between a recalcitrant Pharaoh and accusing Israelite
supervisors, and he is unable to deal profitably with either. In Num. 11 he finds
himself having to mediate between a demanding Israel and an angry God. This
situation is different in that, in previous situations of physical demands, either the
12
Barr (1963), 77 in the context ofJer. 15:1-4, which suggests that the intercession of a Moses or
Samuel might have averted God-sent disaster.
13
In both Exod. 5 and Num. 11, it is striking that though the accusation is aimed at God, all the activity
happens at the human level.
47
Chapter Four: I Kings 19: Horeb
LORD directly answers with provision (Exod. 16:12) or Moses takes the case to the
LORD who then makes provision (Exod. 15:25; 17:4-6). Here, however, both the
LORD and the people are displeased simultaneously. It is likely that Moses' own
displeasure is at this new and perplexing situation.
Moses opens his complaint with the erroneous assumption of ill-treatment which he
states using the two parties as subject: "Why have you ... ?" and "Why have I. .. ?"
There is a sense here that he considers the LORD arbitrary and unfair. He can see no
reason why the LORD must ill-treat him, or why he should not find favour before the
LORD. This drawing of battle lines, and the arranging of him and the LORD on
opposite sides forms the matrix to his monologue.
Jewish lore agrees that Israel could be particularly "spiteful" in its treatment of
Moses:
"If Moses went out early they would say: 'Behold the son of Amram who betakes
himself early to the gathering of manna, that he may get the largest grains.' If he went
out late, they would say: 'Behold the son of Amram, he ate and drank, and hence
slept so long, that he had to get up late.' If he went through the thick of the multitude,
they said: 'Behold the son of Amram, he goes through the multitude, to gather in
marks of honour.' But if he chose a path aside from the crowd, they said: 'Behold the
son of Amram, who makes it impossible for us to follow the simple commandment, to
honour a sage.' Then Moses said: 'If I did this you were not content, and if I did that
14
you were not content! I can no longer bear you alone."'
The implied accusation in Moses' opening questions is that he was never willing to
take on responsibility for them; it was laid on him uninvited.
He strengthens his argument (v.l2) with the most compelling reason for a person to
take responsibility for another, namely, the obligation of a mother towards her
newborn. In asking if he has conceived and birthed them, Moses leaves the unasked
question hanging, demanding answer. Who then is Israel's parent? The emphatic use
of the personal pronoun twice-,il,n1'?, ,:>j~ c~ . .. ,n,iil ,:>:l~il-makes it plain
that whoever the parent may be, it is certainly not Moses. Since he is not responsible
for the two steps that bring a child into the world, it is entirely unreasonable that he
14
Ginzberg (1911 ), 69.
48
should be saddled with the duty of nursing it. Then he explicitly states the LORD's
responsibility in this affair: it is the LORD who promised the land to Israel's
ancestors. 15
Further, Moses adds, he is inadequate for this responsibility. He does not have the
means to feed the people according to their desires (vv.l3-14); by himself, he is
totally unable to bear "all these people" and their demands. His sense of being
overwhelmed comes through in his emphatic use of personal pronouns
~,~" ~:m~ ":;~,~ ~"; he sums up with ~)~~ 1~:l ~:;~, the 1~ in ~)~~ being an
elative, expressing the ultimate degree, "too heavy." 16
In closing (v.l5), he revisits his opening words, not to repeat his accusations, but to
extrapolate from them the answers to his ills.
Problem: ~r:r~~'? J;ll1J;:J :197
Resolution: )'i:-t ~) ~))1:1 ~', :-ttv!J-n~ ;,:;~~-c~,
T T ' '' : T ' ·: ; - T T ' ;
Problem: ~n_~~~ 1lJ ~8;;rt-x" :1~'{1

Resolution: ~rt~~ 10 ,8~;;9-c~ )'i;:t ~~ ~~~.l;:t
Problem: ~"li :-tr:-t t:llm-"~ ~ill~-n~ c,tv', ...

T T ',' - T T T T - '.' T
Resolution: ~nli1:l ;,~,~-"~,

' T T : ·: ; ·: - :
The personal pronoun is strengthened by double usage, :-tiVli n~. In the request for
death, the use of the infinitive absolute following the imperative indicates immediacy;
and there is a trace of black humour too, in appealing for death "if' he has "found
favour" in the LORD's sight. In formulating his demand, Moses deploys the full force
of language.
1.2 Elijah and the Death Wish (1 Kgs 19:1-10)

1 Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets with the
sword.
2 Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, "So may the gods do to me, and more also,
if I do not make your life like the life of one of them by this time tomorrow."
15
Later, Moses recalls the LORD's caring relationship with Israel using the very same images (Deut.
1:31; 32: 18). Cf. also, Exod. 4:22.
16
Williams (1976), 318.
49
3 Then he was afraid; he got up and fled for his life, and came to Beer-sheba, which belongs
•
to Judah; he left his servant there.
4 But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a
solitary broom tree. He asked that he might die: "It is enough; now, 0 LORD, take away my
life, for I am no better than my ancestors."
5 Then he lay down under the broom tree and fell asleep. Suddenly an angel touched him and
said to him, "Get up and eat."
6 He looked, and there at his head was a cake baked on hot stones, and a jar of water. He ate
and drank, and lay down again.
7 The angel of the LORD came a second time, touched him, and said, "Get up and eat,
otherwise the journey will be too much for you."
8 He got up, and ate and drank; then he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty
nights to Horeb the mount of God.
9 At that place he came to a cave, and spent the night there. Then the word of the LORD came
to him, saying, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
10 He answered, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the Israelites
have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the
sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away."
LXX
1 ml O:v~yyHA.Ev Axaap tiJ lE(apEA. yuvaLKL airmu m:ivta & l:noLTJOEV HA.LOu Kal w<;
0:nEK1HVEV tou<; npo¢~ta<; l:v pof.L¢a(q,
2 Kal O:nEotHA.Ev IE(apEA. npo<; HA.wu Kal ElnEv El ou El HA.LOu Kal l:yw lE(aPEA. taoE
noL~OaL f.lOL 6 8EO<; Kal taOE npoo8ELT] OtL taUtT]V t~V wpav auptov 8~00f.laL t~V ~ux~v oou
Ka8w<; ~x~v E:vo<; €~ aimJv
3 Kal €¢op~8TJ HA.LOu Kat O:vEotTJ Kat O:ni1A.8Ev Kata t~v ~ux~v E:autou Kal. Epxnat EL<;
BT]poapEE t~v Iouoa
Kat O:¢i1KEV tO natMpwv autou EKEL
4 Kat auto<; EnOpEU8Tj EV tiJ EP~Il£¥ ooov ~f.lEpa<; Kat ~A8Ev Kal EKa8LOEV uno pa8f.l EV Kal
Ut~oato t~V ~x~v autou O:no8aVELV KUL ElTIEV LKavouo8w vuv A.aPE 0~ t~V ~x~v f.lOU O:n'
Ef.lOU KUpLE on ou KpElOOWV l:yw ELf.lL UTIEP tOU<; natEpa<; f.lOU
5 Kal EKOLf.l~8Tj Kat unVWOEV EKEL uno ¢utov Kal toou n<; ~tjrato autou Kat ElnEv aut<\}
O:vaotTJSL Kat ¢ayE
6 Kal EnEPAEtjrEV HA.tou KaL toou npo<; KE¢aA.il<; autou EyKpu¢(a<; 6A.up( tT]<; KaL Ka~nKT]<;
uoato<; Kal tXVEOtT] Kat E¢a.yEv Kal E1TlEV KUL E1TlOtpEtjra<; EKOLf.l~8Tj
7 KUL EnEotpEtjrEV 0 &yyEA.o<; Kup(ou EK OEUtEpou KUL ~tjra.to auwu KUL EL nEV aut<\) &.vaota
¢ayE ott noA.A.~ O:no oou ~ 6oo<;
50
8 Kat &vEotTJ Kat EcpayEv Kat EmEv Kat E:TiopEu8TJ E:v tiJ taxuL ti'Jc; ppwaEwc; EKEI.v11c;
1:E001Xpa.KOV1:a. ~f.!Ep1Xc; KIXL 1:E001XpUKOV1:1X VUK1:1X<; 'Ewe; opouc; XwpT)p
9 Kat Elaf}.l..8Ev EKE1 Elc; to aTI~.l..awv Kat KatE.l..uaEv EKE1 Kat loou pf}f..La Kupl.ou Tipoc; autov
KIXL EL'TTEV 1:L au EV1:1XU91X fl.l..LOU
10 KIXL ElnEv fl.l..wu (T).l..wv E:(~.l..wKa tQ Kupl.q> navtoKpatopL on E:yKatE.l..Ln6v aE oi. ui.ot
IapiXTJA ta 9uaLaat~pLa aou KIXtEOKIX*IXv KIXL touc; npocp~tac; aou aTIEKtELvav E:v pof..LcpiXL~ KIXL
imoA.EA.ELflf..LIXL E:yw f..Lovwmwc; Kat (TJtouaL t~v ~x~v f..Lou .l..aPEI.v aut~v
The LXX has an insertion at v.2: "If you are Elijah, then I am Jezebel!" At v.5, nc;
("someone") replaces the MT's l~t,~, although at v.7 it follows the MT-the "angel of the
LORD." At v.8, the phrase "mountain of Goq" to describe floreb is missing. At v.lO, Israel is
said to have forsaken God, rather than his covenant. Besides these significant variations, we
will refer to nuances in construal as we study the text.
The third death wish under consideration is Elijah's. This stretch of narrative is
vigorously evocative of the Moses stories at multiple levels, and may be treated in
two sections, each dealing with a "complaint." In each section, we shall note the
Mosaic resonance in the setting of the scene, and within the world of the story. More
significant, however, are the conceptual parallels between the three sets of death wish
narratives. These are best set out once we have studied both complaints.
1.2.1 Elijah's Complaint under the Broom Tree (1 Kgs 19:1-4)

The flow of the story, with its various stopping points, recalls Israel's wilderness
wandering. Elijah moves from Jezreel to Beer-sheba to an unknown point in the
Negev, marked only by a tree, and then deeper still into the wasteland till he reaches
the cave at Horeb, from where he must go on to the wilderness of Damascus. At
Beer-sheba he voluntarily enters into alone-ness. It is suggested that he seems to be
turning his back on more than his servant here-perhaps his country and his cal1. 17
A second level at which the discourse resonates with the Moses stories is within the
world of the story. Here, the character of Jezebel steps out of the shadows. Given the
development of her character thus far, one is not surprised to learn, at the start of 1
Kings 19, that the higher authority Ahab reports to is his wife. (JewishJegend notes
17
E.g., House (1995), 222; De Vries (1985), 235.
51
that "Jezebel was not only the daughter and wife of a king, she was also co-regent
with her husband, the only reigning queen in Jewish history except Athaliah." 18 ) Not
surprising too, is the vehemence of her reaction. 19 She goes on to swear a dreadful
oath, made the more terrible because she swears it against herself, to personally see to
his death "by this time tomorrow." That she can set a time for his death, and then give
him a day's notice bespeaks her unqualified confidence in her ability to keep the
promise she makes to herself. House describes her as being "as worthy an opponent as
God's servants ever face in Scripture." 20 Indeed, in her disdain for the LORD and his
representatives, in her incredible immunity to the recent evidence at Carmel, the
reader sees a new Pharaoh pitting herself against the LORD's prophet. Like him, she
may threaten death ("Take care ... the day you see my face you shall die"; Exod.
10:28); if her circle of power is smaller, her vicious use of it makes up the difference.
It is arguable whether Elijah's response to Jezebel is a desperate flight or a calculated

retreat. The MT pointing favours "to see" (--/:·n~1) as the first verb describing Elijah's
response to Jezebel's message, 21 while the LXX prefers to read "he was afraid"
('JK1~). making explicit the reason for the departure. Regularly, readings lean towards
the LXX. Thus, Hauser, for example: "a rapid-fire sequence of three verbs depicts
sudden, animated, terrified activity by Elijah ... fleeing without even a slight
hesitation." 22 While this behaviour conflicts with the characterization of Elijah thus
far, it anticipates what follows under the broom tree.
Following the MT punctuation, Elijah's death wish is in two parts, one setting out an
imperative, and the other justifying it:
~IDDJ np m;,~ i1nl1 :11
~n:lK~ ~;:)JK :l,~ K', ~;::,
18
Ginzberg (1913), 189.
19
As noted, the LXX prefaces her speech with a declaration that is at once an arrogant challenge and a
caustic belittling: "If you are Elijah, I am Jezebel." Burney proposes that the force and character of the
phrase speak for its genuineness. Burney (1903), 229. Cf. Eissfeldt (1967); Simon (1997), 199-200.
Since we will not engage with source issues, we merely note that the LXX's characterization of Jezebel
seems appropriate.
20
House (1995), 222.
21
However, given that the verb lacks the object, the MT pointing looks "apologetic" in favour of
Elijah.
22
Hauser and Gregory (1990), 62. Contra, e.g., Allen (1979), who argues that Elijah was broken, not
frightened by Jezebel.
52
In the first part, the phrases :-tnl1 is linked to ;,,;,~ with a conjunctive accent, leaving
the ::l, as a terse expostulation. (LXX: iKa.vouoew vuv; "let it now be enough.") Tg.
Jon. paraphrases, "And he said, "It is long enough for me. How long am I being
knocked about like this?", reading fatigue and a deep frustration at the events that
have led to this situation. Less ambiguous is the death wish itself, with the rationale
clearly explained. He wishes to die at the hand of the LORD because of failure. He
states that failure in comparative terms-he is no better than his fathers/forebears.
This is usually understood as a reference to his predecessor prophets?3 If so, Fretheim
may be correct in reading here what the narrator does not make explicit at any point in
the narrative, namely, that Israel's confession has been followed quickly by
backsliding. 24 Like the prophets before him, he has not been able to make a difference
to Israel's tendency to apostasy. Alternately, if Elijah is referring to his national
heritage, he is likening himself to Israel, ever a disappointment to God.
While conceding that "psychologizing" is usually an exegetical mistake, Nelson sees

this episode as warranting it. The lone broom tree could be "a careful psychological
touch"-the double mention of it frames the death wish-emphasizing Elijah's
isolation and consequent "depression." 25 Deep dissatisfaction is understandable,
especially in the context of the spectacular triumph at Carmel over Jezebel' s prophets.
Now, it has taken very little, it would appear, for Jezebel to reduce Elijah to such as
those Baalist prophets were. Even if she has not removed him by death, she has
effectively eliminated him from the arena. In embracing the desire for death, Elijah
executes Jezebel's mandate upon himself. The irony brings out the magnitude of the
defeat.
Along another line, Walsh reads into Elijah's death wish, a "challenge":
If Yahweh accepts Elijah's prayer and allows him to die, he releases the prophet from
the task of Israel's conversion and implicitly admits that his demands on Elijah were
excessive. If, on the other hand, Yahweh does not accede to Elijah's request, then he
must address the underlying causes of the prophet's despair and act even more
23
E.g:,"Fretheim (1999), 108; Rice (1990), 15=7.-
24 Fretheim (1999), 108.
25
Nelson (1987), 126. Cf. Wiener (1978). Burney (1903), 209, comments on the force of intot, cf. I
Sam. 6:7.
53
forcefully to bring Israel back. In either case, Elijah himself no longer bears
responsibility for the outcome. 26
Elijah's introspective absorption with his own performance as prophet weakens
somewhat the suggestion that he is challenging God. Further, if God were to act on
Elijah's request, it need not necessarily imply his mismanagement of Elijah. There is
something, however, in the second half of Walsh's argument. As in Num. 11, the
prophet has addressed his death wish to the LORD, and the progression of the plot
hangs on his response.
1.2.2 Towards Elijah's Second Complaint (1 Kgs 19:5-9a)

Here in the wilderness, details that call to mind Israel's desert wanderings come thick
and fast. The food and water is provided by miracle, and the bread comes as Elijah
sleeps, just as the manna fell at night (Num. 11 :9). He wakes, and behold (:1Ji1), it is
there; there is a wonderment here, echoing that of Israel, when they first saw "the
bread that the LORD has given you to eat (Exod. 16: 15)."
A messenger is introduced into the story, who, on the second appearance is identified
. as the angel of the LORD-mil~ l~"~; l~"~' observes Eichrodt, is "a peculiarly
equivocal expression speaking of God's personal activity in veiled language." 27
Circumstantially and functionally, this il1il~ l~"~ puts the reader in mind of the
angel promised to Israel-in whom the LORD's name is-with the purpose of
guarding Israel on the way and bringing them to a place prepared (Exod. 23:20):
~nJ~i1 1lli~ c1p~i1 "~ l~~~i1", l,,~ l1~lli" l~JD" l~"~ il"lli ~~J~ mi1
Israel must not rebel against him. Rather, they are enjoined to obey him, for then, the
LORD will be an enemy to their enemies, will bless their bread and water, remove
sickness and enable them to increase till they possess the land (Exod. 23:20-33; cf.
33:2). Elijah's angel goes some way in being a functional counterpart of the one
promised Israel in the capacity of guardian and guide. He provides Elijah a cake and
water, cures the sickness of tired body and mind, and appears to know the way
(l11i1) ahead of Elijah, a whisper of a suggestion that Elijah will go to a place in
some way prepared and awaiting him. When Elijah responds with obedience to the
26
Walsh (1996), 268.
27
Eichrodt (1969), 39.
54
messenger's prompting, the reader notes that Elijah's story has subtly reverted into
the familiar pattern of divine command and prophet's compliance, and suspects that a
reversal of Elijah's fortunes may be at hand.
While the events under the broom tree throw up points of equivalence between
Elijah's circumstances and Israel's wilderness years, the reader discerns a gradual
shift as the prophet moves closer to Horeb. Here, the Mosaic parallels begin to take
over. Elijah travels for an idiomatic forty days and nights. At first, this might recall
Israel in their aimless wandering, for here is a man wandering as deep, and apparently,
as aimlessly, in the wilderness. However, the description of Elijah's arrival at his
destination clarifies the new direction of the resonance with its lexical reminiscence of
Moses' first approach to the same place:
i1:J1n c~;,',~;, 1i1 ",~ (Exod. 3: 1); :J1n c~;,',~;, 1i1 111 (1 Kings 19:8). 28
Significantly, these are the only two occurrences of Horeb described as the mountain
of God. Immediately, the idiomatic forty days and nights of travel "in the strength of
that food" evokes Moses' periods of fasting on Horeb (Exod. 34:28; cf. Deut. 9:9, 18,
25) rather than Israel's forty years. 29
Exod. 34:28: i1n!li ~", c~~, ",;:,~ ~", en', ;,",~', c~l1:J1~, o,~ c~l1:J1~
As if to complete the parallel, there is the detail of the cave that serves for Elijah's
lodging. Here, the definite article becomes a consideration. Simon, for example,
dismisses it as "meaningless," citing "the" cave in which Obadiah reports he stowed
away prophets (1 Kgs 18:4, 13). 30 Indeed, grammarians note the peculiar employment
of the article in Hebrew, "to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as
yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind
under given circumstances." 31 However, commentators regularly consider the article
here as significant intertexuality. 32 A parallel use of the definite article re a location is
1 Kings 13: 11; the old prophet from Bethel finds the J udahite man of God under "the"
28
The LXX omits "the mountain of God" in both texts. Tg. Onq. and Ps.-J. (Exodus) and Tg. Jon.
(Former Prophets) have "the mountain on which the glory of the LORD was revealed, to Horeb."
29
E.g., Wiseman (1993), 172; Provan (1995), 145; Nelson (1987), 128.
30
Simon (1997), 322, n.124. Cf. Montgomery (1951), 313.
31
GKC, §126q-r; Joiio'il-Muraoka, § 137n~6; Thus, e:g., the raven and the dove (Gen. 8:7-8) and the
donkey (Exod. 4:20).
32
E.g., Wiseman (1993), 172; Rice (1990), 158; Fretheim (1999), 109; Nelson (1987), 128; add Gray
(1964), 364.
55
oak tree. In both places, it would seem the narrator is making reference to places made
famous by association. Indeed, Jewish legend insists that "the cave in which Moses
concealed himself while God passed in review before him with his celestial retinue,
was the same in which Elijah lodged when God revealed himself to him on Horeb." 33
Thus, though EVV substitute with an indefinite article, we note that the LXX and the
Targum retain it in this text. Certainly, it can be read so as to contribute to the
resonance that is taking shape. A last detail in the 1 Kgs narrative is that Elijah tarries
the night in the cave. The LORD meets with him, presumably, early next morning,
reminiscent of the timing of two Exodus theophanies (Exod. 19: 16-17; 34:2).
Meanwhile, the text does not clarify the motivation for the trip to Horeb. It could not
have been Elijah's destination from the start, since his words ("Enough! ... take away
my life ... ") and actions (he sleeps/lies down to die) under the broom tree indicate he
desires to go no further, either literally or figuratively. The first hint of a second
phase to Elijah's journey comes from the angel, though with no mention of the
terminus. Commentators choose between two possibilities: (a) the LORD draws
Elijah towards Horeb; (b) Elijah directs himself towards Horeb. With regards to the
first possibility, Fretheim sees God as leading the prophet to Horeb "for the sake of
the right context for the confrontation"; 34 Provan suggests the LORD has a didactic
purpose, namely, to impart knowledge of himself beyond what Elijah had experienced
35
at Carmel. With respect to the second possibility, House sees Elijah journeying to
Horeb to "decide for himself if the Lord is God"; 36 Hauser suggests he is still fleeing
from Jezebel and comes to Horeb despondently seeking the LORD's pity; 37 Coote
thinks that since Moses returns to Horeb after the slaughter in the camp (Exod. 32),
the parallel story here demands Elijah's travelling to Horeb post the slaughter of the
Baalists. 38
Regarding the itinerary itself, it seems reasonable to postulate it as driven by both

characters. The angel presents a rigorous journey as the next step, and prepares Elijah
towards it. Yet, in the absence of a clear directive, as was usual thus far in the
33
Ginzberg (1911), 137.
34
Fretheim (1999), 109.
35
J?iovan (19'95); 145-46.
36
House (1995), 222.
37
Hauser and Gregory (1990), 67.
38
Coote (1992), 25.
56
narrative, it appears that Horeb is Elijah's decision. Elijah's purpose can only be
construed from the events related. At the broom tree in the wilderness, he is without
leading, both personally and professionally. There is no direct response to his death
wish; he is refreshed with food, which indicates God's rejection of his request; yet,
there is no leading for what he must do next in his capacity as prophet. Since, at
Horeb, he is ready with a statement of his case, we may assume that his purpose in
travelling to Horeb is to present it.
We must now study Elijah's second complaint before we return to how it bears on the
two death wishes of Moses.
1.2.3 Elijah's Complaint at Horeb (1 Kgs 19:9b-10)

1 Kgs 19:9b
The narrative now slows into dialogue mode. The word of the LORD comes asking
the question ,;,~",~ ;"'IE:) 1',-no-"What concerns you here, Elijah?" (19:9). How is
this question to be understood? One way is to stress the "here" of the question and
read it as a severe reminder that Elijah is in the wrong place; he should be "there" in
Israel, his post of service, not "here" at Horeb. The contrast is between responsibility
and escape. 39 This need not be the case, for at least two reasons. First, the angel hints
of a long journey ahead, and this could not be the way Elijah had come for he was
only a day's journey from Beersheba into the wilderness. What is more, the angel
implicitly sanctions the journey with a provision of food and drink, urging Elijah to
strengthen himself for the journey. Secondly, there are several instances where the
narrator has God opening the conversation with a question, and significantly, the
characters addressed invariably read the question as an invitation to dialogue, and
either choose or refuse to do so. 40
Coming to the idiom 1',-no: when the verbless interrogative clause is used with the
lamedh of interest, the object of the lamedh is usually personal, and concerns the
39
Nordheim (1978), 61; DeVries (1985), 237; Rice (1990), 158.
4
°CE Adam-("Where are you?" Gen, 3:9kCain'("Why are you angry .. ? Gen. 3:6 and "Where is your
brother Abel?" 3:9), Hagar (" ... where have you come from and where are you going?" Gen. 16:8),
Balaam ("Who are these men with you?" Num. 22:9) and Jonah ("Is it right for you to be angry about
the bush?" Jon. 4:9).
57
object in loosely or elliptically defined way. 41 Simon explains that this idiom can be
part of a genuine question (as Caleb's 1',-;,~ asked of Achsah; J udg. 1: 14), or a
rebuke that is part of a rhetorical question (as the captain's question to Jonah in Jon.
1:6). In Elijah's context, it is more likely that it is a genuine question and, as Seybold
observes, could be in line with the 1',-;,~ common to audiences with a king, of which
he lists four occurrences: David and the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam. 14:5), David and
Bathsheba (1 Kgs 1: 16), the king of Israel and the woman whose son had been eaten
in famine (2 Kgs 6:28), and Ahasuerus and Esther (Esth. 5:3). 42 In each case, the
question opens the audition, signalling the petitioners to state the case that has caused
them to seek the king's presence. 43 If this usage of the idiom is represented in Elijah's
case, then the "here" appended to 1',-;,~ would draw attention to the place. Just as
much as this could be in rebuke, it could also be in reference to the unusual locus
Elijah has chosen for this audience. Elijah's reply, whose major content is Israel's
abandoning of the covenant pacted at Horeb, would then answer the "here" of the
question. The question could then be explained as asking, "What troubles you that
brings you here?'' or more concisely, "What concerns you here?''
1 Kgs 19:10 aa
;,;,,', ,nKJp KJp
Elijah emphatically states his zeal. In the immediate context, this zeal cannot be
denied (other than perhaps in 19:3-4). Since his first appearance on the scene, Elijah's
involvement in his mission is wholehearted and unambiguous. His obedience to the
LORD's directives is prompt and courageous, his prayers are passionate, his
confrontation of a powerful establishment is at the risk of his own life, and it appears
there is nothing he will stop at in his ardent desire to effect the turning back of a
wayward people.
41
Waltke and O'Connor (1990), 18.3b.
42
Seybold ( 1973), 8, n.30. He makes out the Elijah passage to belong to the sphere of juridical
proceedings and lists elements in support, among them, the opening question-1',-n~-which is an
enquiry··into·the intentionsoftne·persori"seekingjtfstice.
43
The other two instances of genuine question within a narrative text-Gen. 21:7 (Hagar and the angel
of the LORD); Judg. 18:23-24 (Micah and the Danites)-are akin to the royal audition opener, in that
the question may be rendered, "What troubles you? /What is your problem?"
58
The setting, and the aural associations stirred up by the word "~)p evoke a wider
context. A prophet goes up to Horeb for audience with the LORD; there is mention of
a rocky shelter; a theophany follows; the prophet presents Israel before God. The
scene of Exod. 34 is instantly recognizable, setting up a parallel between the two
prophets. Olley well represents the comparison drawn: "Moses, in a parallel situation
'on the mountain,' interceded for the people, arguing for YHWH's continuing
relationship. Elijah's relationship to the people is controlled by 'zeal', not
compassionate identification." 44 Here, zeal is set against intercession, making out the
latter to be the more desirable in a prophet.
The most appropriate locus for comparison however, is not "on the mountain" but at
the point of the prophets' demonstration of zeal-Exod. 32 and 1 Kgs 18. In both
cases, Israel's worship of other gods is the trigger; in both cases, the prophets take to
the sword, purging the people of the chief offenders. However, the decision on
whether Elijah's zeal is to be commended or condemned must take into account the
usage of the word itself.
"~Jp, occurring only in the piel, carries implications of both zeal and jealousy. Since
the verb expresses a very strong emotion whereby some quality or possession of the
object is desired by the subject, it is often translated "envy." Thus, for example, it
expresses the reaction of barren Rachel towards Leah, the mother of many sons (Gen.
30:1), and that of Joseph's brothers towards their father's favourite son (Gen. 37:11).
However, the analogy between divine and human jealousy lies in the demand for
exclusive possession or devotion and the central meaning of "~)p relates to jealousy
as applicable to a marriage relationship, this relationship being used metaphorically to

describe the bond between Israel and their God. Though most strongly developed in
Hos. 1-3, Jer. 3 and Eze. 16 and 23, the language of conjugal jealousy sometimes
describes God's feelings for Israel in Pentateuchal texts.
The intensive nominal forms ~~i? and ~iJ~ are used only in reference to God's
jealousy: ~~i? ",~ (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9-as punishing those who hate him; Exod.
44
Olley (1998), 41.
59
34:14; Deut. 4:24; 6:15-as demanding exclusive service; and Exod. 34:14, as
naming himself with the attribute-i~~ K~j?) and KiJj? "~ (Jos. 24:19-as one not
forgiving transgression; Nah. 1:2-as taking vengeance on his enemies). 45 The
Pentateuch/Joshua occurrences above are very specifically in the context of Israel's
following after other gods, for which the consequences will be severe (God will
consume them-Deut. 4:25, 6:15; Josh. 24:19; God will punish the sin over
generations-Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9). Weinfeld notes that the expression 1nK l":1
-"follow after"-has conjugal connotations and, more forcefully, --./'i'TJT is used to
describe the worship of other gods (Exod. 34: 15-16).46 The law provides a fit end for
the justified jealousy of a husband, and Israel is warned that they may have to pay for
spiritual adultery with annihilation.
The display of divine KJp in these texts being punitive, the tendency is to contrast the
title KJp "K with l:l,n, "K, since the latter entails forgiveness of sin (Exod. 34:6-7),
while the former, very explicitly, rather entails zero tolerance of sin (Josh. 24: 19).
However, divine action accomplished with KJp has another side-it is directed
against the nations on Israel's behalf and effects good for Israel (e.g., Nah. 1:2; Isa.
42: 13). Further, as Fretheim explains, jealousy, by definition has both an inner and
outer reference, the inner being the prior one. God cares deeply about Israel, therefore
he cares about what they do with their allegiances. 47 His aggressive response to their
rejection of him is an index of his passionate love for them.
Examining the word in Exod. 34, one finds that the LORD's pronouncement of zeal is
part of the restatement of covenant law. "The point of these laws," Moberly points
out, "is not to renew the covenant on conditions different from those previously
obtaining (Ex. 20-24)-their continuing validity is taken for granted-but to select
and emphasize those particular aspects which are relevant to the sinful tendencies
which Israel has displayed." Thus the cultic emphasis in the laws of vv.11-26 is a
reaction to the cultic sin of the golden calf, and it may be this "god" that is referred to
in v.14 in unique singular, and in the "molten gods" G"'l::>O~ ~;,"K) of the second
45
BDB, K)p, 888.
46
Cf. Jer. 2:2, 25; Hos. 2:7, 15 (EVV 2:13). Weinfeld (1991), 295.
47
Fretheim (1999), 310.
60
commandment (preferring it over "idol"-"OD-of Exod. 20:4). The declaration of

divine jealousy in Exod. 20:5 is restated far more emphatically, making the point that
unfaithfulness as in the recent past is incompatible with the LORD's nature as zealous
God. Looking ahead to Canaan, space is given to warning against the many
temptations to accommodate to or adopt the religious practices of the peoples there. 48
Childs notes that the injunctions against worshipping, eating, sacrificing and playing
the harlot in Exod. 34:14-16 recall the activities of Israel in 32:6. 49 Thus, "As
Yahweh renews the covenant he does so by demanding obedience in the area where
Israel has already failed and where they will be under continual temptation in the
promised land to sin again." 50
The correspondence emerges: the LORD presents his zeal as the reason why Israel
must not give herself over to idolatry:
Exod. 34:14: K1:-t KJp "K 1~lli KJp :"T1:-t~ ~~ inK "K" mnnllin K"
Elijah submits that he has been zealous because of Israel's forsaking of the
covenant. 5 1 The only other incidence of the expression is found in Deut. 29:24 (EVV
v .25)-n~;:J-nK 1:Jtl). And here, Israel is said to have forsaken the covenant in that
she "turned and served other gods (v.25; EVV v.26)." Like the LORD's, Elijah's zeal
is triggered by Israel's preference for other gods, in this instance, Baal. 52
Looking for comparisons within biblical narrative, we note that Jewish tradition has
long associated Phinehas and Elijah, 53 the former celebrated for his zeal. 54 It may be
useful to study this case to see what similarities, if any, it has with Elijah's.
48
Moberly (1983), 95-98. Cf. Fretheim (1991), 308-9; Janzen (2000), 260-61.
49
Childs (1974), 613.
50
Moberly (1983), 96.
51
We note that the word order in the MT is irregular in "K,W' 'J~ ln',~ ,~TlJ ,::1. The LXX has
E:yKa:rE.h1TOV OE, an even more forceful rendering of Israel's sin.
52
Traces of this rare locution are to found in Elijah's rebuke of Ahab and his house in 1 Kgs 18: 18,
again in the context of idolatry: "You have forsaken the commandments of the LORD and followed the
Baals"-;,,;,, n,::m-nK C:I~TlJ~.
53
Extra-biblical sources equate Phinehas with Elijah, some going so far as to state explicitly that
Phinehas and Elijah are the same person, e.g., LAB 48: 1-2; Tar g. Ps.-f. to Exod. 6:18: "He (Qohat)
lived until he saw Phinehas, the same is Elijah the high priest, who is to be sent to the Dispersion of
Israel at the end of days." One dimension ofthis equation is zealfor God. See llayward (1978),22-34.
54
Tliiis, Mattathias ."burned with zear fof'ili~~ Iaw;' jusf as· l>hirie.has di& agalns( Zitllri. son of Salu (I
Mace. 2:26)." "Phinehas son of Eleazar ranks third in glory, for being zealous in the fear of the Lord,
and standing firm, when the people turned away, in the noble courage of his soul; and he made
atonement for lsra.el." Sir. 45:23; cf. 4 Macc.18: 12.
61
Num. 25 relates how at Shittim, Israel began to "play the harlot" (--J:-rJT) with Moabite
women. The verb, frequently used as a metaphor for Israel's engagement in idolatrous
worship, 55 portends a cultic corollary, and the next verse describes how the nation
bound itself to the worship of Baal-Peor. With this the LORD's anger was kindled
and a deadly plague swept through the camp. Even as Moses takes steps to deal with
the disaster, and Israel weeps at the tent of meeting, an Israelite man openly brings a
Midianite woman in, and the scene is set to narrate Phinehas' act of zeal. Phinehas
gets up, arms himself with a spear, follows the Israelite into the il~p, and pierces the
two through. Opinion is divided over the nature of Zimri's sin, and commentators
variously propose that it could have been illicit sex, 56 marriage to a non-Israelite, 57 a
58
cultic offence, or a combination; v.6 does not specifically point in the direction of
any particular one. However, the story provides clues.
First, the hapax legomenon ;'i:lj'. Three distinct suggestions are that il~p could have
meant a regular tent, 59 the tent of meeting, 60 or a portable shrine. 61 The second
suggestion is the least likely, since in v.6 it is at the door of the il11~ ',ilK that the
congregation (and Phinehas) is assembled, but it is into the il~p that Phinehas follows
the offenders in v.8. It is unlikely that two different terms would be used for the same
structure within the space of three verses. On the contrary, they possibly distinguish
between one tent and the other. The suggestion that it is neither more nor less than a
regular tent is weakened somewhat by the narrator's preference for an unusual term
over the usual ',ilK. This leaves the possibility that the tent was in some way
associated with cultus.
Secondly, Moses' order is to "kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to
Baal of Peor (v.5)." If one assumes that Phinehas acts on this command issued to the
55
See Bird (1989), 75-94.
56
Cook and Espin (1871), 750; Keil (1869), 205.
57
Binns (1927), 178; Noordtzij (1983), 241; Noth (1968), 198; Sturdy (1976), 184; Budd (1984), 280.
58
Wenham (1981), 187; Milgrom (1990), 212,214, 476-80; Cross (1973), 201-3; Reif(1971), 200-6.
59
Cook and Espin (1871), 750); Keil (1869), 206; Noordtzij (1983), 241); Noth (1968), 198.
60
Sturdy tl976);·184=5.
61
Budd (1984), 280; Reif (1971), 200-6; Cross (1973), 201-3. These follow Morgenstern, who
proposes a parallel between the il1,~ ";,~ and the pre-Islamic :-t::lp, a sacred tent. (1942-43),
153-265; (1943-44), 1-52.
62
Cl~~DID, it favours the presence of a cultic component in Zimri's act of defiance, in

addition to any others there might be.
Thirdly, Zimri is "Zimri son of Salu, head of an ancestral house belonging to the
Simeonites"-~J!1~!Li'? ::1~-n~::l ~~iLl:! (v.14). This recalls v.4, in which the LORD
commands punitive action against "all the chiefs of the people"--0!1;"'1 ~m~i. This
could be either because of their direct involvement with Baal, or because of their
failure to keep their people from apostasy, or both. What is significant is that the
punishment is to effect the turning away of divine wrath, and since the wrath of the
LORD is juxtaposed with Israel's association with Baal of Peor (v.3), the offence of
the Cl~iLl~i is strongly linked to Israel's apostasy.
Fourthly, Zimri's death immediately stays the plague explicitly tied with Israel's
worship of Baal of Peor (cf. Num. 31:16; Josh. 22:17). This again points to a
connection between Israel's collective sin and Zimri's.
The likelihood is that Zimri, a leader in Israel, has set up a ;"'!:lp among the tents of his
clan (since he brings the woman ,~n~-'?~). within sight of the il1,~ '?n~. While
Moses and the congregation wait on the LORD at the door of the il1,~ ',;,~, Zimri
brazenly continues his liaison with Baal of Peor as evidenced by his bringing Cozbi
into the camp; or worse, as Organ and Reif stress, Zimri, being a member of a
chieftain's family, takes responsibility in time of crisis, and seeks recourse to another
oracle so as to find an alternative solution to the plague. 62 Either way, Zimri flagrantly
challenges the singular worship of the LORD, and this is what stirs Phinehas to his
deed. "The immediate cessation of the plague proves the rightness of Phinehas'
actions and the reliability of Yhwh." 63
The story brings out the significance of Phinehas' voluntary act in several ways. First,
as several commentators note, the narrative bears parallels to the only other instance
of Israel's apostasy in the course of the exodus and the wilderness wanderings,
62
Reif (1971), 205; Organ (2001), 208-9.
63
Organ (2001), 209.
63
namely, the incident of the golden calf (Exod. 32). 64 At the level of story, both
narratives have the same contrast between events on the mountaintop and in the plain
below; while God works towards binding Israel to himself in covenant relationship,
Israel turns to worship another god. Smaller correspondences in the stories are: (a) In
both cases, the idolatry has a foreign connection-the Egyptian gold that was used to
create the image (Exod. 12:35; 32:2-4), and the women of Moab/Midian. (b) Both
offences are punished by a plague (Exod. 32:35). (c) At Sinai, Moses orders the
Levites to kill their fellow Israelites (Exod. 32:27); at Shittim, he orders the judges to
execute any engaged in Baal worship. (d) The Levites are rewarded for voluntarily
taking the LORD's side and avenging him, with being ordained as priests for the
service of the LORD (Exod. 32:29); Phinehas, who similarly avenges the LORD, is
granted a perpetual priesthood. These correspondences increase the significance of
Phinehas' display of zeal beyond the narrative of Num. 25. The two instances of
apostasy function as bookends, demarcating the story of the generation that had been
led from Egypt. The plague at Shittim consumes the last of them, and immediately
following, a census is taken of the new generation that will enter Canaan (Num.
26:1-2, 64-65). If Moses' zeal for Israel had kept them from being consumed by
God's wrath when they had barely been formed into a nation, then Phinehas' zeal for
Israel saves a generation that will form a new Israel.
A second way the story attaches value to Phinehas' deed is by the use of "~Jp. It is
enormously to Phinehas' credit that the LORD sees his own zeal active in Phinehas:
l:l-'1n::l ~n~Jp-n~ 1~Jp::l. McNeile describes the satisfaction wrought: "His
[Phinehas'] jealousy was so deep and real that it adequately expressed the jealousy of
Jehovah, rendering it unnecessary for Jehovah to express it further by consuming
Israel." 65 At this point, Phinehas' character becomes subsumed into the LORD's; he is
more than merely God's representative; his zeal, for that moment, is the very zeal of
God, and thus, even though the deed is not commissioned by the LORD, it meets with
full, and even extravagant, approval. Indeed, the fact that Phinehas acts voluntarily
only adds to his merit.
64
E.g., Olson (1996), 153-4; Wenham (1981), 185.
65
McNeile (1911), 144.
64
Here, in 1 Kgs 19, another story that evokes Exod. 32-34, Elijah presents his zeal.
Against the background of Carmel, where he has had 450 Baalists put to the sword
letting none escape, Elijah's zeal takes a shape that recalls Phinehas'. In the absence
of any instruction from the LORD, his act appears as spontaneous as Phinehas'. The
reason for the killing is the same, that is, to expunge the threat to Israel's true faith
and cultus. However, unlike Phinehas' case, there is no divine affirmation of Elijah's
self-avowed zeal. His slaughter of the 450 Baalist prophets is neither criticized nor
explicitly affirmed. However, there is a verbal suggestion of implicit validation. 1 Kgs
19: 1, which opens the Horeb episode, includes a detail missing in the earlier account
of Elijah's purge-a sword (:11M). The :l1n reappears with triple intensity at the
close of the story (v.17)-even if partly in metaphor-as one divinely unleashed. The
LORD's dealing with Israel's apostasy not only matches Elijah's but also carries it
further. By this, Elijah's zeal is implicitly validated at the highest level.
m~:l~ ~;,',~ ;,,;,~', ...
In affirming his zeal, Elijah uses the LORD's militaristic title m~:l~ ~;,',~ mn~',
(cf. his oath to Obadiah in 18:15-n,~::l~ :11:1~ ,n). Within the wider sense of
service, 66 the verb v'~:l~ specifically has connotations of service in war (e.g., Num.
31 :7). 67 The noun ~:l~ is translated host/army and can refer to any company,
including among others, organized militia (e.g., Judg. 4:2), the forces of heavenly
beings (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19), or the collection of celestial bodies (e.g., Deut. 4:19). 68
When in the form of a divine title, it occurs as either a two-part or as a three-part
formula, as seen above. The latter shows that c~n',~ stands in construct relationship
with m~:l~ but it is doubtful that :11:1~ is similarly in construct. If m- is taken as an
abstract plural ending, 69 then n1~:l~ may be taken as a noun in apposition to :i1ii\
thus making n1~:l~ :11:1~ a technical term which may be rendered "the LORD
Almighty/All-Powerful," a possibility supported by the LXX's frequent rendering of

the two-part formula as KupLO<; aapaw9/Kupto<; TiavtoKpchwp, and the three-part
66
Cf. cultic service rendered by the Levites (e.g., Num. 4:23; Num. 8:24).
67
A basic point of agreement among· most scholars ·is.that this divine title, in its earliest stages, is to be
associated with the Ark, the palladium of holy war. See Miller (1973), 152.
68
BOB, ~::l~. 838-9.
69
GKC (1898), § 124d.
65
formula as KupLoc; mxvtoKpchwp/KupLOc; 6 8Eoc; 6 TicxvtoKpchwp. 70 However, the few

occurrences of KUpLOc; twv &uvajlEWV (common to the Psalter) leave open the
possibility of reading ;,,;,, as in construct with mX:l~. 71
These connotations to this title of Israel's God are fleshed out in the belief that Israel's
military victories resided in the fact that the LORD fought for them (Ps. 44:9; Prov.
21:31) joining his heavenly forces (embracing heavenly armies and astral arrays) to
Israel's hosts (Josh. 5:13ff.; 2 Kgs 6:15ff.). 72 Something of this comes through in
David's speech before Goliath, the one other narrative where this formula occurs (1
Sam. 17:41-51).
The Philistine, in disdain for his rival, for his rival's presumed weapon and, implicitly
for his god, curses him "by his [Goliath's] gods." (v.43). Edelman reminds that the
last, a customary procedure, takes on significance because now Goliath specifically
pits himself against David's God. 73 David's response is couched in "impeccable terms
of standard Israelite belief'74 (vv.45-47)-he names the LORD as the affronted party
who now, as Goliath's real rival, will best him. Cartledge notes that the narrator
makes a point of having the compound name explained by paraphrase, 75
',x1iD, n,~,lJ~ ,;,',x n,X:l~ ;,;,, , and in this it has a specificity missing in the
reference to the un-named Philistine gods. 76 In David's use of it, Brueggemann reads
an allusion to the entire memory of the LORD's deliverance of Israel in the past. 77
70
"When nouns which the usage of language always treats as proper nouns occasionally appear to be
connected with a following genitive, this is really owing to an ellipse whereby the noun which really
governs the genitive, i.e. the appellative idea contained in the proper name, is suppressed. So evidently
in the case of n1N~~ i1V"1~." GKC, § 125h. So also, Joiion-Muraoka, § 131 o; BDB, N::l~. 839; Eichrodt
(1961), 194.
71
The title is clearly associated with kingship. E.g., Isa. 6:5-n1N::l~ i1,i1, 1',~;, ; Ps. 84:4 (EVV
84:3). In Amos 4:13 the title is accorded in the context of the LORD creating the mountains and the
wind. McClellan argues that n,N::l~ is a generic term (including arrays of stars, priestly service) of
which the military connotation is one species. (1940), 300-307. Ross holds that the title denotes a God
whose principal attribute was royal majesty and any military connotations it may have had were
overwhelmed by this other, even from its earliest usages. (1967), 76-92. While this position is
debatable, the argument underscores the wide acceptance of the universal scope of this title.
72
Imschoot (1954), 20-22; Eichrodt (1961), 192-94; Wambacq (1947), 279; Miller (1973), 155-56.
73
Edelman (1991 ), 132.
74
Alter (1999};108.
75
Cartledge (2001), 220.
76
77
66
The Philistine "embodies a belief in armaments, an ideology of reliance on military

force, and the desire for invulnerability." 78 Thus the irony when David fells the
Philistine, and even as Goliath lies on the ground trapped by the weight of his
5000-shekel armour, uses the Philistine's own sword against him. Ironically, the very
bronze and iron that suggested his invincibility account for his destruction. 79 Victory
comes, not only because of David's daring, but because he is faithful to his
understanding of the LORD in relation to Israel and to the world. Because of this
understanding, he could prophetically project the defeat onto the Philistine army and
the victory onto Israel (1J1~J O:ln~ lnJ1), and looking beyond the boundaries of the
two warring countries, declare that the knowledge of Israel's God is for "all the
earth." Thus the title '?~iil1~ n1:lil1~ ~ill;!~ m~:J~ il1il~ invokes the irresistibility of
this all-powerful deity.
In I Kgs 19, when Elijah uses this militaristic title, the informed reader hears a
resonance of aggression, especially in the context of the ongoing hostilities between
the deities over Israel's allegiance. It functions as an apposite overture to the
statement of Elijah's concern, that Israel has forsaken the covenant. Further, because
of its associations, it creates anticipation that this situation will be overcome.
The clauses in v.IOaa are linked with ~:l.
Frank sees parallelism here

n1~J~ ~i!'?~ mil~'? ~n~Jp ~Jp
r,~,il1~ ~JJ 1n~i:J 1:Jtl1 ~:l
and the inference he draws is representative of a common reading of this text: "The
prophet's fidelity and zeal for the LORD is set against the infidelity of the
78
Fokkelman (1986), 148.
79
Ariella Deem (1978), 349-51, argues that 1 Sam. 17: 49 should be rendered " ... and he struck out at
the Philistine, at his greave, and the stone sank into his greave [n~o. cf. v.6, iln~O], and he fell on his
face to the ground." Thus the stone would sink into the knee, the space that must be left open to enable
the warrior to' walk: As he-'awkwardly makes his way towards David, the stone penetfate!nlitB this
vulnerable place, locking his leg and causing him to fall forward (rather than backward, as would have
been the case if he had been hit in the forehead) .. Fokkelman agrees that this is a "more effective and
telling point of denouement." (1986), 186.
67
Israelites." 80 The answer to the question of whether Elijah is using Israel as a foil to
present himself as commendable depends on how one understands"~.
Pedersen calls"~ the most comprehensive of all Hebrew particles. 81 It is understood to

have, originally, a non-connective demonstrative character. 82 It came to be used in
Biblical Hebrew not only as a conjunction but also as a clausal adverb; there are two
main clause-adverbial uses of "~-the emphatic and the logical/causal. 83 As for the
emphatic usage the debate ranges from insisting that all usages of "~ (including the
causal) are emphatic in some way, 84 to rejecting the emphatic function of "~
altogether. 85
Aejmelaeus rightly warns, "in the case of a multipurpose particle that appears in
different contexts, one must be aware of the fact that it is only from the context in
which the particle occurs and from the contents of the clauses involved that the
function of the particle and its rendering ... may be inferred." 86 In the text under study,
the LXX' s rendering of this particle is causal, using the subordinating conjunction on.
Further, the best-known use of"~ is that of a subordinating conjunction introducing a
causal clause. 87 Additionally, the self-asseveration ~)p ',~ which has been shown to
bear on 1 Kgs 19: 10, in all its five occurrences as cited above, is made in a text that
involves "~ and it is agreed across the spectrum that in these texts it has a
fundamentally causal function. 88 These considerations direct the investigation towards
causal "~ clauses following the main clause, and here the term "causal" is used to
include such nuances as cause, reason, motivation and explanation.
8
°Frank (1963), 413.
81
Pedersen (1926), 118.
82
BDB, ,::l, 471; Jotion-Muraoka, §164d.
83
Waltke and O'Connor (1990), 39.3.4e. Lesser clause-adverbial functions include temporal,
conditional and concessive.
84
E.g., Muilenberg (1961) 136, 160. So also, e.g., Pedersen (1926), 118; Gordis (1943), 176-78; Meek
(1959/60), 45-54. More cautiously, Schoors (1981), 240-76; BDB, ,::l, 472; Jotion-Muraoka, §164b;
GKC, §!48d.
85
Aejmelaeiis ( 1986), 193-209; Claassen ( 1983), 29~46.
86
Aejmelaeus (1986), 195.
87
Schoors (1981), 264; Jotion-Muraoka, §170d.
88
E.g., Muilenberg (1961), 150-52; Aejmelaeus (1986), 202.
68
Israelites." 80 The answer to the question of whether Elijah is using Israel as a foil to
present himself as commendable depends on how one understands~;:,.
Pedersen calls~;:, the most comprehensive of all Hebrew particles. 81 It is understood to
have, originally, a non-connective demonstrative character. 82 It came to be used in

Biblical Hebrew not only as a conjunction but also as a clausal adverb; there are two
main clause-adverbial uses of ~::l-the emphatic and the logical/causal. 83 As for the
emphatic usage the debate ranges from insisting that all usages of "::l (including the
causal) are emphatic in some way, 84 to rejecting the emphatic function of ~;:,
altogether. 85
Aejmelaeus rightly warns, "in the case of a multipurpose particle that appears in
different contexts, one must be aware of the fact that it is only from the context in
which the particle occurs and from the contents of the clauses involved that the
function of the particle and its rendering ... may be inferred." 86 In the text under study,
the LXX' s rendering of this particle is causal, using the subordinating conjunction on.
Further, the best-known use of~;:, is that of a subordinating conjunction introducing a
Additionally, the self-asseveration ~Jp "~ which has been shown to

87
causal clause.
bear on 1 Kgs 19: 10, in all its five occurrences as cited above, is made in a text that
involves ~;:, and it is agreed across the spectrum that in these texts it has a
fundamentally causal function. 88 These considerations direct the investigation towards

causal ~;:, clauses following the main clause, and here the term "causal" is used to
include such nuances as cause, reason, motivation and explanation.
8
°Frank (1963), 413.
81
Pedersen (1926), 118.
82
BOB, ':I, 471; Joi.ion-Muraoka, §164d.
83
Waltke and O'Connor (1990), 39.3.4e. Lesser clause-adverbial functions include temporal,
conditional and concessive.
84
E.g., Muilenberg (1961) 136, 160. So also, e.g., Pedersen (1926), 118; Gordis (1943), 176-78; Meek
(1959/60), 45-54. More cautiously, Schoors (1981), 240-76; BOB, ':I, 472; Joi.ion-Muraoka, §164b;
GKC, §148d.
85
'"1\:ejmelaeus (T986);l93~2o9; ctaasseh ( 1983); ·29:46.
86
87
Schoors (1981), 264; Joi.ion-Muraoka, §170d.
88
E.g., Mui1enberg (1961), 150-52; Aejmelaeus (1986), 202.
68
These causal functions may be divided between two types of conjunction-"because"

and "for." There is the proposal that the position of the causal clause before or after
the main clause decides its rendering-"because" if before, and "for" if after, 89 which
are further understood as involving subordination and coordination respectively. 90
Schoors objects, observing that most occurrences of ,;:, following the main clause can
be rendered "because" as well. 91 Aejmelaeus abandons the position-oriented criterion
for rendering ,;:, in favour of paying attention to the "logical relationship of the
clauses involved, to their dependence on one another; ... the tightness and directness
or looseness and indirectness of causality correlates positively with the dependence of
the clauses on one another." 92 Thus, the greater the dependence, the stronger the case
for rendering,;:, as "because."
,:> introduces the clause in each of the five ~Jp "~ texts. These appear to fall
somewhere mid-spectrum between strictly causal 93 and loosely causal, 94 and are in the
category of motivational causal clauses, a characteristic feature of the law collections
-casuistic law is expanded by motivations 95 and apodictic law 96 frequently receives
the motive clause. 97 The LXX oscillates between the subordinating conjunction on
(Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6: 15) and the coordinating conjunction yap (Exod. 20:5; 34: 14) in
the five ~Jp "~ texts (all apodictic law), 98 showing the difficulty of gauging the
dependence of the causal clause on the main, and therefore, the difficulty of locating
the ,;:, on the strict-loose continuum of causality. However, the narratives of the
89
E.g., BDB, ,::l, 473.
90
91
Schoors (1981), 264-65.
92
Aejmelaeus ( 1986), 202.
93
Where the main clause demands the causal clause; e.g., Num. 27:4: "Why should the name of our
father be taken away from his clan ,::l he had no son?" Aejmelaeus (1986), 203.
94
Where the causal clause does not state the cause for what is said in the main clause but rather the
reason for saying it, or does not refer to the full statement of the main clause but perhaps only to one
word of it. E.g., Exod. 12:39: "They baked unleavened cakes of the dough that they had brought out of
Egypt ,::l it was not leavened ,::l they were driven out of Egypt. .. " Aejmelaeus (1986), 203.
95
E.g., Exod. 22:25f (EVV 22:26f): If you take your neighbour's cloak in pawn, you shall restore it
before the sun goes down ,::lit may be your neighbour's only clothing ... "
96
E.g., in the KJp t,K texts.
97
Muilenburg (1961), 150-52; Aejmelaeus (1986), 204.
98
,While'both conjunctions- may"be--used,in a causal· sense; ycip is more explanatory and inferential, and
so, often has diminished causal force. But then, on, though strongly causal, may also involve so loose a
subordination that the translation "for" recommends itself. This makes it hard to draw the line between
strongly and loosely causal usage of on. Arndt and Gingrich (1957), pp. 151, 593-4.
69
Pentateuch-notably the instance of the golden calf and the Baal-Peor episode-
clarify the strength of the connection between the clauses in these texts by making
abundantly clear that Israel's service of other gods surely ignites the jealousy of God.
Comparing the KJp SK instances of~;::, with 1 Kgs 19:10, one finds that in Elijah's
statement the logical link between the main and causal clauses is as strong as in the
KJP SK cases, if not grammatically stronger. The LXX's construal here of~;::, as on
I
rather than ya.p would move the sense towards cause/reason (strictly
causal/subordinating) rather than explanation (loosely causal/coordinating). Indeed,
Elijah's emphatic expression of zeal calls for a correspondingly vigorous reason for
the ignition of that zeal.
The issue of emphasis reintroduces the emphatic interpretation of ~;::,, referred to

above. Muilenburg insists, "it is characteristically associated with emphatic words or
clauses, that it frequently appears in a strategic position in the poem or narrative ... and
that it often confirms or underlines what has been said, or, at times, undergirds the
whole of the utterance and gives point to it."99 However, Aejmelaeus rejects this,
reasoning that the main role of ~;::, is as a causal connective, and that ~;::, could not
normally be used as an emphatic particle in connections where its use as a connective

was possible, simply because it would have been impossible to distinguish betwe~n
the two kinds of cases. 100
Steering between the two, one may cautiously subscribe to the possibility that ~;::, may
occasionally have emphatic usage, 101 and that "the two clausal uses [namely, emphatic
and causal] should not be too strictly separated." 102 If the causal ~;::, in Elijah's speech
does indeed have an undertone of emphasis, then, it ties up the sin of Israel very
closely with Elijah's zeal, augmenting the effect already obtained by reading the~;::, as
strictly causal. A step further is to read inter-textually, and relate the prophet's zeal to
the nation's sin with the same degree of interconnectedness as in the case of God's
9
~Muilenburg (.1961), l50,
100
101
BDB, ,~, 472; Jotion-Muraoka, §164b; Waltke and O'Connor (1990), 39.3.ld.
102
Waltke and O'Connor (1990), 39.3.4e.
70
zeal in the instance of Israel's idolatry, the zeal being strongly dependent on the
idolatry. Thus, the possibility that Elijah is boasting of his own faithfulness, using
Israel as foil, (i.e., with~~ used concessively) is weakened. Elijah's zeal is a proven
fact, and is, basically, a true prophet's correct and expected response in the face of
Israel's service of other gods.
19:10ap, 1
The punctuation of the sentence suggests that Elijah presents the razing of the
LORD's altars and the slaying of his prophets by the sword as two concrete examples
of Israel's fundamental error of breaching the covenant. 103 In 1 Kgs 18, the reader has
encountered examples of both-Jezebel's slaughter of the LORD's prophets (it is
reasonable to presume the people's co-operation) and the ruined altar at Carmel. Israel
had been directed, in the most forceful terms, to break down pagan sancta
-Ci1~n:J~m 001nn 01i1 (Exod. 23:24), so that the service of foreign gods would be
wiped out. Ironically, Israel was directing this injunction---J01i1-against the
LORD's altars, presumably with similar intent; the verb implies destruction by tearing
down, 104 and thus, is a deliberate and violent act. To ensure further the elimination of
their faith, Israel had taken the sword to the LORD's prophets, contrary to the
injunction that it is a prophet "who speaks in the name of other gods" who deserved to
be removed from the sphere of Israel's religion (Deut. 18:20). --JJ1i1 implies ruthless
violence and is used primarily for the brutal slaying of humans by other humans; thus
its usage in describing massacres. 105 With both altars and prophets removed, and
Baalist substitutes in place, the forsaking of the covenant would be complete.
19:10b
Elijah finishes with i1nnp'? ~IDE:l)-n~ 1iDp:J~1 ~1:J'? ~)~ 1m~t
Redaction 106 and literary critics attempt, in different ways, a solution to the oddity that
Jezebel, the immediate threat to Elijah's life, goes unmentioned. The latter
103
Walsh (1996), 272-3; Simon (1997), 206.
104
,BDB, 01i1, 248.
105
E.g., the massacre of Jews planned by Haman (Est. 3:13; 7:4); massacres following battles (e.g.,
Num. 31 :7; Josh. 8:24; Judg. 7:25). BDB, J1i1, 247.
106
See DeVries (1985), 234-35.
71
psychologize, attributing to the depressed Elijah a selective memory. 107 While this is
not improbable, we note that at Carmel Elijah circumvented Ahab to appeal to the
people. In this context, the possibility is that Jezebel is eclipsed by a superior concern,
namely, Israel and the covenant.
In military contexts, 1n, frequently indicates the survivors of people who have been
defeated (Josh. 12:4; 23:12), or to those who have survived a conspiracy (Judg.
9:5). 108 If Elijah wants to continue the allusion to war, this word fits well, in the sense
of survival against great odds. He alone is remnant. 109 We noted that at Carmel Elijah
used the phrase ,,::l', in the context of identifying the sides in the contest that ends in
the slaughter of the deafeated. The context at Horeb is not dissimilar with its
terminology of war, the mention of killings, casualties and survivors. Obadiah's
hundred, having withdrawn from the arena of battle, may not be counted, leaving
Elijah the only (cf. the force of the LXX's superlative f!Ovw·mwc:;) prophet remaining
in the field.' 10
A "plain" reading of Elijah's statement then, would be that he is stating the fact that
he is the last item on Israel's murderous list. Scholarly comment reads further, and
takes up either one of two positions. (a) This statement is Elijah's indulgence in self-
pity and self-doubt, continuing from the episode of the death wish. 111 (b) This is a
request for guarantee of safety, born of his sense of self-importance. 112
107
Pro van (1995), I45; cf. Nelson ( I987), I26.
108
BDB, ,n\ 451.
109
A concern here is the reliability of Elijah's claim, numerically speaking, that he alone remains. It is
pointed out that later the LORD rebukes him with the information that 7,000 remain faithful (v.I8).
E.g., Gregory and Hauser (1990), 75; DeVries (I985), 237. Others read v.I8 as a promise or a word of
encouragement given to a prophet despondent in his alone-ness. E.g., Fretheim (1999), IIO; Provan
(1995), I47; House (1995), 224. (Either reading could be accommodated into Paul's use of this episode
in Rom. II :2-5. Is it possible that Paul puts his own slant on the text in order to make his point on "a
remnant, chosen by grace"?) We will treat the issue later.
11
°Coote reads significant narratorial intent into the omission in Elijah's self-description: " .. .in contrast
to his statement in I8:22, he omits the word 'prophet,' precisely because it is questionable whether at
this point Elijah is a prophet." He observes that Elijah at Horeb, like Obadiah's hundred, is now
concealed in a cave, too. (I98I), 117. This is debatable. The contest context of Carmel necessitates his
self.identification·as a i't~;:t~~, K,~hat"Horeb;,indialogue with God the phrase is unnecessary and even
redundant.
111
E.g., House (1995), 224; Hauser and Gregory (1990), 68-73.
112
E.g., Fretheim (1999), I09; Provan (1995), 145; Robinson (199I), 528-30, 534-35.
72
Robinson is representative of position (b): the idea of going to Horeb, he says, is of

Elijah's own devising. He sees himself as a Moses-like figure, and so, deliberately
spins the journey out to make it last 40 days, eating nothing en route. His purpose in
coming to Horeb is to call the LORD "to account" over the ills that have beset him.
"Devoured by egotism" he makes "the mistake of. .. thinking of himself as
indispensable"; "He is the last prophet left, and (he implies) self-interest should
therefore ensure that God take special steps to preserve him." 113
Several points in this thesis need clarification. First, Elijah's state of mind, as may be
reconstructed form the text: there is general agreement among commentators that
Elijah under the broom tree is demoralized and feels deeply inadequate. He has lost
his sense of perspective, and considers himself worthy of nothing less than death.
"Forty days" later, at Horeb, it is odd that he should swing to the other end of the
spectrum of a lost sense of perspective, considering himself crucial to God's plans for
Israel. Robinson offers no reason for such a metamorphosis.
Secondly, Robinson proposes that Elijah continues to be preoccupied with himself,

just as he was under the broom tree. This is common to position (a) as well, and so
both (a) and (b) may be engaged with simultaneously here. Let us agree,
provisionally, that Elijah's concern at Horeb is indeed solely Elijah. Elijah, it is
generally agreed, has deliberately chosen Horeb for his audience with the LORD,
making an arduous journey to get there. If Elijah indeed desired to plead his case, he
need not necessarily choose Horeb for this; Horeb has no previous associations with a
prophet seeking to plead his own case. Horeb does, however, immediately call up
recollections of Moses and of Israel immediately post-Exodus, very specifically with
respect to the giving of the law, the sealing of the covenant and the first act of national
apostasy. And when the narrator adds in details that specifically evoke these
narratives, leading up to a theophany evoking the Sinai tradition, it begins to appear
that the narrator and Elijah have more than Elijah in mind. Sandwiched between the
Mosaic details and the Sinaitic theophany, is Elijah's first response, the central section
of which is given to a statement and an elaboration thereof of Israel's abandoning of
V:te C9Yy!l~l11- }3oq~~ngjng t~iLS.~f~-~-~~ an_ ¥~ertion of ~eal, and a ft!R()fl of
113
Robinson (1991), 518-35.
73
alone-ness. If, as argued earlier, the former is best interpreted as linked to Israel's
apostasy, then it would make Israel's turning away the burden of all but the
concluding statement of Elijah's speech. This weakens the proposition that Elijah's
key concern at Horeb is himself. Certainly, there remains the possibility that Elijah is
concerned for his personal safety, but it is likely that this is not the principal
motivation behind his speech.
Further, the case that Elijah has only himself as his concern would have gained
support had Elijah explicitly pleaded his own security or demanded it from God,
considering he is given that opportunity at Horeb, prompted by a question. Even if in
declaring his alone-ness, he is implicitly requesting protection, the fact that he does
not plainly bring up the matter, as he does with his concern at the broom tree, points
to the possibility that apprehension over personal protection is eclipsed by a deeper
concern; the bias of his speech-covenant, altars, prophets-is a reasonable indication
(even if provisional at this point in the narrative) that this concern is in the direction of
Israel's faith.
1.3 Revisiting the Resonance between the Death Wish Narratives

Standing back from the three death wish narratives, we try to put our finger on the
common factor precipitating the death wishes. It is perhaps that the prophet
encounters an unprecedented crisis. In Exod. 32, Moses seeks to make atonement and
obtain the LORD's forgiveness for an extraordinary sin of national proportions
employing, without precedent, a route outside of the divine prescriptions, namely,
intercession. In Num. 11, Moses finds himself, for the first time, sandwiched between
a rebellious people and an angry God. In 1 Kings 19, for the first time in the narrative,
Elijah behaves contrary to his norm of intrepid obedience. Both prophets respond by
requesting a cessation of life and ministry-Moses with rhetorical questions and
expostulations, Elijah with symbolism, gesture 114 and weary request.
Here, we note that a striking verbal parallel between Elijah's speech at Horeb and
Moses' at Kibroth-hattaavah is the expression of alone-ness ,,:l'? ,:m~ (Num.
114
Thus Coote sees more than weariness in Elijah's desire to sleep: "The man who twice before has
claimed 'I have stood (in service) before Yahweh' and who will again stand before Yahweh now wants
only to lie down." ( 1981 ), 116.
74
11: 14). The loneliness of the leader runs through all three narratives. In Exod. 32,
Moses is of the people and yet not of them, for he is their leader, but not part of their
trespass. On Horeb, he wrestles alone with a God whose responses he is unsure of.
The possibility that faces him if divine forgiveness is not granted is the ultimate
loneliness of shouldering responsibility for a rebellious people no longer in
relationship with God. In Num. 11, Moses separates himself from God on the one
hand with his emphatic "thou" and "I" (especially as he brings his complaint to a
finish; vv .14-15), and on the other seeks to disengage with Israel, too burdensome to
bear. In 1 Kings 19, Elijah brings about his isolation by physically removing himself
from people and land. Eventually, he separates himself from his servant, and has
naught for company but the "solitary broom tree." At Horeb he expresses this alone-
ness with the powerful and evocative phrase 'i:l&, ';:j)~. 115
Besides creating the conceptual resonance of the loneliness of the leader, the phrase
'i:l&, ';:j)~ draws attention to the two texts it links. Looking over them, we notice a
pattern in the contours of the two "complaints."
A. Prophet presents account of service Num. 11:10-12 I Kings I9:IOaai

B. Prophet presents Israel's sin Num. 11: 13/Exod. 32:3I 1 Kings I9:10aa2-P
C. Prophet summarizes situation Num. 11:I4 I Kings I9: lOb
D. Prophet requests redress Num. 11:I5/Exod. 32:32 (1 Kings I9:4)
This allows the possibility that the character Elijah shapes his speech on the Mosaic
template. 116 Tentatively: Elijah's crisis is compounded when his complaint under the
broom tree receives no direct answer. In need of guidance, he determines to journey to
Horeb, for that is surely the place the God of Moses, the prophetic model, may be
found. Reassessing the issue at stake, he formulates its presentation to the LORD
along the lines of Moses' complaint in a similarly frustrating situation-that of
Israel's stiff-neckedness. First, he submits his credentials as faithful prophet. From
115
As noted before, the LXX powerfully renders it with a superlative---i.LOV(,hoctot;, a hapax legomenon.
116
There is a similar textual correspondence between Elijah and Jonah in comparable situations of
distress. Brichto notes the correspondence. (1992), 141. Indeed, Jonah seems clearly to be modelling
-. himselfon.Eiijah ...
Jon. 4:8: ,,n~ ,n,~ :m~ '::l '.l~~ 'WEl.l nK K.l np ;-n;,, ;,nln
1 Kings 19:4: 'n.::lK~ '::l.lK .::l,~ K' '::l 'WEl.l np ;,,;,, ;,nlJ
75
this ground, he presents Israel's sin; Israel seeks to annul the covenant by taking on
other gods, and to effect this, they shut off the two channels of communication with
God, namely, altars and prophets. In closing, Elijah presents the predicament of his
alone-ness vis-a-vis rebellious Israel. He refrains from recommending the solution
Moses proposed, for he has already tried it on impulse, and found the LORD as
unreceptive to it as he was when Moses mooted it. He leaves to the LORD the task of
finding answers.
2. 1 Kgs 19:11-13a: The Earthquake, Wind, Fire and ~,p

First, we will examine 1 Kgs 19: 11-13a with the focus on issues of grammar and the
usage of words and phrases, so as to arrive at the best possible rendering of the text.
After this, we shall consider the import of the text for the narrative of 1 Kgs 19,
seeking assistance in this from the two passages that it evokes, namely, Exod. 19-20
and 33-34.
2.1 The Text of 1 Kgs 19:11-13a

11 And he said, Go forth and stand upon the mountain before the LORD
And behold, the LORD [is/was] passing by and a great and strong wind [is/was] rending
mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD
Not in the wind, [is/was] the LORD
And after the wind, an earthquake
Not in the earthquake, [is/was] the LORD
12 And after the earthquake, a fire
Not in the fire, [is/was] the LORD
And after the fire
:-tp, :17~~, ~,p
13 And it was that when Elijah heard [it], he hid his face in his mantle
And went forth and stood at the entrance of the cave. 117
LXX
11 Ko:t EtnEv E:~EAE\'lau o:upwv Ko:t ar~au E:vwTILov KupCou E:v rQ opEL
Loou no:pEAEUOE'tO:L KUpLO~ KO:L lTVEU~O: ~Eyo: Kpo:taLOV OLO:AUOV op~ KO:L auvrplpov
I , I I
lTE'tpa~ EVWTILOV KUp LOU
,QUK
'
EV
'
't4l- lTVEUJ..LaU
I I
KUp.LO~
117
Drawn from NRSV and Fox (2002}, 163.
76
\ \ \ ,... I
KaL ~Eta tO ITVEU~a OUOOELO~O~
' EV
OUK ,
' t4J.... OUOOEL0~4J... KUpLO~
12 KaL ~Eta tOV OUOOELO~OV rrup
OUK EV t4J rrupL KUpLO~
' ' .... \ I
KaL' ~Eta to' rrup

\....
cj>wv~ aupa~ AErrtf]~

KUKE1 KUp LO~
13 KaL EYEVEtO w~ ~KOUOEV HALOU KaL ErrEKiiAU\jiEV tO rrpoawrrov autou EV tij ~'llAWtij
' ~
EaUtOU
Beside the minor variation (E~EA.EUalJ aupwv-"you shall go forth tomorrow/soon" instead of
the imperative Nl), the participle 1::ll1 is rendered by 1TapEAEUOHa.L, setting the theophanic
event in the future. Further, there is the significant addition KaKE1 KUpLo<;, here, exegetical in
function. We shall return to comment on it.
2.1.1 Verbal and Story Level Correspondences with Exodus Narratives

It is widely recognized that this text is strongly evocative of two Exodus narratives,
namely, Exod. 19-20 and 33-34. We will briefly list the resonances at the verbal and
story detail levels, and make reference to them later.
The awesome phenomena at Horeb in Exod. 19-20 so became a part of the retelling of
the earliest history of Israel that their God became traditionally associated with them;
thus the theophanic triad of storm cloud, fire and earthquake in, for example, Ps.
97:2-5. The wind, earthquake and fire 1 Kgs 19 immediately recall the events of the
making of the covenant. With respect to Exod. 33-34, at the verbal level, the LORD's
commands to the prophets bear correspondence re location: 1 Kgs 19: 11 corresponds
to Exod. 34:2 G"'T,n~ ,JE:l" 1:"1:::! n10l1, N~; 1:"1:"1 WN1 "l1 CW ," n::l~J,). The
theophanic moment is described with the same verb: ;,;,, 1::ll1,, ( 34:6); 1::ll1 ;,;,,
(1 Kgs 19:11).
Correspondences of story detail, as noted previously, are the forty days of fast, the
time of the day at which the theophany occurs and the cave/rock-cleft. Considering
the last mentioned feature: though Elijah is commanded to go out and stand on the
mountain before the LORD, the most he does is to go out and standat the entranceof
·.·-,.~:.~ .--r·:._·:c·.; -:--_. 0 ~ -_,~-o.-: ,;.-,_.-_ .. ~.-:· . -·--~·- ... · . ~ ~ _ .. -~. -~--;--- •. ~,.~ __ .".• __ = ·.- ·;·,_,
the cave. In Exodus, Moses is commanded to present himself before the LORD "on
top of the mountain" (34:2) but according to the LORD's spoken account, at the
77
climax of the theophany he stands in the cleft of a rock (33:21-22a). 118 It is plausible
that having Elijah stand at the cave-mouth is the narrator's device to increase the
parallel with Moses' physical position in the theophany ofExod. 33-34. 119
2.1.2 Resolving the Grammar of the Text

The demarcation between direct discourse and narration in this text presents a
dilemma, and this matter of grammatical ambiguity must be addressed first. 120 It is
clear that the passage opens with the LORD's command to Elijah; but it remains to be
decided at what point, if at all, the direct speech becomes narration.
Robinson points out that typically, translations take the verb ·-.h:JlJ as equivalent to a
continuous past tense, construing the text from llaP on as narrative. 121 Robinson's
problem with such a rendering is that we would have a theophany culminating in a
",p, and then almost immediately and awkwardly, a second ",P in v.13. To solve
this, he falls back on the LXX's translation of 1:JlJ with a future tense, na.pEA.EuaHa.L,
"as is grammatically equally possible"; but it is not clear, he concedes, whether the
remainder is to be taken as narrative or prediction. "I suggest," he says, "that we go
the whole hog and take all of llb-12 as prediction, continuing YHWH's speech."
(Thus, "The LORD will pass by and a great and strong wind will rend the
mountains ... ") ,7'T,"N lJ~tli;;, would then refer, not to the ",P of v.12, but to the
LORD's words, predicting the theophany to come. So, in response, Elijah goes to the
entrance of the cave. The theophany is telescoped in v.13b; "it takes for granted the
preliminaries, in which YHWH is not to be found ... and proceeds at once to the
positive element, the divine voice and what it says. Thus there is only one qol: v.12
foretells it; v.13 narrates it." 122
118
Cf. Simon (1997), 204.
119
Cf. Rice (1990), 160.
120
Wurthwein discusses the issue of the integrity of the text, and surveys suggestions for its reordering.
(1970), 152-166.
121
Thus: "And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke
in- pieces the rocks"-before the''bORD; 'bunhe-LORD was' not in' the wind; and' after 'the- wind~an
earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD
was not in the fire; and after the fire a i!p, il~~, t,,p,"
122
Robinson (1991), 521.
78
Robinson's solution, however, would have the LORD repeatedly referring to himself
in the third person (six times in 11-12). Though this feature is not at all uncommon,
the occurrence of six repeats in two verses does seem rather excessive and more
awkward than having two occurrences of ",P in two successive verses, and this
weakens Robinson's solution. Further, re Robinson's complaint against the double
usage of ",p, it is not necessary to understand both the occurrences as referring to
exactly the same phenomenon; we shall return to this in the next section, when we
study the phrase i1pi i1~~i ",P.
Meanwhile, there are alternative possibilities for demarcating direct speech from
narrative in vv.11-13a, and Walsh sets out two other choices. 123
(a) Following the brief imperative mi1" "JE:I" 1i1:1 ni~l7, N~ the rest of vv.ll-12
are read as a narrated account of the theophany. 124 Elijah recognizes the presence of
the LORD at the i1pi i1~~i ",P and moves to the mouth of the cave.
(b) V.11aa and the first phrase following is read as the LORD's spoken command-
1::117 mi1" m;, mi1" "JE:I" 1i1:1 ni~l7, N~-and the rest as narrative. 125
Walsh rightly assesses alternative (b) as less plausible since the participle form of the
verb characterizes the theophany, and it seems arbitrary to divide up these vivid
present constructions between the LORD and the narrator. Further, the MT
punctuation does not favour such a division. This leaves us with option (a). However,
Walsh widens the range of possibilities further with an attractive "compromise"
between the option (a) and a rendering such as Robinson's.
The description may fulfil a double function: it contains Yahweh's words anticipating
the theophany; but it also serves as an implicit description of the events as they
unfold, in order to avoid a repetition of details that would no doubt weaken the power
of the images. (For a comparable use of this technique, see Exodus 9:13-21, where
Yahweh's speech to Moses imperceptibly becomes Moses' repetition of the speech
before Pharaoh and his court.) 126
1
J3.watsh{l996),,274-5, ,, ·.
124
So, Tg. Jon., KJV, NAS, RSV.
125
So, LXX, NIV, NRSV.
126
Walsh (1996), 274-5.
79
Simon gives an example of a similar "ellipse of scriptural narrative" within the Elijah
corpus itself: in 1 Kings 21: 17-20, the LORD tells Elijah what to say to Ahab; without
a pause we read Ahab's response. 127 Further, as Walsh points out, the "compromise"
evokes the narrative technique in Exod. 33, a text that resonates with 1 Kgs 19 in
other ways as well as further discussion will show, where the LORD's announcement
(rather than a narrative of the actual occurrence) of a forthcoming theophany is
recorded. 128 We shall settle, then, for Robinson's proposal as modified using Walsh's
creative input, as one that best resolves the difficulty posed by the text: vv.ll-13a are
at once both the LORD's prediction of what is to follow and a description of the
theophany in actual occurrence.
Next, we take up the more complicated issue of what the text articulates; we make the
evocative phrase npi n~~i ',,p our starting point.
Here, Fox makes a helpful conversation partner, in that he surveys translations of the
phrase over the past thirty years or so, and sets out the possibilities for the translation
of each of the three words. He divides renderings to date into four schools.
(a) It is understood as the expression of a natural phenomenon-"a sound of a gentle
blowing" (NASV, 1995 Update) and "the sound of a gentle breeze" (JB).
(b) It is the divine voice itself, even if rather muffled-"a gentle whisper" (NN) and
"the breath of a light whisper" (Moffat). Robinson, whom we shall interact with in the
next section concerning the import of the npi n~~i "1p, refers to it as "a gentle
whispering qol" which is "the voice of YHWH." 129
(c) A third school steers a course between the two, leaving the origin of the ",P
-whether animate or inanimate-unclear: "a low murmuring sound" (NEB) and "a
tiny whispering sound" (NAB).
127
Simon (1997), 214.
128
Walsh (1996), 274-5.
129
Robinson (1991), 534.
80
(d) Lastly, there is what Fox calls "the paradoxical approach, which understands the
phrase as a mysterium, albeit not traemendum [sic]"-"a sound of sheer silence"
(NRSV). 130
Following Fox's observations on each of the three words helps to set out the choices
one has for translation and interpretation.
2.1.3.1 ",P
",P, Fox agrees, "can certainly mean either "sound" or "voice," yet it is the latter
which is almost always indicated in biblical theophany scenes." Further, he argues,
"in the Carmel scene of ch. 18, the word has already played a prominent role, so that
would seem to be the logical choice."
To take his second point first: at Carmel, the Baalist prophets receive "no ",p, no
answerer" ( 1 Kgs 18:26, 29); the word ",P here would best translate as "voice," since
an intelligible response from an "answerer" seems anticipated. Later on, in the same
chapter, Elijah forewarns Ahab of the deluge to come using the expression
ClDJi1 ,,~i1",P (1 Kgs 18:41). Here, ",P can only be translated as "sound." Besides
having both renderings of ",P, one finds that ",p!voice is used with respect to Baal,
the non-answerer. If one is seeking to find at Horeb a God who answers with a ",P, in
contrast to Baal who does not answer with a ",p, one need not look for it in 1 Kgs
19:12; rather, one naturally finds it in v.13. But even this exercise is misdirected,
since, in 1 Kgs 18, the contest is not about an answer (...Ji1Jl1) by ",p, but rather, by
fire (v.24); indeed, when Elijah pleads for an answer (,))lJ; v.37), the response is fire.
Returning to Fox's first point that biblical theophany scenes almost always indicate a
",p!voice: a relevant text to examine this in would be Exod. 19, since the theophanic
phenomena of 1 Kgs 19 evoke the parallel. In Exod. 19: 11 the LORD promises to
descend on Sinai in the sight of all the people on the third day. In Exod. 19: 16, the
°Fox (2002), 164.

13
81
events of the third day are described, and among the phenomena is a "1p!sound, the
pm 1E:lW "1p. More significant to the discussion is Exod. 19: 19:

"1p:::1 1JJl1, c,;,"~m 1:::11, nwo i~o ptm ,",;, 1E:l1W:1 ",P ,;,,,
Here there are two aural phenomena, one from the trumpet and the other from the
LORD, making the former a "1p!sound (as in 1 Kgs 19: 16), while the latter is a
"1p!voice, since it is part of the conversation between Moses and the LORD. 131 Thus,
this theophany' s description employs "1p in both senses, and it is not too difficult to
determine which sense is intended in a given usage.
One concludes then that there are no compelling reasons to follow Fox's preference
for "voice" against "sound." A preference to read "sound" for "1p would depend on
how the two remaining words in the expression are interpreted, but before we move
on to that, there is the issue of whether the word "1p here is in the absolute or
construct state. "1p in the absolute frequently occurs linked to a single adjective, often
"1iJ. When in construct with other nouns, it stands as the first noun in a series of
nouns, sometimes up to 4 nouns, as for example "the voice of the cry of the daughter
of my people" (,OlJ n:l nl71W "1p; Jer. 8: 19). A not uncommon construction is for
"1p in the construct state to be followed by a noun which is followed by an adjective:
thus, :1"1iJ:1 :11111n:1 "1p (the sound of a great shout; 1 Sam. 4:6), "1iJ ",n "1p
(a sound of a great army; 2 Kgs 7:6), n"iJ :1"10:1 "1p (a sound of a great tempest;
Jer. 11: 16), "1iJ Wl11 "1p (a sound of a great quaking; Eze. 3: 12), 1"W 110:1 "1p
(a sound of a carefree multitude; Eze. 23:42). This is the pattern in :1pi :1001 "1p,
and the likelihood is that "1p here is in the construct rather than in the absolute. This
would correspond with the genitives of the LXX ---<Pwv~ a.upa.<; A.Errtfj<;.
131
Thereafter, the LORD speaks to Israei-Exod. 20:1, 19, 22-implying a divine &,,p!voice. Cf.
~D~!Jt 5;~k22ff.. lt is of interest thauhe_LXX uses~the.plural with,respect to·the trumpet--'<jlwvat·t~t;
aal..1TL yyoc;;-and the singular with respect to God--BEoc;; nlTEKp i.va.to a.utQ ctJwvu-though earlier' in
19:16, it uses the singular for the trumpet blast--'<jlwv~ t~t; aal..ntyyot;. Perhaps the intention is to
differentiate between the sound of the trumpet and the voice of God in Exod. 19: 19?
82
With this we move on to the next word, and since :-t~~i will entail more discussion
than :-tpi, let us examine :-tpi first.
2.1.3.2 i1pi
:-tpi is the most intriguing of the three words because of its usage here. The verb
--Jppi means to crush, pulverize, thresh, be fine. 132 As an adjective, pi, it is used to
describe kine and ears of com in Pharaoh's dream, manna, hair, incense, a person
withered and shrunk, and dust 133-all of which are tangible objects. Thus 1 Kgs 19:12
remains the only instance where the adjective does not refer to something that can be
felt. "Why," asks Fox, "would a writer utilize 'thin' to describe a sound?" 134 He then
offers Coote's proposal as a possible answer. Coote singles out the use of pi in the
case of manna, as being particularly significant. He contrasts the ',,p of 1 Kgs 19 with
the ",P of Deut. 5:22-26. The latter betokened the danger of death-"lf we hear the
voice of the LORD our God any longer, we shall die" (v.25). The former ',1p, being
described as iTp,, recalls the pi manna. Thus, Coote submits, the ',,p is a
"voice-bread." It presages life rather than death, and offers the word of the LORD as
the prophet's sustenanceY 5 The association appears far-fetched, and even Fox,
though he does not discount it, observes that it only "hearkens back ever so slightly to
nurturing images from Israel's past." 136
Since cross-checking with the usage of pi as an adjective does not yield very decisive
results, one returns to the verb. 137 Here the usage is remarkably consistent. The
majority cases are in the context of idolatrous images and altars being pulverized
(Exod. 32:20; 2 Chr. 15:16; 34:4; 34:7) and several of them use the word dust (1Dl7)
to indicate the degree to which the objects are ground down (Deut. 9:21; 2 Kgs 23:6;
23: 15). Two other concrete usages are the beating fine of incense (Exod. 30:36), and
the crushing of grain (lsa. 28:28). Further, the verb is extended to metaphoric use: in 2
132
BDB, ppi, 200-01.
133
Gen. 41:3,4, 6, 7, 23, 24; Exod. 16:14; Lev. 13:30; Lev. 16:12; Lev. 21:20; Isa. 29:5; 40:15.
1
~tFox:(2002),d 65:
135
Coote (1981), 115-20.
136
Fox (2002), 165.
137
BDB, ppi, 200-01.
83
Sam. 22:43, Israel's enemies are beaten to 1tll1 (cf. Mic. 4:13) and in Isa. 41:15, Israel
will thresh mountains, making the hills as chaff (f1~ ). Thus, the associations are all
with finely dividing an object to the greatest possible degree; of something tangible
being ground down till it is barely so.
This sense is carried quite clearly in several of the adjectival usages listed above,
certainly in the case of the incense, hair and dust. The case of manna is not too far
removed, either. It is described as 1tl~~ pi OtlOn~ pi (Exod. 16: 14); as pi as a
scaling or flake, and as pi as frost; the similes try to communicate its delicate
thinness and smallness. Again, here is something that is at the limits of being
discerned by touch.
To return to Fox's question-why would a writer use such a word to describe a "1p?
Perhaps the answer is that the writer does not, and irpi better describes the other
word, iT~~i. So, we will return to irpi after having studied iT~~i.
2.1.3.3 l'100i; Job 4:12-16
Fox offers the choices for iT~~i: it can mean "silence," or by extension, the "calm
after the storm" as in Ps. 107:29; or, based on cognates and applied to passages such
as Lam. 2: 10 and Job 4: 16, it is taken as the verbalization of mourning and understood
to mean "wailing" or "murmuring." 138 Fox, preferring "voice" over "sound," and
using "thin" for irpi, remains rather undecided on how to render iT~~i. Finally, he
offers:
At the risk of abandoning the comforting and the familiar (and the inspiring) .. .I
would suggest that the wind/earthquake/fire sequences encourage us to understand the
phrase as something on the order of 'the voice of a thin whisper' or 'a thin,
murmuring voice'. I should add that I find this solution both emotionally unsatisfying
and aesthetically inadequate ... 139
Fox does not justify his choice in rendering i1~0i; however, Schick, in his study of
the stems C1i and C~i makes the same choice, and may be consulted for the
138
Fox (2002), 164.
139
Fox (2002), 165.
84
argument in favour of this rendition. 140 Schick begins by citing sources to show that
"a comparison of the translations which the leading Hebrew dictionaries give for the
stem C~i shows that they unanimously assign to it the meaning to be silent." 141
For example, BDB gives the verb -/coi three categories of meaning. (a) "be silent":
e.g., Ci" ~", i1~::J l1~T" 1.!1~" (Ps. 30: 13). (b) "be still," as opposed to both
speech and motion: e.g., nntl ~~~ ~" Ci~1 (Job 31 :34). (c) "be struck dumb" in
amazement and fear: e.g., 1~~::J 1~i" describes the state of the peoples, overcome
with terror and dread, as Israel passes by (Exod. 15: 16). 142
Against this, and following Paul Haupt, 143 Schick proposes that such a stem does not
exist; rather, biblical Hebrew uses two other stems. First, and more commonly used, is
the stem C1i, which "is a poetic synonym of the more prosaic i0l1," and means, by
derivation from Arabic and Ethiopian cognates, and from cases in post-Biblical
Hebrew: (1) to stay, halt, remain; (2) to remain immoveable, be rigid; (3) to wait; (4)
to stop, cease; (5) to come to an end, perish. 144
The second stem, C~i, has two usages. (1) "C~i. to moan, must be compared with
Assyrian damamu, to weep, lament, sigh." 145 Schick adds that this stem C~i. is "an
entirely different stem from C1i" but "occurs far less frequently in the OT than C1i,
and some of the passages in which it is found are extremely difficult, not to say
desperate"; he identifies Ps. 4:5 (EVV 4:4) and 30:13 as the only two such passages.
Proceeding from this, Schick resolutely states that from the stem C~i. to whisper, is
derived the noun i1~~i. Accordingly, he translates 1 Kgs 19:12, "and after the fire the
sound of a soft whisper"; Ps. 107:29, "He hushes the storm to a whisper"; and Job
4:16, "A form was before my eyes/A whispering voice I heard."
140
Schick (1913), 219-243.
141
Schick (1913), 219.
142
BDB, C~1, 198-99; Baumann (1978), 260-61; 64-65.
143
Haupt (1909), 4ff. See also Levine (1993), 89-106; Dahood (1960), 400.
~~~Schi_ck.(W.l~),221, 242. .. ,
145
BDB, C~1, 199 offers this as a second sense of the stem C~1, "to groan, wail, lament" and cites
Isa. 23:2 as a possible case, adding that "most, however, assign this to I. C~1," in which case it would
mean "to be struck dumb, be silent."
85
(2) An alternate usage of C~i is "in connection with mourning or bewailing some
misfortune, either the death of some person, a national calamity, or some grievous
146
moral evil encroaching upon a nation." So, in Amos 5:13 (to sigh) and lsa. 23:2
and 47:5, Lam. 2:10 and 3:28 (to moan). 141 Since the context described above is not
the context of 1 Kgs 19, Job 4:12-16 or Ps. 107:27, any shade of this usage in the
;,~~i of these texts becomes rather unlikely. 148
That leaves one with the first usage,
to whisper, which, as mentioned, is to be located in two texts.
Ps. 4:5 reads ,Oi, C~::J.~!liO ',11 C~:::l:::l',:::l ,,0~. English versions render it,
"Commune with your own hearts upon your beds and be still/be silent." Schick argues
that if ,Oi is understood as being derived from COi, to whisper, "the passage
becomes clear without resorting to emendation." Ci, ~',, i,:::l~ l10i, 1110', in Ps.
30:13 is usually rendered "so that my glory may sing praise to you and not be silent."
Schick would have COi here mean to speak in a subdued, hardly audible voice. Thus,
Ci, ~',, is to be read "and will not mutter subdued."
Both these cases, as Schick would translate them, have the implications of indistinctly
heard speech. Adding the further description of npi with its implications of "thin,"
"fine" or "barely perceptible" carries the aural aspect of ilpi iTOOi ',,p to the point
where, for all practical purposes, iTOOi is a hush/silence/stillness. Further, the senses
of COi as Schick would have them, with their two proposed usages, do not make any
substantial difference to the reading of the texts he lists, and he himself attests to the
difficulty of the texts which use COi, to whisper. Rather, the basic sense of --./coi as
silence/stillness, as overwhelmingly used in translation, quite satisfies all the texts
Schick lists.
Thus, Fox's two choices for iTOOi, "whisper"/"murmuring" are, in fact, not too far
removed from the one he initially recommends as serving the context better
146
Schick (1913), 222, 238-39.
147
Schick (1913), 239.
148
Koehler and Baumgartner (1994), 226 give II. 0~1 as "to wail," but then links :1~~1 to I. 0~1.
giving possible meanings of "calm, cessation of strong movement of air (Ps. 107:29) and "vibrant
silence" (1 Kgs 19:12).
86
-"silence"/"calm after the storm." A firmer approach, compared to one that uses
rather uncertain cognates with a confusingly wide range of senses, is to examine the
two other texts in which :1~~1 figures, namely, Job 4:16 and Ps. 107:29. Of the two,
the Job passage merits attention since it contains two common words, "1p and :1~~1.
these being used in an appreciably similar context.
Job 4:12-16
12 Now, to me a word (i~1) was spoken in secret (--./~'J))
and my ear caught (--./np") something (f~lD) of the message;
13 Amid thoughts (C~£llJW) from visions (11~Tn) of the night
when deep sleep (:1~1in) falls upon men,
14 Dread (1n£l) came upon me, and trembling,
which caused all my bones to shake.

15 Then a spirit (n1i) glides ((--./~"n)) past my face
making the hair of my flesh stand on end./A storm makes my flesh bristle.
<~,w~ nilJW i~on ~"n~ ~'JEl "lJ mi1)
16 It stands still (1~lJ~) ...
but I cannot recognize its appearance (rtKi~)
A form (rt'J1~n) is before my eyes;

149
a hush-then I hear a voice:/And I hear a murmuring voice:
(lJ~!DK "1p1 ;,~~1)

The text creates a scene of vision and audition. Notable is the "extensive use of
indeterminate language" that "underlines the mysterious, transcendental nature of
Eliphaz's vision." 150 The speaker opens with a prepositional phrase "to me,"
underlining that this is a testimony of personal experience. The word i~1 need not
take on oracular implications as it does in the phrase ;,;,, i~1 used in divine
disclosures to prophets, though in this context, such a connotation is readily evoked.
149
Drawn largely from NRSV and Dhorme (1967).
150
Hartley (1988), 112 n.18.
87
The matter is brought to Eliphaz by stealth; the use of -.J~J) in the Pual, 151 as Hartley
observes, "connotes the clandestine setting of the experience and the privileged nature
of the information received" and also reiterates the nature of prophetic vision in the
OT in that the initiative for revelation originates outside the recipient; the· human party
does nothing to induce the vision. Adding to the idea of stealth and secrecy is the
following word, the verb -.Jnp',, which carries the extended meaning of stealing (e.g.,
Judg. 17:2; 18:17, 18, 24; cf. Jer. 23:20). 152
f~tl.i, found only here and in Job 26:14 in the OT, may be argued to mean "a little" or
"fraction" 153 rather than the more preferred "whisper." 154 Either way, the general
sense is that what the recipient's ear catches is only a partial knowledge of God's
ways-"something wholly inadequate." 155
C,::ll1W is yet another unusual word, with only one other occurrence and that, in the
same book (Job 20:2). By some unclear semantic process this noun l:")~l1Wftrl1o means
both "branch" (e.g., Isa. 17:6) and "thought." 156 Rowley attempts a connection: "Just
as the boughs branch off from the trees, so thoughts and opinions can branch off in
more than one direction ... Eliphaz is here thinking of the confused medley of thoughts
that come to one in sleep" 157 or in "night visions." 1,~m is yet another word used
infrequently, four of its ten occurrences being found in Job alone (7:14; 20:8; 33:15).
Its usage suggests that Eliphaz here receives a divine communication 158 (cf. the
technical sense of -.Jittn), and the following noun, il~iin, reiterates this. Though
il~iin may describe a deep natural sleep (e.g., Prov. 19: 15), and Eliphaz speaks of it
falling generally "on men," most other usages of -.Jcii suggest a divinely induced
151
Werblowsky proposes that the form :l)~ may be a technical or semi-technical term used in
connection with nocturnal revelations, and thus "describe a specific kind of reception of the dabhar."
(1956), 105-06. Cf. Robertson (1960), 416-17.
152
Hartley (1988), 111.
153
Based on the usage in Sir. 10:10 and 18:32. E.g., Gordis (1978), 48; Dhorme (1967), 49; Rowley
(1970), 53; KJV.
154
From the Arabic cognate meaning to "speak rapidly and indistinctly." BDB, f~!li. 1036; most EVV.
155
BDB, f~!li. 1036.
156
~.BE>B; ~l1tr>; 972; Gordis ( 1978),48.
157
Rowley (1970), 53.
158
Used of visions in the ecstatic state, of night visions and of divine communications in a vision,
oracle or prophecy. BDB, :-nn, 303.
88
stupor (Gen. 2:21; Ps. 76:7; Dan. 8:18; 10:9), with the purpose of divine
communication (Gen. 15:12; Isa. 29:10). The most significant usage is Gen. 15:12. A
similar :1~11n falls upon Abraham as the sun goes down, during which he is
overwhelmed by dread-n~~N and darkness; these are preambles to the LORD
opening communication with him. Eliphaz too, in the course of his nighttime :1~11n
is seized by dread-1nEl (used alongside n~~~ in Exod. 15: 16), prior to receiving the
divine word. Terror "encounters" 159 him, penetrating his very bones. 160
Now the verbs change from descriptive perfects to historic presents, "vividly
describing his experience as though he is passing through it again." 161 A n11 sweeps
by (v''l"n) Eliphaz's face. n11, notably, is nowhere used of disembodied spirits, 162
and seldom in the masculine, in which case it is used more often of air in motion.
However, if n11 is taken to be the subject of the next verb, v'1~0, n11 appropriates
both genders; 163 as subject of 'l"n~ it would be masculine in the first stich, and as
subject of 1~0n it would be feminine in the second stich. Though this grammatical
phenomenon is not uncommon, being attested to in Job 1: 19 and also in 1 Kgs 19:11
(pTm :1"11J n11), it adds to the ambivalence.
Coming to the verbs themselves, the verb v''l"n is used both to describe the swift
passing by of both the wind (Hab. 1: 1) and of the LORD (Job 9: 11; 11: 10). As for
v'1~0, it ocurrs twice: here, in the Piel and in Ps. 119:20 in the Qal; opinion is divided
over which noun is its subject.
(a) One proposal is that the subject of 1~on is n1.11i.V, where :11l1W is an alternate
spelling for :11.110/storm, 164 and the -n ending is taken as the older form of the
159
The verb root here is possibly it1p rather than l't1p (Gordis (1978), 49; see GKC, §75rr), and
Gordis notes that the same verb is used of the encounter of God with the gentile prophet Balaam in
Num. 23:3 (Gordis (1978), 49).
160
"Affections, and even emotions, pervading or affecting strongly a man's being, are particularly
attributed to them [the bones], or conceived as operating in them." Driver and Gray (1921), 45.
161
.Rowley (4970); 54.
162
Clines (1989), 111; Rowley (1970), 54; Driver and Gray (1921), 46.
163
See Albrecht ( 1896), 42-44.
164
As in Job 9:17 and Nah. 1:3; however, elsewhere spelt it1l10, cf. Job 38:1.
89
absolute. 165 Thus n1l7iLI/storm would be parallel to n11/wind as in, for example, Isa.
41:16. Thus: "A storm makes my flesh bristle" (as in "gooseflesh"). 166 Dahood sees
here a certain poetic device known as "the breakup of a stereotyped phrase." Thus, the
stereotyped phrase 7"11l10 m1 (Ps. 148:8; Ezek. 1:4) has its two elements separated
(cf. Is a. 41: 16) 167 making equivalents between the two lines, which seems a
possibility: 168
(b) An alternate proposal is to take n1l1iL1 as the construct form of 7"!1l1iL1, meaning
"hair" , where the feminine singular is understood as a generic term and not a nomen
unitatis. The verb 1~0n could then be read either as an intransitive, as in Ps. 119:20,
with ~1m~ n1l1iL1 as its subject ("the hair of my body stands on end") 169 or it could
take m1 as its subject ("a spirit/wind causes the hair of my body to stand on end"). 170
Paul suggests that both proposals (a) and (b) are equally possible, and perhaps the
ambiguity is deliberate, a double entendre on both meanings being intended, with
overtones of the storm theophany of Job 28. 171 This could well be, considering the
unusual extent of indeterminate language in this text. This feature continues into the
next verse; it begins with ,~l1~-"it/one stands still," the subject being indefinite,
though there is general agreement that it refers to the m,~n. The vagueness heightens
the awe and terror of the moment. Significantly, m,~n is invariably used either with
reference to God or to some representation that Israel may substitute for God in
worship. 172 Moses sees the m,~n of God (Num. 12:8), while at Sinai, Israel
categorically does not see any m,~n (Deut. 4: 12). Thus, it is not surprising that
165
GKC, §80 g.
166
So, for example, (following the Targum-"Then a strong wind passes before my face;/A storm
makes my flesh glow."), Gordis (1978), 49; Dahood (1967), 544-45; Blommerde (1969), 40-41.
167
om~ f,E:ln il,l10, O~i.lm n,,,
168
Dahood (1967), 544-45.
169
E.g., Rowley (1970), 54; Clines (1989), 111.
170
E.g.,Dhotme (1967), so~st.
171
Paul (1983), 119-21.
172
Used of God in Num. 12:8; Deut. 4:12, 15; Ps. 17:15: used of substitutes in worship in Exod. 20:4;
Deut. 4:16,23, 25; Deut. 5:8.
90
Eliphaz' s claim to have both seen and heard God is negated in part by the LXX. 173
Significantly, common to Job 4:16 and Num. 12:8 are both ;·m~n and i1Ni~, both
nouns used in the context of divine communication. A further point of note is the
shortness of the line which consists of i~lJ"; it has a single word instead of the usual
three. Besides the suggestion that there are words missing here, it is proposed that this
could be deliberate, a dramatic device to convey Eliphaz's fearfulness even at the
recollection of the moment. 174
The visual now becomes the aural: lmWN S1p1 i1~~i. Besides Job 4:16 and 1 Kgs
19:12, the only other occurrence of i1~~i is in Ps. 107:29:
t::li1"SJ 1Wn"1 i1~~iS i1ilJO cp"
Here the meaning of i1~~i is less clouded, because of the seafarer context (vv.23-32).
The LORD commands the stormy wind (i1ilJO n1i) and the waves are lifted up
(v.25); he then commands the storm (i1ilJO) into a hush (i1~~i) and the waves are
stilled; the sailors are glad because they (i.e., the waves) have been quieted--../pn!D,
used of the sea in Jon. 1:11, 12-and are brought to their desired haven (v.30). This
usage of the rare word i1~~i directs the assumption that it is derived from -.Jc~i "to
be or grow dumb, silent, sti11." 175 Such a "calm after the storm" reading would be
relevant to both the Job and Kings texts: in the latter, there is a devastatingly "great
and strong wind" ( 1 Kgs 19:11) succeeded by similarly violent natural phenomena; in
the former, there is the possibility of reading nilJil7 as storm (Job 4: 15).
This leaves the problem of the relationship between i1~~i and S1p in the line
lJ7?~~ Sij?~ i1~7?'l· and here opinion is evenly divided. Either one privileges the MT
accentuation and dissociates S1p from i1~~i, reading "silence/a hush-and/then I
hear a voice"; 176 or, one privileges the MT pausal vocalization of S1p1, and links S1p
173 LXX : O:VEOtT}V

, , , , , , rs. , , "' "'' •"'S O:II.IJ.WV
npo• 0'1'
KO:l OUK ETifYVWV HuOV KO:l OUK 'IV IJ.OP'f'll
, , IJ.OU 0:11.11.
•", ll'I aupav
" •
KO:l
cjlwv~v ~Kouov. The reading of 1~1'' as 1~-UK is probably out of dogmatic considerations-the desire
to avoid any approximation of an image of God. Gordis (1978), 49: Similarly, ~m~n.
174
See Rowley (1970), 55; Clines (1989), 111-12; Hartley (1988), 109.
175
BDB, t:l~1. 198-99.
176
So, for e.g., Rowley (1970), 55; Hartley (1988), 109; Gordis (1978), 50; RSV, KJV, JB, ASV.
91
to iT~~,, and reads it as a hendiadys, "I hear a murmuring voice." 177 Both being
possible, one refers to the earliest rendering of the unpainted text, the LXX, which
reads: a.upa.v Ka.l. <j>wv~v ~Kouov. Here a difference is made between ',,p and iT~~,,
one being a breath (perhaps of air), and the other being a cognizable voice, and this
appears to favour disjunction. We will go with this reading since, as we shall see, it
ties in with the only other passage in which a theophany is described in similar
terms. 178
In summary, two features stand out in Job 4:12-16, both comparable with 1 Kings 19.
First, as mentioned before, there is an extensive use of indeterminate, infrequently
used language, possibly compounded by the use of double entendre. The combined
weight of the words and the phrasing is an index of the struggle to render into human
language a supernatural experience-here, an intimate encounter with the divine. In
Kings too, language is pushed to the limits to describe an intensely private encounter
between prophet and God; thus the mysterious :-tp1 iT~~, ',,p. The change of tense
in Job 4:15, 16 to the imperfect vivifies the description just as does the change to
participles in 1 Kgs 19: 11.
Secondly, the vision and audition account in Job follows the OT pattern in that
hearing dominates over seeing. There is a form, but it is unrecognizable; however
there is a voice, and the words it speaks are readily and perfectly identifiable. In
Kings, once the procession of phenomena in which the LORD is not is ended, Elijah's
hearing takes over from seeing; it is a sound/voice that he responds to, as if in
recognition of the divine presence.
Flowing from this, there arises the question of the double usage of the word ',,p in 1
Kgs 19: 12, 13; are both usages identical, and if not, how are they related to each
other?
177
NEB, NAB, NIV, IPS. Dhorme does not see a hendiadys, but parallels this text with 1 Kgs 19:12 to
conclude that "the word i!~~, in our text has simply been detached from its context to be thrown into
re!i_ef-' !l!Ja~!.oit_i~. i:l.,p,.whic)l,SbillJlq,openJhe hemistich ... theJast.hemistich istherefore:simply: 'And ·
I hear a whispered voice'." 1967), 51-52.
178
We note that in variation from Kings, the Job text has the words ':l,p and i!~~, in the reverse order
and connected by a copula.
92
2.1.3.4 The Two "'=',p"s
In Ps. 107:29, i1~~1 is clearly the opposite of i11l10, and is therefore a phenomenon
of nature; a gentle breeze/a calm. As suggested earlier, this could well inform the
interpretation of the scene at Horeb. The violence of the stormy mountain-rending and
rock-splitting m1, and the further violence of the earthquake and the fire are followed
by a sudden, eerie calm. The idea that i1~~1 is no more than a barely discernible
breath (of wind), a hush, an uncanny stillness in nature, a vibrant silence, fits well as
an unexpected and dramatic climax to the parade of the elements of nature in 1 Kgs
19. Fox remarks that such a reading (as "calm after the storm") makes "eminent
sense" here. 179 "1p would then best read "sound" and the phrase would then
approximate "sound of a (i1p1) calm." (This would correspond with the genitives of
the LXX, cjlwv~ aupa~ AETI'tf}~.) i1p1, as we have seen, defines that which is fine and
delicate, barely discernible by touch. Putting all three words together one arrives at
"sound of a fine/sheer calm/hush/silence." Walsh makes a similar choice in rendering
the phrase "sound of sheer silence," and we may borrow his rationale to round off our
line of argument and the choices we have settled on:
The numinous power of the image lies precisely in our inability to grasp it-a quality
utterly lost by translations that render it "a thin whispering sound" or the like; the
NRSV's "sound of sheer silence" captures the senses perfectly with losing any of its
.
mystenous parad ox. 180
(Walsh's understanding is that the i1p1 i1~~1 "1p, with its rich chiastic sound
(q-d-m/m-d-q) and mysterious paradoxical sense is the phenomenon that "contains"
the divine presence, 181 a point we will return to later.)
If our choice of translation/s is valid, the "1p of v .13 would be a speaking "1p, a
voice. That the "1p of v .13 is not identical with the "1p of v .12 is supported by the
narrator's choice not to use an article-"And behold! A voice comes to him!" If the
179
Fox (2002), 164. In spite of acknowledging this in his discussion on ;,~~i. Fox, as already quoted,
concludes with the translation, "the voice of a thin whisper"/"a thin, murmuring voice." He does not
properly-justify,Jhis choice for"rendering ;,~~~;"other-than-to mention that "wailing" or "murmuring"
"clarifies Job's vision in 4.16 .. .1 heard a droning voice."
180
Walsh (1996), 276.
181
Walsh (1996), 276.
93
narrator had meant the same aural phenomenon as in v .12, the likelihood is that he
would have used "the voice comes to him."
This scheme makes two points, both with reference to Exod. 19:19, which we have
commented on earlier. (a) It gives a reasonable explanation for the double usage of the
word '?1p in two successive verses, the difference in the usage corresponding to the
pattern in Exod. 19: 19. (b) 1 Kgs 19:13 need not have used the word ',,p; it could
have used instead the usual formula that the rest of the Elijah narrative uses, namely,
the word of the LORD [came] to him-1~',N ;,,;,~ 1~1 (1 Kgs 17:2, 8; 18:31; 19:9;
cf. 18:1). However, 1 Kgs 19:13 has a variation-1~',N ',1p. Considering that the
previous verses have described a theophany much in resonance with Exod. 19, the
variation takes on significance. In Exod. 19, the description of physical phenomena,
the ',1p1sound of the "trumpet" included, climaxes with the speaking voice of God
himself. Extrapolating this sequence to 1 Kgs 19, one has a description of physical
phenomena, the ',1p1sound of the "hush" included, leading to the speaking voice of
God. Thus Elijah's being addressed by a ',1p1voice recalls Moses' first experience at
Horeb.
There is, however, a marked difference between the Exod. 19 and 1 Kgs 19
theophanies. The former has a longer list of natural phenomena (vv.l6-18: thunder
and lightning, thick cloud, smoke, fire, quake) than the latter. More significantly,
where the latter has a hush just before the speaking voice, the former has a trumpet
sound growing louder and louder (v.19). These two differences correspond to the
difference in situation. In Exod. 19, it is all Israel, standing beyond the set boundaries,
which is the intended beneficiary of the theophany (vv.9-17). The event is so that
Israel may meet God (v.17), and trust Moses, seeing that he mediates between God
and them (v.9). However, in 1 Kgs 19, the situation is vastly different in that it is
intensely private. Thus, one has a hush, rather than a loud trumpet sound, and this is in
line with the Job 4 theophany, granted privately to Eliphaz. Having discussed the
various key words in these two private theophanies, we may now set them out against
each~ other.
94
Job 4:15-16 1 Kgs 19:11-13
m1/n1l'i.O pTm ;,~,,) m1/IJJ!11IIJJ~
a wind/a storm a great and mighty wind/earthquake/fire
a hush a sound of a sheer calm
and I hear a voice a voice [came] to him
The Job 4 and 1 Kgs 19 theophanies reinforce each other re the order of events:
tumultuous phenomena, associated with nature; a profound hush; finally, the speaking
voice of God. What Fox says of his rendering applies with this proposal as well,
namely, that it risks "abandoning the comforting and the familiar (and the inspiring)."
He speaks with special reference to the KJV's "still, small voice," a rendering which
"has stood up remarkably well for almost four hundred years." 182 However, as Fox's
categorizations of renderings show, translators over the past thirty years have taken
that risk, opening up the exploration of alternatives. The rendering argued here, for
reasons submitted, would disagree only with the approach that considers
:-rp1 :"1~~1 ~,p as an indication of God speaking ("a gentle whisper"/"the breath of a
light whisper"). It would have no serious quarrel either with the approach that
understands it as the expression of a natural phenomenon ("a sound of a gentle
blowing/breeze"), or with the "non-committal" approach that leaves the source of the
phenomenon unclear ("a low murmuring sound"/"a tiny whispering sound"). It falls in
line, however, with the "paradoxical approach"-"a sound of sheer silence."
In the Kings narrative, as in Job, this evocative phrase describes the divine presence,
and this is signalled in four ways. First, the disclaimer that trails in the wake of each
of the physical phenomena speaks by its sudden absence here. Implicitly, the LORD
is in this fourth phenomenon, a point that the LXX emphatically draws attention to
with the insertion KaKEl Kup ~o<;.
182
Fox (2002), 165.
95
Second, language, which so articulately described the first three events, now strains to
find ideograms to "represent" what von Rad describes as "the extreme limit of
apprehension by the senses." 183 In the endeavour, two aural words are followed by a
tactile one. Similarly, Moses' bush bums-!Li~:::l 1.U:::l mo:-t-but does not bum
-:-TJO:-t 1.U:::l~ K', ( 3:2, 3). Ezekiel falls back on strings of qualifiers (Ezek. 1:26-38);
Ultimately, all that he will claim is that he saw "the appearance of the likeness of the
glory of the LORD (Ezek. 1:28)." Rendering this ineffable phrase faithfully-a
continuing challenge-is less important than recognizing it as an announcement of the
actual and real presence of the LORD. 184
Third, it is this last phenomenon that provokes the hitherto apparently passive
observer into activity. One understands that Elijah has been waiting, watchful for the
moment he must go out and present himself. As soon as he discerns the divine
presence, he covers his face. "The gesture," Terrien observes, "is an
acknowledgement of the inward certainty of the presence, and at the same time, the
185
recognition of the mysterium traemendum [sic] of holiness."
Fourth, it is from the womb of this :-tp1 ;,~~, ',1p that a speaking ',1p emerges and
it asks the question that the "word of the LORD" had asked earlier. Elijah's response
confirms to the reader that the prophet sees no difference in the two media, 1:::l1 and
',,p. Both are divine communications, only the ',,p is more intimate. If we are to read
intertextually with Ex. 33-34 then, Elijah's experience of the divine recalls Moses':
the LORD habitually spoke with Moses as familiarly as one speaks with a friend
(Exod. 33: 11) and Num. 7:89 explains further using the word ',,p to describe how the
LORD "spoke" with Moses in private. In Exod. 34:5, in private theophany, there is an
183
Von Rad (1975), 20.
184
Thus, even an odd rendering of :1p1 :1~~1 ',,p such as Lust's "a roaring and thunderous voice"
-(1975), 110-15-is preferable to those that read it, for example, in terms of a Jungian framework, as
does Wiener ( 1978), in that it acknowledges the concreteness of the theophany.
185
Terrien (1978), 232. Tg. Jon. reads: " ... the Lord was revealing himself, and before him were armies
of the angels" of wind, earthquake and fire respectively; in none of these was "the Shekinah of the
Lord?~'Bfitkaftei' '!the~ artny'of"'the' iingels,of~fire"'Was'the voice 'ofthosi:H.Vho' Were~ pi'aisiiig'~softl)i;"
"Softly" has the sense of "whispering" or "stillness," and the Targums connect God with quiet or silent
prayer. The implication seems to be that the Lord has finally revealed himself and thus, contact has
been established between the Lord and his waiting prophet.
96
implicit speaking '?1p-the LORD "descended ... stood with him there ... proclaimed
the name."
Thus, a clear contrast is created between the physical phenomena and the
;,p1 ;,~~, '?1p: a series of striking negations explicitly conveys the absence of
divine presence in the former; the latter, as expressed by language, intertextual

allusion and narrative detail, mysteriously, yet compellingly communicates the divine
presence. "The invisibility of a God who yet speaks remains the cardinal tenet of a
Hebraic theology of presence." 186 This leads to the question of the meaning of this
theophany with its curious absence-presence feature, and its implications for the story
of 1 Kgs 19.
2.2 The LORD's Absence and Presence in vv.11-13a

Robinson makes a profitable conversation partner in any discussion on the import of
;,p1 :=t~~1 ',,p since he casts his net wide, succinctly surveying the various
interpretative moves from the Targums through patristic commentaries down to the
present. 187 Most helpful is that, in conclusion, he offers a "synthesis" of the views that
he deems "on the right lines," since his synthesis is representative of the major trends
in interpreting this difficult text. We shall interact with this synthesis one half at a
time. The first half reads:
In ch. 18, YHWH has vanquished the power of Baal by his mastery of those natural
elements which the pagan god was believed to control. In this chapter, the polemic
against paganism is continued. It is true that the natural elements are often used by
YHWH, but he remains beyond them, transcendent, mysterious, obscurely perceived.
There are two points of emphasis here; first, the polemic against paganism, and
secondly, the divine self-revelation. On both points, Robinson concurs with Baumann,
whom he quotes:
If demamah is used in a particular way in Job 4:16 and 1 K. 19:12 to describe the
reception of a revelation, a theophany, this is to be understood as a deliberate attempt
to separate the Israelite concept of theophany from the religious ideas of the ancient
186
Terrien (1978), 112.
187
Robinson (1991), 522-535.
97
Near East. At the same time, that which is totally imperceptible, intangible, and
inaudible in the theophany is characterized most clearly. 188
Let us consider the first point of emphasis-the polemic in the form of the LORD
being categorically disassociated with natural phenomena. Here we may refer to J.
Jeremias, who first proposed a polemical bias as underlying the text:
Were there circles in Israel which spoke of the corning of Yahweh in the 'still, small
voice (of the wind),' and which rejected the link, often made in Israel, between
Yahweh and the destructive forces of nature, because, in Israel's religious
environment, the manifestation of the gods was usually just so linked with them? In
this case it was not a more refined conception of God which characterized these
circles, but their opposition to equating the religion of Yahweh with the religions of
the world around. The polemic against the world around would necessarily lead to a
polemic against Israel's own religious tradition. At the time of Elijah such a polemic
would have been quite conceivable. 189
The polemical tone of 1 Kgs 18 can be traced back into the start of the Elijah
narratives. The stories in 1 Kgs 17 are strongly confrontational in nature-Elijah
against Ahab, Elijah against famine, Elijah against death. The theme climaxes at
Carmel, being pushed into relief by the plot of the narrative. Elijah sets up the
"contest" with polemical intent, for Baal, to the knowledge of his audience, is the
storm god, with thunderbolts at his command. As it turns out, it is the LORD who
sends fire and "wins." Let us suppose that, as Robinson proposes, "the polemic
against paganism is continued" into 1 Kgs 19.
In 1 Kgs 19, the narrative takes a dramatic, unexpected tum. The prophet who has
hitherto single-handedly taken on the crown, the people and 450 Baalist prophets is
himself on the run. The world of the story becomes small and intimate, peopled only
with a prophet and his God. The overriding concern is the prophet's lapse and
possible restoration. Such a story would not logically call for polemic against
paganism as in the preceding two chapters, and if there was indeed such, it would then
seem to be arbitrarily introduced, especially since Elijah himself does not need that
lesson.
188
Baumann (1978), 264-65.
189
Jeremias (1965), 115, translated by and cited in Wurthwein (1970), 155.
98
Secondly, at Carmel, the polemical feature is that the LORD demonstrates his
superiority over Baal by associating himself with a natural element, fire. At Horeb, if
we are to assume the polemic continues, it continues with the LORD dissociating
himself from the same element. In 2 Kgs 1, he will once more polemically associate
himself with fire, again in confrontation with a Baal-serving monarch. These shifts are
too confusing to be plausible.
Thirdly, the theophany is not quite straightforward in its associations and

dissociations. The three natural phenomena are not "natural" in the usual sense and
therefore certainly in some way part of the theophany; yet the LORD is absent from
this section of the "theophany." This could well convey the same sense as in other
passages where the LORD is not identified with, but yet is associated with natural
forces (for example, Ps. 97:2f: "Clouds and thick darkness are round about him ... fire
goes before him"). (On the other hand, it could have other implications, which we
shall consider later.) Further, as we have discussed in the previous section, there is the
possibility that npi n~~i ',,p could have been understood as a natural
phenomenon-a gentle breeze, and the story implies that this did contain the LORD's
presence in some way that Elijah could readily discern. All this subtlety and
ambiguity in the text makes it hard to postulate a clearly defined polemic against
paganism. 190
The second point of emphasis in Robinson's proposal for the import of the theophany
is the self-revelation that God is beyond natural phenomena; he is "transcendent,
mysterious, obscurely perceived." 191 This is the position of a number of patristic
190
A variation is the proposal that Elijah is being taught that the LORD henceforth dissociates himself
from Baalist nature-related thaumaturgy. The LORD is concerned to correct the misconception that he
is identical to the powers of nature and can be perceived only through them. (Cross (1973), 190-94;
Rice (1990), 159. Cf. Bronner, (1968), 63.) This hypothesis however, makes it difficult to explain the
second fire-from-heaven incident in 2 Kings l. And further, as Simon points out, 1 Kgs 18 "offers no
substantive basis for the idea of fire as a manifestation of the godhead." Both Elijah's condition for the
contest (v.24) and the narrator's description of the fire (v.38) speak of the element as being God-sent
rather than as a materialization of the deity. So also, Israel's confession (v.39) does not contain the fear
of death as it does at Horeb (Exod. 20:18-21; Deut. 18: 16-17). (1997), 210-11.
191
A slightly different slant on the self-revelation theme is Fohrer's: "The being of Yahweh is not
depicted with symbols of storm, earthquake and fire, which symbolize the sudden and frightening
power of"lhe ·holy ·and~unapproachable~Godc.that~scorns·all·efforts ,of· se1f"defertcecby man'. 'Fhecdivine
being is rather described by the gentle stillness of the breeze." Thus, "there is a turning from the God of
war and battles to the God whose being is not revealed in terrifying outbursts, but who can be
compared to the gentle stillness of the breeze." (1957), 89, translated by and cited in Wurthwein,
99
commentaries, in that they find the theophany to point to the impossibility of knowing
God. 192 "The God of biblical faith, even in the midst of a theophany, is at once Deus
revelatus atque absconditus. He is known as unknown." 193
This is true not only of this theophany but also of the other two at Horeb that this
theophany evokes. In Exod. 33-34, the closest parallel to Elijah's situation, there is
the irony that even as the prophet is granted unparalleled access into the divine
presence, he is covered (again, ironically, by God's own "hand") until God has passed
by (Exod. 33:22). Even as the deity reveals, he conceals. In Exod. 19-20, where the
theophany is attended by phenomena as in 1 Kgs 19, the self-disclosure is to a people.
Yet, even though God spoke to them "face to face" they "saw no form" (Deut. 5:4;
4: 12); at the core of Israel's most intimate experience of God, there is the paradox of
non-experience.
However, there is a difference. These two theophanies both have the express purpose
of divine self-revelation; one is given at the request of Moses to "see" God, and the
other is at God's initiative and in order to bind a people to himself in covenant. Thus,
both open with self-introductions-"The LORD, the LORD, merciful and
gracious ... " (Exod. 34:6ff.) and "I am the LORD your God, who ... " (Exod. 20:2). 194
In 1 Kgs 19, when the prophet is asked what concern brings him "here" (to Horeb), he
does not ask to be granted a theophanic self-revelation; rather, he states his problem re
Israel. The LORD chooses to reply with a theophany. While it is quite possible that
the LORD's reply (whatever it might articulate) incorporates the not unfamiliar
theophanic paradox of immanence-transcendence, it is unlikely that self-revelation as
a transcendent deity is a focal point thereof. However, let us assume with Robinson
that in answer, the LORD grants Elijah a self-revelation in terms of his transcendence
-"the gentle murmuring which is YHWH's self-expression in a specific form." 195
(1970), 154. However, this interpretation does not offer much towards engaging profitably with the
narrative that follows, in which the LORD declares his plans to purge Israel with the very "war and
battles" that Fohrer proposes he is turning away from.
192
Robinson quotes Paterius, notary of Gregory I, Claudius, bishop of Turin and Rupert of Deutz who
offer this identical reflection, possibly all from the same patristic source: "Tunc ergo verum estquod de
Deo cognoscimus, cum plene nos aliquid de illo cognoscere non posse sentimus." (1991), 525.
1?~q:erriew(l978); H9~'- ~~ " "'"" ~- ·· ·
194
Cf. Exod. 3, a third theophany at Horeb, again with the express purpose of divine self-revelation,
which opens with a formula of self-identification (v.6).
195
Robinson (1991), 527.
100
What purpose does it serve? This leads us to interact with the second half of
Robinson's proffered "synthesis" of views that he sees as along the right lines.
Robinson proposes, "YHWH plans this subdued sound in part as rebuke to Elijah's
megalomania." (The other reason, as discussed, is to repudiate any association with
Baal.) Elijah believes himself to be "a worthy spiritual descendant of that great
prophet," Moses, 196 and "is willing to continue to serve only on his terms; he requires
a clear manifestation of YHWH's power and protection." 197 This megalomania is
censured by the :-tp1 :1~~1 t,,p in two ways: first, Robinson finds it plausible that
the t,,p is implicitly articulating that a spectacular theophany cannot or will not be
given to Elijah. Here, he makes reference to Eichrodt, who traces the evolution of
divine communication on a larger framework. Over time (Eichrodt proposes), fire,
storm and earthquake
acquired a predominantly symbolic significance as a representation of God's
intervention in history ... and its function of making the invisible God concretely
visible diminished in importance .. .Elijah's encounter with God at Horeb provides the
first clear indication of a changed attitude. 198 Here it is expressly stated that God is
not in the storm, nor in the earthquake nor in the fire ... The manifestation of .God in
fire [cf. Ex. 3] had already betrayed a sense that the lineaments of the divine were not
confined to any fixed forms, but were inconceivable by Man. Now they have passed
completely into the invisible, out of which the divine word sounds forth as the only
element of the divine nature which human senses can grasp. The elemental forces are
no longer the means by which God is made visible, but have become phenomena
accompanying the divine activity, his 'garment' [cf. Ps. 104: 1], his glory [cf. Ex.
24: 17], his messenger [cf. Ps. 104:4]. 199
Perhaps Robinson reads the text better by preferring to lay emphasis, not on the
closure of the era of spectacular theophanies, 200 but to infer that "[i]t is possible ... to
be a spiritual son of Moses without experiencing the outward manifestation of
YHWH' s glory in a convulsion of natural forces as Moses did on Sinai." 201
196
Robinson (1991), 519.
197
Robinson (1991), 534.
1
~ Italics" added.
199
Eichrodt (1967), 19-20. Cf. Skinner (n.d.), 240; Gray (1964), 365.
200
As do Terrien ( 1978), 231-2; Hauser and Gregory ( 1990), 117.
201
Robinson ( 1991 ), 525-6.
101 tftiJ!ib.
~
The assumption here is that Elijah's requirement of the LORD at Horeb is that he be
awarded a theophany such as Moses experienced. This is not implausible, but in the
absence of any help from the narrator on this issue, this need not be the only way to
read the intentions of the character portrayed. The opposite holds an equal chance,
namely, the postulation that Elijah may not particularly be in search of an Exodus-like
theophany; he simply needs to seek out the LORD for direction in this his crisis of
uncertainty, and his.urgent need takes him to the place where, more than in any other
place, a prophet who would emulate Moses may find him.
Further, in Exod. 19-20, the place of "the outward manifestation of YHWH's glory in
a convulsion of natural forces," the phenomena are part of the great moment of the
LORD binding himself with Israel in covenant, rather than about the inter-personal
dynamics between Moses and God. As regards Moses, the theophany formally
legitimates and establishes his office as covenant mediator. These elements are not
part of the Horeb scene in 1 Kgs 19. Any endorsement of his status as true prophet
and mediator Elijah has already requested and obtained at Carmel (" .. .let it be known
this day that you are God ... that I am your servant. .. " 1 Kgs 18:36) before all Israel.
At Horeb, there is no Israel, only the prophet and God; thus, it might not be apposite
to impute to Elijah the desire for Moses' experience in Exod. 19-20 per se.
However, what is awarded Elijah at Horeb that is reminiscent of the extraordinary

relationship between Moses and the LORD is the speaking of the LORD to Elijah in a
',,p (1 Kgs 19:13, rather than v.12). "When Moses went into the tent of meeting to
speak with him [the LORD], he would hear the voice (',,pi1) speaking to him" (Num.
7:89). Thus, in this situation of personal encounter at Horeb, Elijah's experience
corresponds with Moses' own private moments with the LORD.
The other way the :-tpi ;,~~i ',,p rebukes Elijah's "megalomania," Robinson holds,
is that
... the theophany that he experiences on Horeb, while having Mosaic overtones, owes
its climax more to the Ex 33-34 than to the Ex 19 tradition, and serves to remind
Elijah of what had been the essence of Moses' experience, the commandments of
Gpd. It is the duty of a_ prophet to fulfil them, rather than_look for a dramatic
102
endorsement of his prophetic status and an unconditional guarantee of his personal

safety. 202
Here, one presumes that the "commandments of God" take the form of the question
that the t,,p asks-"What concerns you here, Elijah?"-since Robinson understands
the question to be a command that Elijah must return to where his work lies. 203
In the section on 1 Kgs 19:9b, we have discussed that the question need not be a
confrontational one; considering similar occurrences of the idiom in other narratives,
we concluded that it could be a formal invitation to dialogue.
Next, Moses' experience in Exod. 33-34: this episode in Israel's history explores the
consequences and possibilities following unfaithfulness to the covenant. Wilful
disobedience to the commandments brings the covenant to breaking point; the LORD
proposes to "consume" (Exod. 32: 10) the very people he had taken as his "treasured
possession" (Exod. 19:5). Moses' dogged perseverance in mediation ultimately results
in a renewed covenant and a restored relationship. Possibly everi more than Israel, it is
Moses who learns from this experience that with the LORD, obedience is no small
matter.
One characteristic of Elijah, as portrayed in the previous two chapters, is his

unquestioning obedience to the commands of the LORD, often at great risk to his life.
In chapter 19, Elijah does slip badly, the nadir being the point at which he asks to die.
However, the reversal begins almost immediately, in that he obediently submits to
being fed and strengthened towards a further task-a journey. As we have proposed
previously, Elijah's journey to Horeb could well be interpreted as an attempt at
self-restoration. It is to his credit if, in this endeavour, he retraces the footsteps of a
model prophet, Moses. It is plausible to assume Elijah's appreciation of the fact that
Moses' associations with Horeb are to do with the relationship between the LORD
and Israel, and not with personal gain or glory. Thus, we may envisage that in coming
to Horeb, Elijah is demonstrating obedience to his calling as a prophet and mediator
between the LORD and his people. As such, a further exhortation to obedience (other
_'.~ ...· . · - - - - - - ' - - - - - - .
202
Robinson (1991), 527.
203
Robinson (1991), 522,534.
103
than the subtle one received at the broom tree) such as Robinson proposes, may be
redundant.
In summary, we have discussed reasons why the theophany at Horeb in 1 Kgs 19 is

best not interpreted as a polemic against Baalism, or as a special case of divine
self-revelation in terms of transcendence, or as a rebuke directed at Elijah. It is
possible that there is another way to understand the text, which will make sense of the
phenomenon of absence and presence both in its immediate and wider contexts.
2.3 Reconsidering the LORD's Absence and Presence in vv.ll-13a

In 1 Kgs 19:8, Elijah arrives at Horeb; in v.19 he departs. The text in between,
vv.9-18, are the dialogue between the prophet and the LORD. The latter initiates it
and concludes it. The LORD opens by asking the reason for Elijah's presence at
Horeb. Elijah's response in v.lO describes a problem, and since this problem is
presented in answer to the LORD's question, it is reasonable to suppose that this is the
reason for his presence at Horeb, namely, to present this predicament before the
LORD. Similarly, it is reasonable to suppose that the LORD's command following in
v.11 is directly in response to what Elijah has just said. Elijah is to stand on the
mountain. The LORD then passes by and what follows is a description of his passing
by. This would then be the LORD's answer to Elijah's statement in v.lO.
Thus, the sense of the theophany lies within the context of the conversation between
Elijah and G?d. What it articulates must be, first and foremost, relevant to the
direction and flow of the dialogue. The burden of Elijah's presentation, as discussed
previously, is Israel and her covenantal relationship to the LORD. So, perhaps this
relationship is a good place to seek clues to unlocking the import of the LORD's
absence and presence in the elements of the theophany.
The verb Elijah uses to describe what Israel is doing with the covenant, and thus with
their relationship with the LORD, is -..f~tlJ. The basic meaning of -..f~tlJ is "leave";
there is a removal from an object, thereby dissolving connections with that object.
"Witll. reg~rd to" peJson~. tbi~ sort~.of tuming away or separation also generates.
juridical, economic, political and emotional considerations." For example,
104
"abandoning" a clan member "violates the elementary bonds of community and calls
life itself into question." An abandoned sick slave (1 Sam. 30: 13), David's abandoned
concubines (2 Sam. 15: 16), the abandoned wife (Deut. 24: 1) are left to an uncertain
and unhappy fate. When the LORD and Israel are the subject or object of .Y~TlJ, these
societal obligations and implications are borrowed: thus, for example, no more can the
LORD forsake his people than a mother her child (Isa. 49: 14f.). 204
Flowing from this general use, .Y~TlJ has special usage in law, where it refers to "the
end of a relationship of solidarity between members of a community or group, with

various legal consequences attaching to such 'leaving'." An extension of these general
and special usages is in theology, as concerns the relationship between the LORD and
Israel. Both the Deuteronomistic and the Chronicler's history use .Y~TlJ almost as a
leitmotif in exilic-postexilic reflections on history: Israel has sinned and forsaken the
LORD. 205 Similarly, texts in which the law, the covenant or the commandments are
forsaken (.Y~TlJ) follow the same semantic model, and are thus understood as a
violation of loyalty toward another person. 206
A text which well illustrates this theological usage of .Y~TlJ, features both God and
Israel as the subject of the verb, and which carries the various implications of its
general use, is Deut. 31: 16-17:
The LORD said to Moses, "Soon you will lie down with your ancestors. Then this
people will begin to prostitute themselves to the foreign gods in their midst, the gods
of the land into which they are going; they will forsake me (;,/~TlJ) , breaking (;,/11£))
my covenant that I have made with them.
My anger will be kindled against them in that day. I will forsake (;,/~TlJ)
them and hide my face from them; they will become easy prey, and many terrible
troubles will come upon them. In that day they will say, "Have not these troubles
come upon us because our God is not in our midst?" (NRSV)
204
Gerstenberger (1990), 586-87.
2 5
g cDeut-28:20; -31:16;~Jdg.'2:l2f; 10:6; 13; 1-Sam. 8:8; 2 Kgs 21:22; Isa. 65:11; Jer. 2: 13, 17, 19;
16:11; 19:4; Hos. 4:10. Gerstenberger (1990), 590-91.
206
1 Kgs 18:18; 2 Kgs 17:16; Ezra 9:10; Ps. 89:31 [30]; Jer. 9:12 [13]; 22:9; Dan. 11:30. Gerstenberger
(1990), 591.
105
Several points are noteworthy. First, Israel's dealings with the covenant and Israel's
dealings with God are held together by synonymity. Honouring the LORD entails
honouring the covenant, and breaking the covenant is tantamount to forsaking him. 207
Secondly, forsaking the LORD and his covenant are marked by Israel's worship of
other gods; again, this is a connection that is frequently made, especially within the
Deuteronomistic framework. 208 Thirdly, the verb used to describe the breaking of the
covenant is .Y11tl, which is nearly always used in the sense of "violation of' or
"reneging on." The object of the verb could be a vow, advice or counsel, or God's
commandments; however, of the 53 uses, in 23 the direct object is "covenant," and
forms part of the comprehensive vocabulary relating to apostasy.Z09 Its use here
reiterates the moral overtones of .Y:JilJ and anticipates the following verse, which
describes the LORD's reaction. This leads into the fourth point: the LORD's anger at
Israel's sin, for such it is, is demonstrated in a punishment that fits the offence. If
Israel would forsake (.Y~ilJ) the LORD, he will in tum forsake (.Y:JilJ) Israel. Fifthly,
this forsaking by the LORD of his people takes the form of leaving Israel prey to
other nations, again, a not unfamiliar theme, 210 and Israel will recognize in this an
absence of his presence-"God is not in our midst."
A feature of the text that deserves note is the operation of something like the lex
talionis. The LORD forsakes Israel, as a reaction to her forsaking of him; and as we
have noted already, this formula of requital recurs both within the Deuteronomistic
and the Chronicler's history. 211 And it is not the verb .Y:JilJ alone which is used in
such a formula of logical condemnation.
207
The linking together of covenant and God may be found in, for e.g., Exod. 19:5; Deut. 31 :20; 33 :9;
Judg. 2:20; Ps. 44:17; 78:37.
208
For e.g., Josh. 24:20; Judg. 2;12, 13; 10:6, 10, 13; 1 Sam. 8:8; 12:10; 1 Kgs 9:9; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:22;
22:17.
209
Ruppert (2003), 117-18, cf. 118-120.
210
Examples where Israel's misfortunes are linked with her forsaking (...f':ltlJ) of the LORD are: Deut.
28:20; 29:24 ff; Josh. 24:20; Judg. 2:12 ff; 10:6 ff; 1 Kgs 9:9; 2 Kgs 22:16ff.
211
The formula occurs in the Chronicler's history in several places. Rehoboam and Asa are
reprimanded by prophets in these terms: ."You aban~Ioned (...J:m)) me, so I have ab~ndoned (...f:m1) you
to the'h'and ~{Shl~h~k''-(2 ch:~n. I2:sr;'iify~~-ab~ndo~ (~;T~) hi~ [the LORD], he will abandon
(...fJTlJ) you" (2 Chron. 15:2). In 2 Chron. 24:20, Zechariah indicts the nation with, "Because you have
forsaken (...fJTlJ) the LORD, he has also forsaken (...fJTlJ) you."
106
In his book, The Hidden God, Balentine explores the usage of the expression "hiding
of the face" ('hno) as " element from a large stock of language which gives
expression to the hiddenness of God in the Old Testament." 212 From his study of
'hno and related verbs such as ...Jn~w (to forget) and ...Jo~~ (to reject), he finds that
in many of these texts in which God is the subject of the verb, the language and
phrasing is suggestive of the lex talionis. Balentine offers Hos. 4:6 is an example, the
object of the verbs (perhaps) being the priests:
... because you have rejected (...JO~~) knowledge,
I reject (...JO~~) you from being a priest to me.
And since you have forgotten (...Jn~W) the law of your God,
I will also forget (...Jn~W) your children. 213
Balentine points out that in Hos. 9: 17, there is a similar logic, this time clearly against
the nation: "Because they have not listened (...Jlmlli) to him, my God will reject them
(...JO~~)." Even though the verbs used are different, the principle of the retribution
fitting the offence holds; Israel's refusal to hearken is met with the LORD's
refusal/rejection of them. 214
Balentine concludes from his study that God's "hiding" of himself is neither arbitrary
not capricious; in OT contexts other than the Psalms, "God's hiding comes as a result
of collective unfaithfulness and thus effects an abandonment of the community as a
whole." 215 One way in which this abandonment by God is manifest is by reference to
the threat of death or destruction at the hands of their adversaries; e.g., Eze. 39:23-"I
hid my face from them and gave them into the hand of their adversaries, and they all
fell by the sword." 216
212
Balentine (1983), 115.
213
Another example is the LORD's rejection of Saul: "Because you have rejected ('JO~'C) the word of
the LORD, he has also rejected ("VO~'C) you from being king" (1 Sam. 15:23; cf. v.26).
214
Balentine (1983), 146.
215
Balentine ( 1983), 68.
. Similarly, when,Jsraek''forgets"~("J'r,t::Oll.i) the,LORD,~judgement strikes: e,g., Jer. J3:25; 18:15ff;
2 16
Eze. 22:12ff; 23:35. Again, her rejection (...JO~'C) of the LORD is an invitation to disaster: e.g., Lev.
26:15f; 2 Kgs 17: 15ff; Isa. 5:24; Amos 2:4.
107
Balentine's observations reiterate our comments on Deut. 31: 16-17, and this returns
us to the usage of the verb ...J':JilJ in 1 Kgs 19: 10. Before we discuss the implications of
..,J~ilJ in this text, we note that it has a prior occurrence in 1 Kgs 18:18. Here Elijah
responds to Ahab's accusation with, "I have not troubled Israel; but you have, and
your father's house, because you have forsaken (...J':JilJ) the commandments of the
LORD and followed the Baals." The associations are as in Deut. 31: 16-17. Ahab has
abandoned the commandments of the LORD (and hence, the LORD himself) in that
he has given himself to apostasy; in reciprocation, the text implies, the LORD has
abandoned Israel, as evidenced by the "trouble" that has befallen the land (cf. 1 Kgs
16:30-33; 17: 1) in the form of a prolonged drought.
The schema is the same in 1 Kgs 19:1 Off, only here, the subject of the verb is not an
individual, but Israel. Israel has abandoned the covenant, and therefore, the LORD.
There is ample evidence of this-they are tearing down the LORD's altars and killing
off his prophets. It would only be according to the pattern set out, by sermon
admonitions and in Israel's experience, that the LORD should respond by proposing
that he will, in turn, abandon his part in the covenant obligations. In order to grasp the
dynamics of such an abandoning, one refers to parallel episodes in Israel's history.
The cycles of apostasy-abandonment-oppression-supplication-deliverance in the book
of Judges serve well as demonstration. Judg. 2:11-23 is a summary introduction to the
rest of the book, namely, to the record of the events that immediately follow the death
of Joshua. Twice (vv.12 and 13) the verb .V':JilJ is used in conjunction with the laying
out of Israel's sin, namely, her following after the gods of the land. Vv.14-15
describes the LORD's reaction: he gave them over to their enemies, leaving them
defenceless and in great distress. This manner of the LORD's abandoning of Israel
follows the forewarning in Deut. 31: 16-21 to the letter.
Another comparable forewarning is in Lev. 26. The first section of this chapter lays
out the rewards for obedience; the second section describes the penalties for
disobedience. In the latter, the principle of divine retribution is made abundantly clear
by three repeated pairs of "if you walk contrary to me, I will walk contrary to you"
\ -· ~--- ---
(the noun '~11" is used is the keyword) in vv.23-24, 27-28 and 40-41. The LORD's
108
reaction becomes manifest in the land being laid waste; Israel, powerless before her
enemies, will be scattered among the nations. (This is best exemplified in the Exile.)
However, there is an element in Lev. 26 that must not be missed. In vv.44-45, the
LORD declares: "Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not
spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with
them; for I am the LORD their God; but I will remember in their favour the covenant
with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the
nations, to be their God: I am the LORD" (cf. Judg. 2: 1). This enduring and
indissoluble faithfulness of the LORD to his covenant (made and renewed at Horeb;
Exod. 20 and 34 respectively) is demonstrated in both the examples considered above,
namely, in the cycles in the period of the judges, and in the period of exile. Thus, it
may be significant that though Israel forsakes the covenant, the LORD rather speaks
of forsaking Israel (and as it happens, this is in chastisement, and therefore for a
period only), and not his covenant with her (e.g., Deut. 31:17). 217
The submission here is that in 1 Kgs 19, there is a similar abandoning by the LORD
of his covenant obligations to Israel. This is communicated non-verbally by the
"empty" theophany; the LORD is absent in the very theophanic elements that are
traditionally thought of as the vehicle of his presence. In this particular context, this
metaphor communicates with a power that the plainly spoken word could not have
achieved, for this is Horeb, the place of the making of the covenant. The elemental
phenomena of a sacred moment in sacred space are momentarily reassembled before
human eyes once more at Horeb; only, the place of the making of the covenant is
used, with extraordinary dramatic effect, to propose an abandoning thereof.
Besides drawing attention to the principle of divine retribution, there are three related
points we are trying to make here: first, the text under study is a non-verbal statement
that is graphic enough to make the message plain. Secondly, the LORD's abandoning
of the covenant obligations is for a period and for a purpose, as in the rest of Israel's
217
Cf. Eze. 16:59-60: "Yes, thus says the Lord GOD: I will deal with you as you have done, you who
have despised the oath, breaking the covenant; yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days
of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant."
109
history. Thirdly, and we will argue this at length in the next section, what is
communicated to Elijah is a proposal and not an irreversible decision.
Having studied the theophany in the context of the narrative in 1 Kgs 19, we must
recognize that the shape of the theophany straightaway invites reading this text within
a wider context, namely, the historic events at Horeb as related in Exod. 19-20 and
33-34. It is therefore necessary to see how these two texts direct the interpretation of
the LORD's absence in the elements of the theophany in 1 Kgs 19.
2.3.1 Exod. 19-20

In Ex. 19: 16-18, there is thunder, lightning and thick cloud, which put together
suggest a thunderstorm. This, along with the fire and the implied earthquake ("the
whole mountain shook violently") makes the parallel for the violent wind, earthquake
and fire of 1 Kgs 19. A detail to take note of is that while the theophanic elements in
themselves are cause for Israel's awe, there is an element that they fear can bring
death upon them. This is the holy being they understand as being present within the
natural elements. In Exod. 19:9 first speaks of this in the LORD's words to Moses: "I
am going to come to you in a dense cloud." Then, the act itself is described vividly,
with preciseness as to the location: "Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the
LORD had descended upon it in fire ... to the top of the mountain (19:18, 20). That the
LORD is, in some physical way, present on the mountaintop, is made abundantly
clear by the two successive insistent repeats of an earlier injunction (19: 12) not to
break through the boundaries demarcating sacred space, on pain of instant death
(19:21-22, 24).
That Israel recognizes and is overwhelmed by the actuality of the deity's presence is
seen in their refusal to have the audience continue any further: " ... do not let God
speak to us or we will die" (Exod. 20: 19). Thus, only the mediator, Moses, "drew near
to the thick darkness where God was" (20:21). As Terrien comments on this
theophany:
The covenant played a significant part in this event, but it was initiated by the prior
reality of presence. The covenant appears to be a ritual act of_mutua~ obligation which
iJ. .~ - _,;;, • •-A: -
------·--
is precisely intended to prolong in a modified form the most extraordinary, indeed a

unique, perception of the holy; the self-manifestation of the creator. .. The covenant
110
aims therefore at transcending the ravages of time, preventing the erosion of ancestral
memories, and bringing to life for the children yet unborn the fathers' 'ancient
218
rapture.'
This is the historic and sacred event that is recreated in 1 Kgs 19 in the telling of the
story of a later Israel. The arresting contrast is that, just as emphatically as the narrator
in Exodus shows the LORD to be present in the midst of the theophanic elements, the
narrator of Elijah's story shows the LORD to be absent in them. Thus, if the purpose
of the LORD's presence in the theophanic fire (Exod. 19-20) was the personal issuing
of the law and thus, the making of the covenant, then, the LORD's absence in the very
same theophanic phenomena, at the geographical milieu to which the traditions of
Israel forever ascribed the origin of their bond with the LORD, most likely signals the
converse, namely, a proposal to abandon covenant obligations.
One must test this reading against Exod. 33-34, the other text that this narrative
recalls.
2.3.2 Exod. 33-34

Other than the parallels at the verbal and story detail levels that have already been
listed, the most significant resonance is that of situation: the conversations, whether
between Moses and the LORD, or between Elijah and the LORD, are about an
idolatrous nation and their covenantal relationship with her God. Exod. 32-34
demonstrates that the covenant relationship can break down in the event of sin. Sin
violates the law, and the Giver ofthe law responds by withdrawing his presence. 219 To
restore the covenant relationship, the LORD must concede his presence to his people
in as full and rich a manner as before the sin. This will distinguish them, once more,
as being his people (Exod. 33: 16; 34:9). It is possible, then, to understand the absence
of the LORD in the theophany of 1 Kgs 19 as the proposal of a similar withdrawal,
disclosed symbolically. However, the difference to take note of is that in Exod. 32-34,
218
Terrien (1978), 121-2.
219
L.A. B. 9.17 has an interesting insertion in the description of Moses' immediate reaction to the sin of
the golden calf. "And he looked at the tablets and saw that the writing was gone, and he hurried to
break them." Cf. Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod. 32:19: Moses' anger blazed forth, and he threw the tables from his
hands and broke them ... but the sacred writing that was on them flew and floated in the air of the
heavens." While the purpose here is to attenuate the enormity of Moses' impulsive destruction of that
whicli h~ad been irtsctibed B:fGdd'himself~the-rradition is-relevant to our argument in llilit aBsence-of
the divine writing on the tablets is immediately understood by Moses as a rupture of the covenant. The
tablets are of no more importance than any other stone, and Moses, realizing this, breaks them in
frustration at Israel.
111
the violation of the covenant even in its moment of making elicits a response from the
LORD unparalleled in severity; the covenant ruptures, and must be ceremonially
renewed before the relationship between the LORD and his people is normalized.
Following this event, the covenant continues to hold even in the face of Israel's
repeated unfaithfulness, but as in the examples cited above, their abandoning of the
LORD is paid for by a reciprocal abandoning of their by the LORD.
To encapsulate, the element in Exod. 20 that is strikingly relevant to the 1 Kgs

theophany is the certitude of the divine presence in the physical phenomena at Horeb,
and this contrasts strongly with the LORD's absence in the theophany given to Elijah.
The element in Exod. 33-34 that is significant to 1 Kgs 19 is the absence of the
presence of the LORD in the event of Israel's unfaithfulness. 220 It appears that both
texts move the reading of the theophany in 1 Kgs in the direction we have proposed.
2.4 Conclusion
In the first part of the discussion we examined the text with a focus on grammar and
semantics. The phrase itp, it~~, "1p was studied with reference to Job 4:16. The
inference was that itp, it~~, "1p signifies a natural phenomenon in the same sense
as the other three elements of the theophany are "natural"; but as much as the latter
are (explicitly) empty of the presence of deity, the former (implicitly) contains it.
In order to make sense of these absence-presence events, we considered 1 Kgs.

19:11-12 as the LORD's response to the central issue in Elijah's statement in v.10,
namely, Israel's resolve to forsake the covenant. Tracing the usage of the verb -..f':J.TlJ, it
was noted that a principle of retribution (stated in language not unlike the lex talionis)
is frequently encountered in the event of Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant; the
LORD in tum abandons Israel, and this is manifest by his withdrawing of his
presence. Thus, the absence of the LORD could be read as his non-verbal
communication to the prophet of his proposal to deal with Israel in this not unfamiliar
°
22
Cf. Deut. 31: 16-17, which we have already examined, where Israel's forsaking of the LORD entails
circumstances in-which she will realize that "God'-is not in-our midst." Related-to this cause and-effect
sequence is 1 Kgs 6:13. Here, Solomon is promised that if he remains faithful to the LORD, "I [the
LORD] will dwell (...fl~lli) among the children of Israel, and will not forsake (...f~TlJ) my people Israel."
Thus, the LORD's forsaking is equated with his absence, and his not forsaking with his presence.
112
manner. He then grants Elijah his presence, and the dialogue continues; now, face to
face as it were.
3. 1 Kgs 19:13-18: Elijah Receives his Commission

3.11 Kgs 19:13: The Second Question
When Elijah heard, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance
of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him that said, "What concerns you here,
Elijah ?"221
LXX
Kal. E:yEvHo w<;; ~KouoEv H>..wu Kal. ETIEKai..UijfEv to np6ownov aurou E:v tiJ IJ.T]I..wtiJ E:autou
K«XL E~f]I..9EV K«XL EOtT] imo to OlT~MLOV K«XL toou npo<;; (XUtOV <t>wv~ K«XL El lTEV tL ou EVt«XU9«X
HI.. LOU
On hearing (it), Elijah covers his face with his mantle. Robinson, taking 1 Kgs
19: 11 b-12 to be prediction rather than narrative, deduces that Elijah performs this
action before he experiences the theophany, and actually, in preparation for it:
He [Elijah] is looking forward to a repeat of the Mosaic experience. He remembers
that Moses had to be covered by the divine hand lest he should see God and die; that
he was granted only a rear view of YHWH, namely the sound of the divine voice (Ex.
33:18-34:9); and that after the theophany Moses veiled his face before addressing
Aaron and others since it glowed and he was in danger of dazzling them (Ex.
34:30-35). So full is Elijah with a sense of his own importance, that he hastens to
cover himself up even before the theophany occurs and without waiting to be
commanded. 222
We have previously argued 1 Kgs 19:11b-12 serves simultaneously as both prediction

and narrative. Thus, what Elijah hears and responds to would be, not the LORD's
prediction ofthe events to come, but the last of those events, the :-tp1 :-1~~1 t,,p. On
hearing the :-tp1 :-1~~1 t,,p then, Elijah covers his face. How best may this action be
understood?
221
Drawn from NRSV.
222
Robinson (1991), 527-28.
113
Elijah's gesture of covering his face recalls human self-protective instinct in the face
of encounter with the divine. Cases in point are Manoah and his wife, Gideon and
Ezekiel. 223 The last mentioned is particularly relevant since the sequence matches that
in 1 Kgs 19.
Ezek. 1:28: 1:::11~ "1p li~W~1 "J::l "li "5:)~1 :-1~1~,
The prophet Ezekiel experiences visual phenomena, which he understands to be the
similitude of the glory of the LORD; he instinctively falls down on his face; then, he
hears a ",P speaking. Similarly, Elijah experiences an aural phenomenon; he
spontaneously responds by covering his face; then, a speaking ",P comes to him.
But here, the narrator may intend the detail to remind the reader of Moses hiding his
face at Horeb in Exod. 3. As the Being in the burning bush reveals himself to be the
God of Moses' forebears, Moses hides his face because he is afraid to look upon God
-C":-1"~;, "~ ~":::l:-1~ ~1" "~ 1"J5:l :-IW~ 1no.,, (Exod. 3:6b). Both Moses and
Elijah (and Ezekiel) act at the exact point of recognition of the divine presence. It is a
reflexive response of self-preservation.
There is also, perhaps, an echo of Exod. 33-34; the other detail of cave/cleft recalls it.
However, the difference is that in this Exodus incident, the LORD himself undertakes
to protect Moses at the moment of greatest proximity to the divine glory; he will put
Moses in a rocky cleft, and further, cover him with his "hand" (Exod. 33:21).
Apparently, nothing that Moses himself can provide for his protection will be
sufficient in the course of this intensely intimate encounter. If Elijah is indeed
expecting a meeting with the LORD of this order, he should remember, as Robinson
rightly points out, "Moses had to be covered by the divine hand lest he should see
God and die." It is probable then, that even in the event that he is taken over by a
sense of self-importance, it is likely that the stronger, innate instinct for
self-preservation should prevail.
223
On recognizing the messenger to be divine, Manoah and his wife "fell on their faces to th_e ground"
(Judg;-l-3:20);Gideoh; ifnisimihirsiitlation~extltesses-feat thathe has seehtfie angel of tile LORI> face
to face and must be reassured that he will not die (Judg. 6:22-23). So also, Daniel sinks to the ground
face down at the vision of the heavenly messenger, and later averts his face as the messenger speaks,
apparently fearing for his safety (Dan. 10: 9, 15-19).
114
Considering that this narrative does not restrict itself to parallels from one single
Mosaic incident but rather creates a Mosaic environment recalling the entire range of
Mosaic tradition, 224 the inclusion of the detail of Elijah's covering of his face most
evokes Moses' similar gesture at his first encounter with deity, at the burning bush.
That Elijah goes to the mouth of the cave is sometimes interpreted as disobedience to
the command in 19:11 that he should "stand on the mountain." Robinson comments:
"Though YHWH calls upon him to 'Stand on the mountain before YHWH' (19: 11 ),
he stands only at the entrance to the cave, fearing perhaps for his safety if he goes any
further." 225 Similarly, Walsh. He proposes that both the divine questions imply
disobedience. He suggests that in 19:9, God asked Elijah what he was doing "here,"
meaning, here at Horeb as against there in Israel. The second question continues its
emphasis on location, but now God asks what Elijah is doing "here" in the cave when
he should be standing there on the mountain?26
There could be another way to read ;"'11!3~:-t nm;, 1~!1"1 ~~"1. Elijah discerns the
exact moment when the LORD is about to pass by; the :-tp1 ;,~~1 '?1p is the
indicator (as in Job 4:15-16). Elijah's responses are described in a sequence of verbs.
He hears, he wraps his face, he goes out and he stands. Standing, as he does, at the
mouth of the cave, he could well be said to be standing on the mountain, and we have
noted that this description of his location could be the narrator's device to position
him simultaneously on the mountain and in the cleft, as Moses was in Exod. 33:21,
34:2.
Robinson comments further on the verb used, --J1~!1.

When told to stand before YHWH on the mountain (19: II), he stays where he is, at
the mouth of the cave. This despite the fact that he has twice proudly described his
mission precisely as standing before YHWH (17: I; 18: 15)! 227 ••• Elijah will not
224
The earthquake, wind and fire belong to Exod. 19-20, while the cleft/cave comes from Exod. 33-34,
and the appellation "HO:teb; the m:ouhtain of God" is unique to Exod. 3.
225
Robinson (1991), 521.
226
Walsh (1996), 276-77.
227
Robinson (1991), 529.
115
venture away from the cave, which is an apt symbol for, perhaps, the womb in which
he wants to retreat; or at least for the safe condition of a closet-prophet. 228
We recall here the "command and compliance" pattern frequent in the Elijah narrative
thus far, where the LORD's commands and Elijah's compliance of them are recounted
in almost identical words: e.g., the verbs --Jc,p and "V'1t,;, (1 Kgs 17:9, 10); "V'1t,;,
and ~i1~i (18:1, 2). Here, in chapter 19, in the sequence of verbs that describe
Elijah's response to the :-tpi :-t~~i t,,p, the last two verbs are identical to those in
the command of 19: 11---v'~~, and "V'i~lJ. As in the earlier cases, this could well flag
scrupulous obedience. Particularly in the event that there is no divine rebuke of his
behaviour, let us conclude that the case for disobedience re this specific command is
not particularly strong. We will address the larger question of Elijah's obedience as a
prophet at a later point.
3.1.3 ,;,,t,~ :-t::l 1t, :-t~ with reference to Jotham's Fable, Israel's Demand for a
King and the "Death" of Joseph

This brings us the second asking of the question, ,;,,t,~ :-t::l 1" :-t~. Commentators
generally agree that the second question, since it is identical to the first, conveys an
identical message, namely, that of reproof. It is also suggested that this repetition
could be a case of the widely used ancient Semitic narrative device for emphasis; 229
thus, the repetition highlights the reprimand. In any case, the consensus is that it is a
second chance for Elijah to come up with a different, and presumably, more
acceptable answer-one sufficiently and suitably instructed by his experience of the
theophan y. 230
At this point, it may be helpful to look briefly at three texts that use the literary device
of repeated speech.
228
ltobinson (1991 ), 534.
229
E.g., Wiseman (1993), 173.
230
E.g., Robinson (1991), 522; Hauser and Gregory (1990), 134; Provan (1995), 146; Walsh (1996),
277; Simon (1997), 214; Nelson (1987), 125.
116
Jotham's Fable: Judg. 9:16-20

As rejoinder to the murder of his brothers by Abimelech, Jotham addresses the
Shechemites. He tells a fable and appends an application. Ignoring the debate on how
exactly the application ties in (or does not tie in) with the fable, we focus on the
literary device employed in vv.l6-20, namely, that of repetition.
The application takes the form of a curse. Rhetorically, the curse is conditional, and
the conditional clauses describe two possible situations: one concerns the crowning of
Abimelech as king, and the other concerns Gideon and his house. With respect to the
first situation, the issue is whether the Shechemites have acted in truth and integrity in
crowning Abimelech as king. With respect to the second situation, the issue is
whether the Shechemites have recompensed good to Gideon and his house, as his
deeds deserved.
v.l6: cn~IDlJ
',' ' -:
c~~n::l,
' T :
n~~:l-c~
'." ',"! '.' '
:-Tr.llJ1
T - ;
l~t?~ ~trn~ ,::l~"7?m

in~:l-clJ, ',11:1,~-clJ cn~IDlJ :-T::li~-c~,
- - ••• : • ·: , -: T •
By collating phrases from each, these two situations are condensed into a single
conditional clause (without pausal indication) in v.19, where the speech resumes after
a parenthesis.
v.l9: m;, c;~;, in~:l-ClJ1 ',11:1,~-clJ cn~IDlJ c~~n:::11 n~~:l-c~,
- •• • : - - '•, : • ·: • -: • T : ·: •:; '.' • :
:c~~ ~,;,-c~ n~ip:1 l'?.t?~~~Hl 1n7?~

The content of the parenthetical aside colours the resumption of the interrupted
construction (in v.19a). Jotham summarizes Gideon's deeds on behalf of Shechem:
"my father fought for you, and exposed his life to great risk, and rescued you from the
hand of Midian" (v.l7). He then describes how Shechem has rewarded Gideon.
(1) "You have risen up against my father's house this day, and have killed his sons,
seventy men on one stone" (v.l8). Jotham lays the death of his brothers at Shechem's
door, for they had with full cognizance furnished Abimelech the means by which to
eliminate· his· brothers (Judg. 9:3:..5, 24), namely, severity piec·es Of silver from the
temple treasury, with which he hired assassins. Thus they certainly shared the guilt in
117
a crime from which both they and Abimelech jointly profited (Judg. 9:3). (2) "[You]
have made Abimelech, the son of his slave woman, king over the lords of Shechem,
because he is your kinsman" (v.18). Shechem had chosen a bastard over Gideon's
legitimate sons, and that for an unworthy reason, namely, because he was one of them
(Judg. 9: 1-3).
The parenthesis makes clear that both conditions in the protasis of v .16 have not been
met. First, "truth and integrity" have been markedly absent in the choice of Abimelech
for king; secondly, Shechem's dealings with Gideon and his house have in no way
been what "his actions deserved"; as much as he had done them good, they had
returned him evil. When Jotham resumes after this parenthetic review, he restates the
conditional clause with phrasing borrowed from before the parenthesis. The words
now have a totally different implication. They lose their previous neutral character,
and now become loaded with irony and sarcasm. Because the crime has already been
committed, the curse is now seen as being not so much conditional as a
pronouncement of irrevocable and deserved judgement. Thus, the chapter goes on to
relate the falling out between Abimelech and Shechem, and concludes the tale on a
note of retribution: "on them came the curse of Jotham son of Jerubbaal" (Judg. 9:57).
The point is that what is interpolated between the two statements of the protasis in
vv .16 and 19a defines the way the second statement of the protasis is read, as also the
apodosis in v .19b: " ... then rejoice in Abimelech and let him also rejoice in you." The
parenthetical review makes such an event remote; rather, it is the ruin of both parties
that is being pronounced as imminent.
The Demand for a King: 1 Sam. 8:7-9

Another text in which an interpolation serves to nuance repetition is 1 Sam. 8:7-9.
Samuel has grown old and appoints two sons as judges. The move is a failure. The
elders of Israel seek audience with Samuel and present a case for the appointment of a
king. Samuel is displeased and takes the matter to the LORD. He may not have
wholly expected the response: TSN 11~N, 1WN ',~', ClJil S1p::1 lJ~W (1 Sam.
8:7a). In v.9a the injunction is repeated in condensed form: cS1p::1 lJ~W ilnlJt
Between the two is a parenthesis,expressing significant reservations on two counts.
118
( 1) The problem of monarchy is not political but theological in that Israel has rejected
the LORD from being king over them (v.7b). Samuel is to understand the request for
a king in terms of the far more fundamental relationship between the LORD and Israel
rather than in terms of his and his sons' inadequacies, even though the elders have
ni.ade this the immediate occasion of their demand for a king. The pronouns are made
emphatic by their position: 10K~ ~nK ~:l 10K~ 1nK K', (v.7b). Thus, Samuel is
urged to see this opposition as a part of the whole, namely, the far more serious
rejection of the LORD himself.
(2) This rejection is nothing new, but one more step in the continuum of rebellion,
begun at the time of the exodus itself. One implication that may be read into this is
that if the LORD has tolerated Israel's contrariness over all this period, it is reason
enough for Samuel to exercise patience, and allow Israel the freedom to choose to
rebel.
Thus, when Samuel is instructed for the second time to listen to and comply with
Israel, his perceived role in the affair is changed. He is no longer the aggrieved party,
but rather, spokesman and witness for a greater aggrieved party: "Now then, listen to
their voice; only-you shall solemnly warn them" (v.9). The content of the
interpolation puts a significantly new implication on the repeated directive.
The two texts commented on above are different from the case of repetition in 1 Kgs
19 in two ways. First, the repetition occurs within the course of a single speech.
Secondly, the parenthesis or interpolation is verbal, and part of the speech. In 1 Kgs
19, the repetition occurs as part of dialogue. Further, between the two sets of repeated
dialogue, the "interpolation" is a linear progression of narrative itself. The narrative
flow does not freeze between the repetitions, as it does in the case of Jotham and
Samuel. An instance where the repetition is not part of the same speech and where the
narrative progresses between the repetitions is in the Dothan incident in the Joseph
cycle. Only, this case differs from 1 Kgs 19 in that two different speakers articulate
the verbally identical construction.
119
The "Death" of Joseph: Gen. 37:19-34

At Dothan, Joseph's brothers spy him afar off, and decide to kill him. They will say
(to whomsoever it concerns), ,;,n',~~ :'Tli, :-t,n (v.20). In v.33, the phrase occurs
with verbatim repetition: ,;,n',~~ :'Tli1 :-t,n. But here, it is not the collective voice of
a group conspiring cold-blooded fratricide. The story has moved on. Joseph, even if
he has not been murdered, has been removed permanently from the scene, or so the
brothers think. The robe is now cunningly employed to lead the aged Jacob to arrive
at his own inference. The words, which the brothers had planned to use to deceive
their father, are deviously drawn out from Jacob himself, and therein lies the
effectiveness of the repetition. The sentences, though wholly equivalent verbally, have
totally different status, both because of the speakers and because of their locus along
the linear axis of the unfolding narrative. The first time, the words are an angry
mutter, part of an as yet unformulated conspiracy. The second time, they are a
grief-stricken cry of certainty and finality. The altered context alters the sense and
function of the words.
The relevance of these three examples to 1 Kgs 19 is that they demonstrate the
effectiveness of a certain literary device common to Biblical narrative, namely,
repetition. Here, Alter comments that in Biblical prose "word-for-word restatement
rather than inventive synonymity [is] the norm for repetition; ... the ideal reader
(originally, listener) is expected to attend closely to the constantly emerging
differences in a medium that seems predicated on constant recurrence." 231 Each text
that employs this dialectic of similarity and difference, Fokkelman points out,
ingeniously mixes the two in its own distinctive ratio. 232
In summary, these three examples establish that at least in direct speech in a given
narrative, total equivalence between identical constructions would generally not be the
narrator's intention; nor is it realizable, considering the movement along the
narrative's axis. Thus we set aside the reading that the second ,;,,',~ :'TD l', :1~ is
identical to the first in sense and function, and thus a repeated reprimand; instead, we
231
Alter (1981), 97.
232
Fokkelman (1999), 122-23.
120
examine what nuances of difference there may be in the second asking of this
question.
In our study of the previous section of the text, we considered that the LORD's
question 1:-t,'?~ :-t~ 1'? :-t~ (v.9) is not uncommon, and where used it functions as a
conversation opener; in several cases it is the formal preamble to a royal audience.

Elijah's response (v.10) has as its central issue Israel's resolve to forsake the
covenant. We proposed that the theophany (vv .11-12) is the LORD's rejoinder.
Examining the usage of the verb ~~TlJ, it was noted that a principle of retribution
(stated in language not unlike the lex talionis) is frequently encountered in the event
of Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant where the LORD in tum abandons Israel,
this being made manifest by the withdrawing of his presence. Thus, the absence of
the LORD in the theophanic elements could be read as his non-verbal communication
to the prophet of his proposal to deal with Israel in this not unfamiliar manner.
At the end of this intentionally symbolic "empty" theophany, the LORD grants Elijah
his presence (signalled by the :-tp1 :1~~1 '?1p), which the prophet recognizes; the
dialogue now returns to the verbal mode, and is, as it were, face to face. The LORD
asks again, 1:-t,'?~ :-t~ 1'? :-t~. Logically, the sense of the question may best be
arrived at by probing the question's relationship to the non-verbal communication that
has passed between the LORD and Elijah in the interval between the last dialogue and
the current one. In the interval, the LORD has proposed punitive action in retribution
against Israel. One expects that now the prophet (on the assumption that he has
understood the symbolic communication) will intercede (cf. Amos 7: 1-6). The
prophet does not; or perhaps, before the prophet does, the LORD speaks. Before
going further, let us make a short reference to the Mosaic environment in which this
narrative is set. The parallel situation that is evoked is Exod. 32-34. Here also the
theme is God's punitive action against Israel, which is worked out in the course of
dialogue between God and his prophet. Thus it would be profitable to see if this text
would help our understanding of 1 Kgs 19: 13b.
-- - ' ' _,.,
The LORD's immediate reaction to Israel's idolatry is violent. He would annihilate

them. The curious imperative that prefaces the declaration of his intention has
121
provoked more comment than the declaration itself: "'" i1n"'Ji1 i11"1l1, (Exod. 32: 10)
-"let me be"/"let me alone," or less literally, "do not interfere with me."
Widmer, treating this phrase at length, arrives at three possible ways to read it. (1) It is
a test to see if Moses would give up Israel in order to make way for his own exaltation
to the position of patriarch. (2) It is the announcement of a determination; the LORD
has fully made up his mind and will brook no interference by way of intercession. (3)
It is an implicit invitation for Moses to intercede on behalf of endangered Israel. 233
Position (1) is not plausible if we are to take seriously Moses' standing as the
archetypal prophetic intercessor (cf. Jer. 15: 1). It empties the dialogue of its two main
thrusts-the awful gravity of the threat and the efficacy of genuine intercession. The
Deuteronomy account (9: 18, 19) mentions forty days, an extended period of pleading
before the LORD relents. To argue that this is a test is surely to miss the point of the
amazing struggle between man and God, and within the mind of God (cf. Hos. 11:8,
9). Besides, Moses' intercession here merely averts the immediate danger of
annihilation; he has to follow up with three more separate pleas in as many meetings
(Exod. 32:31-34; 33: 12-23; 34:6-9) before the covenant can be renewed. Thus, if the
first case of intercession is not seen as a genuine act of intervention, the others cannot
automatically be assumed to be so.
Widmer quite rightly argues that position (2) is unlikely as well; by asking Moses to
leave him alone, Moses is implicitly given the option not to leave him. It becomes an
"invitation by prohibition," analogous to the confrontational language of prophecy
which by its very provocative nature seeks to elicit a response that will counter the
coming to pass of the prophecy. 234 As Fretheim observes, God seems to anticipate that
Moses would resist what is being said, and that he has absolute freedom so to do.
Thus, at this point the decision has not yet reached an "irretrievable point" and
"Moses could [as God seems to see it] conceivably contribute something to the divine
deliberation that might occasion a future for Israel other than wrath.'ms This moves us
in the direction of position (3); the imperative intimates and anticipates intercession in
233
Widmer (2004), 98-100.
234
Widmer (2004), 101-02.
235
Fretheim (1991 ), 283-84.
122
that it plants a possibility in Moses' mind that such mediation is allowed and can be
effective; 236 at very least, "leave me alone" is an acknowledgement that the prophet
may not leave God alone.
Another valuable approach to gaining appreciation of the phrase "leave me alone" is

to survey the usage of v'rm. Gowan comments on the four other instances of v'n1J in
the hiphil imperative where the sense of the verb is "to let alone"/"refrain from
interfering with"/"permit." 237 The blind Samson requests his guard to permit or leave
him alone to feel the pillars supporting the house (Judg. 16:26); David prefers that his
men let Shimei alone to continue cursing Q.im (2 Sam. 16:11 ); Josiah orders that the
bones of the prophet buried at Bethel be let alone and not moved (2 Kgs 23: 18); God
would let Ephraim alone to be joined to idols (Hos. 4: 16-17). "In each case," Gowan
points out, "someone who has the power to do something to another is asked to
refrain." In the fifth and only instance (i.e., Exod. 32: 10), "God is the one affected, as
he asks of a human being, 'Let me alone, that ... '. Who would dare write such a
thing?" 238 The startling implication is that God has bound his resolve to his prophet's
consent, making himself, in some way, subject to the will of his prophet.
This "vulnerability" of God is displayed once more in Exod. 33:5. He struggles within
himself to "decide what to do" with Israel, and resolves the dilemma in the course of
dialogue with his prophet. Gowan makes a discerning comment on the two
interactions in Exod. 32:10 and 33:5 re the idea of "persuading" God:
God does not stand aloof, making royal decisions without getting involved with the
people concerned. God listens to Moses, and Moses' commitment to these people
makes a difference. I do not read passages such as these as evidence [that] humans
have to persuade, somehow, a reluctant God to do what is right. The picture of God
presented to us throughout the Old Testament is that of a God who has chosen to
work with, rather than just upon human beings, so that humans (in this case Moses)
are given the chance, if they will accept the responsibility, to contribute to a future
that will be different from what it would have been, had they remained passive. 239
236
So, e.g., Sarna (1991), 205; Janzen (2000), 231; Childs (1974), 567.
237
See BDB, M,), 629.
238
Gowan (1994), 223.
239
Gowan (1994), 231-2. Thus, this imperative is often read as God's invitation to prophetic
intercession. E.g., Childs (1974), 567; cf. Moberly (1983), 50.
123
With that we return to 1 Kgs 19, to determine the import of the second asking of the
question 1iT~t,~ iTEl 1'? iT~. Considering that one has no access to the tone of the
question, one must use mainly the context, and secondarily consult parallel texts if
any, for the best possible reading of it.
Within the context, there are two alternatives. (1) The question is rhetorical, the
implied answer being that there is nothing that concerns Elijah further at Horeb, and
therefore he may now leave; it implicitly terminates the on-going conversation. (2)
The question is genuine and thus, an invitation to dialogue further; Elijah is given an
opportunity to express himself in the light of the event that has just concluded,
namely, the theophanic display.
Alternative (1) is less probable, considering that the question (as remarked on re other
texts) is usually understood as a formal granting of audience, and here in v.l3b would
be a cue for Elijah to speak. Indeed Elijah seems to react to it as such, since he
promptly responds, just as was the case in 1 Kgs 19:9-10. Thus, the likelihood is that
this is a genuine question, as was its predecessor, and anticipates a response.
If, as we have argued, the context of the question is that the LORD has only just
communicated his intention to punitively and retributively abandon Israel, then it
would not be unreasonable to propose that God is in dialogue with his prophet,
comparable to Exod. 32-34. In formally asking if there is anything else that concerns
Elijah here at Horeb, the implication could be that if Elijah has nothing more to say,
the LORD will get on with implementing his proposal. Just as much as the "Now, let
me alone" of Exod. 32: 10, 1iT~'?~ iTD 1'? iT~ may be read as an invitation to the
prophet to dialogue. Even more so perhaps, since the invitation is more explicit, being
phrased as a formulaic conversation-opener rather than as a prohibition. The inference
then, is that the decision, as in Exod. 32: 10, has not reached a point of irreversibility;
rather, it remains tentative till the prophet has been given opportunity to contribute to
the future of the people whom he both represents to God and represents God to. 240
240
In Amos 7: 1-6, the prophet is confronted with two pictures of devastating judgment on Israel. In
each case, the prophet pleads that God desist, arguing, "How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" God
124
We have not yet resolved the issue of why the narrator should choose to use repetition
at this point in the narrative. Perhaps this is better investigated once the rest of the
repeated dialogue has been studied, namely, Elijah's response.
3.21 Kgs 19:14: The Second Response

As noted earlier, the scholarly consensus is that the LORD's repeated question is
Elijah's chance to redeem himself with a worthier response. The expectation is that he
must repent of his self-righteous stance, intercede for Israel rather than condemn her
and desist from misrepresenting himself as the last man standing. That he repeats
himself word for word is indication of his inflexible resistance to divine instruction
and grace. 241 As Robinson (reading 1 Kgs 19:11, 12 as prediction) puts it:
Excited ... by the Mosaic role in which he believes YHWH is to cast him, Elijah at
once wraps his face in his mantle, and strains to hear the divine whisper. .. As
promised, the qol is then heard. But what a blow for Elijah: the qol turns out to be the
voice of YHWH simply asking Elijah for a second time what he is doing there, as if
to say his work lies elsewhere. Elijah, though, is too self-preoccupied to fall in with
YHWH' s requirements. He has undergone no change of heart. He is in fact rather
annoyed with YHWH for playing this trick of (sic) him. If YHWH can simply repeat
himself in this way, so can he. So he re-iterates his whining self-justification. Cannot
YHWH see that in justice he is obliged to provide him dramatic, miraculous
protection, as he did of old to Moses? He is the last prophet left, and (he implies)
self-interest should therefore ensure that God take special steps to preserve him?42
The assumption that buttresses the reading here is that the LORD's second question is
totally equivalent in sense and function to the first. This is certainly a possibility,
especially if the reason for the equivalence is didactic in nature, and the LORD
repeats his question so as to elicit a "correct" answer from his prophet-student.
However, there are a few points to mull over before we can accept this condition of
equivalence.
First, if this usage of 1';1 n~ is, as we have shown, a formulaic and idiomatic one, and
not a rebuke in terms of where Elijah is re location, then, there can be no "correct"
responds to each plea with relenting. This reiterates the dynamic of God's decision-making process re
Israel as evidenced in Exod. 32-34 arid argues the case for a similar dynamic in 1 Kgs '19. .
241
E.g., Robinson (1991), 522; Hauser and Gregory (1990), 134; Provan (1995), 146; Walsh (1996),
277; Simon (1997), 214; Nelson (1987), 125.
242
Robinson (1991), 534-35.
125
answer, for Elijah is only being prompted to speak what is on his mind; the rl£1 added
to the usual formula would indicate that Elijah is welcome to unburden himself of that
which has brought him particularly to Horeb, so out of his way. In this event, a second
asking in order to educe a correction would seem unlikely.
Secondly, in the samples of repetitions in direct speech within narratives that we have
considered, total equivalence of sense and function is seen not to be the norm. The
repeated line becomes the locus of an emergent nuance that carries the reader forward
into the story by way of anticipation. When the reader hears Jotham's conditional
clause for the second time, he hears with a more discerning ear than when he heard it
first. He has been reminded of the fact that Shechem has not demonstrated integrity in
its dealings with Gideon and his house; he now hears the condition as an inexorable
curse whose playing out, he anticipates, will constitute the remainder of the story of
Abimelech and Shechem. Similarly, the LORD's speech to Samuel directs the
reader's expectations on the route the narrative will take. Having been informed in an
aside that Israel's demand for a king is but another marker in her history of rebellion,
the reader expects to learn that Israel will pay the price for her choice. In the case of
the Joseph story, the repeated line closes a cycle of deception as it moves from the
mouths of the deceivers to the deceived. In doing so, the repetition emphasises the
fact that the deception is just that-a deception, and reminds the reader that with
Joseph still being alive, the story must certainly move towards some dramatic
denouement, in which the deceivers will be unmasked and the deceived receive relief.
Thus, it appears that repeated direct speech within narratives is normally

incremental. 243 The argument for total equivalence that Robinson and others see in 1
Kgs 19: 13b remains a possibility, but we note that it would not correspond to the
normal use of the literary device of repetition.
Thirdly, if, as Robinson proposes, Elijah whiningly repeats himself, using repetition
just so as to get back at God, what may we expect by way of divine rejoinder to such
non-cooperation? A survey shows two kinds of divine response-reassurance 244 and
243
A far more common category is repetition with verbal increment, where the increment serves as a
node for nuance. See Alter (1981), 88-113; Fokkelman (1999), 113-22.
244
Miller (1994), 141-77.
126
rebuke. Gideon is a case for the first category (Judg. 6:14-16). God's "I hereby
commission you" only frightens Gideon into an objection: "But sir, how can I deliver
Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family." The
LORD's response perfectly addresses the twin concerns of deficiency in the clan and
in the individual. "But I will be with you" (the insufficiency of the clan is replaced
with the implicit but unquestionable sufficiency of God) "and you shall strike down
the Midianites, every one of them" (the prophetic assurance is that Gideon will rout
the enemy, whether Gideon be least in his family or not).
A comparable case is that of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5-9). His objection to his commission to
be "a prophet to the nations" is "Ah, Lord GOD! Truly I do not know how to speak,
for I am only a boy." The answer explicitly deals with both of Jeremiah's concerns,
namely, his youth, and his lack of eloquence. "Do not say, 'I am only a boy'," the
LORD responds, going on to assure him that his accompanying presence will make
him equal to the task. Next, the LORD touches the deficient organ, symbolically
putting his own words into Jeremiah's mouth. 245
The LORD's other usual response to non-cooperation from his representative IS
rebuke, often strongly worded. When Moses replies, "0 My Lord, please send
someone else" (if that is the right reading of the Hebrew), the narrator makes clear
that "the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses." Thus the reader is left in no
doubt about the sharpness of tone in the alternate arrangement the LORD devises for
Moses' public speeches (Exod. 4: 13ft).
Jeremiah (Jer. 12: 1-6) similarly comes under rebuke. He observes that the guilty
thrive and flourish, and turns his deep discontent into a charge against God, indicting
him of nurturing them; for how could they prosper but for divine sponsorship? He is
promptly rewarded with a cutting comment on his lack of stamina of spirit: "If you
have raced with foot-runners and they have wearied you, how will you compete with
horses?" Similarly severe is the divine response to the complaint in which Jeremiah
says he cannot understand why, in spite of his faithfulness to his commission as
245
Isaiah could be cited as yet another example (lsa. 6:5-7). Even though his dismay at his unclean lips
is not a balking or reluctance re his prophetic duty, the point of relevance is that the LORD specifically
addresses his problem before commissioning him.
127
prophet, he must suffer affliction that seems to have no end (Jer. 15: 10-21). The
LORD declares that Jeremiah may serve as his mouth only on condition that he will
"utter what is precious and not what is worthless."
One sees, then, that the LORD does not gladly suffer a noncompliant prophet. He
makes his displeasure known. On the other hand, when the situation warrants it, he
does not hesitate to reassure and encourage. Such unequivocal feedback, either by
way of reassurance or by rebuke is absent in 1 Kgs 19. Elijah's doubly refractory
attitude, if such it is, is met with a directive to appoint two heads of state and a
prophet. How is the reader to understand this-as an implicit rebuke (in that Elijah is
to be replaced by Elisha) or as an implicit show of confidence (in that Elijah is
entrusted with a commission of clearly enormous import)? We shall return to this
issue in the following section. For the interim, we observe that unambiguous divine
reaction, such as may be seen in several other instances, is missing in Elijah's case.
This weakens the position that Elijah's reply in 1 Kgs 19:14 may be clearly
understood to be a case of non-cooperation, and censured as such.
Is there another way to read Elijah's repeated answer? Since we have not completely
ruled out the plausibility of Robinson's reading, any alternate proposal must be
heuristic.
We have proposed that the second divine question be read as Elijah's cue to express
his opinion, if so he desires, on the proposal made non-verbally that the LORD wishes
to punish Israel by abandoning her. This cue, being phrased as a formulaic question
that has already been used once in this conversation, is neutral in that it does not
presuppose a particular answer. Broadly, Elijah has two choices-he may speak, or he
may remain silent, implying that he reserves comment on the proposal just intimated
to him. If however, he chooses to speak, one expects that what he says must have
some bearing on the proposal.
However, there is no trace of this in Elijah's answer. It is as if the theophany-proposal

never h(lP,p~ned. As the COI1Sen~l1S. of scholarly opiniqn construes it, Elijah
deliberately ignores what has passed between the LORD and him since the last round
of question and answer, and returns the same answer as further back in the
128
conversation. The consensus sees in this Elijah's failure to appreciate and respond to
what has just been presented him by way of theophany. But what if Elijah, having
understood well enough the intent of the theophany, chooses not to respond, to
deliberately ignore it? It would then mean that his ignoring of it is an expression of
his refusal to consider the theophany-proposal. Instead, he repeats verbatim a remark
from earlier in the conversation, and as consensus observes, this returns the
conversation, and the story, to that earlier point on the linear axis of the narrative.
From this point the narrative must move forward again, but taking a new path.
In short, the proposal is that Elijah's answer is an expression of non-concurrence.

While he could have phrased this as explicit disagreement, he chooses to do it
differently, and his choice is not illogical. Perhaps it is the LORD's repeated usage of
the formula that decides the manner of the expression of his disagreement. He repeats
his previous answer by design, so as to attain a desired end, namely, to return the
conversation to a point prior to the proposal, in the process entirely sidestepping the
246
proposal itself.
Thus, certainly, as Robinson reads him, Elijah is being adamant and obstinate, but not,
as Robinson proposes, in a negative sense. To best illustrate the dynamic between
prophet and God in operation here, one must return to Exod. 32-34 to examine what
Coats calls "the polar tension between intercession and revolution." 247 Moses, he
claims, "behaves in a manner that is not always obviously distinct from the
revolutionary action of the people." 248 He negotiates without himself conceding an
inch, asks uncomfortable questions, impudently reminds the LORD that he must keep
his promises, requests the LORD to take his life, and identifies with the people whom
he himself has punished as rebels.
Yet, the tradition carries no condemnation of Moses for such audacious behaviour.
On the contrary, Moses' revolutionary innovations before God, his refusals to take
the directive as it stood, are understood consistently as obedience and faithful loyalty
[emphasis added] ... The ambiguity in Exodus 32-34 suggests that the line between
246
This is common enough in everyday conversation. One expresses one's reluctance to be drawn into
comment by ignoring the invitation and either' abruptly changing to a fresh topic or by returning to an
earlier one.
247
Coats (1977), 98.
248
Coats (1977), 105.
129
obedience and revolution can never be rigidly drawn. To do so reduces obedience to

mechanical legalism. To the contrary, each new generation faces the necessity for
determining where the line might be, and what loyalty to the right-or the left-side
of the line should look like?49
If Elijah's intention at Horeb is to model Moses, his seemingly refractory behaviour is
not unexpected. In this "revolutionary innovation before God" he, in his generation, is
attempting to define and demonstrate loyalty to his God, his people and his calling. As
Moses before him, he does not hesitate to use unconventional forms of intercession
that appear more to be insubordination than intervention. By ignoring the LORD's
tentative proposal, he forces him to take an alternative route in dealing with his
rebellious people.
This alternative to Robinson's reading of the second exchange between the LORD
and Elijah remains provisional till the LORD's response in 1 Kgs 19:15-18 is
examined to see if it may convincingly be read as the LORD's alternative dealing
with Israel. Meanwhile, we sum up this section with comment on the effect of the
employment of the literary device of repetition in this narrative.
First, repetition, when used skillfully, is a dramatic way to make a point. This is true
of the other narrative sections examined. In Jotham's speech, the repeated conditional
clause immediately highlights the fact that the Shechemites have not demonstrated
integrity in their dealings; in the LORD's directive to Samuel, the imperative to listen
to the people dramatizes the danger to Israel that this acceding to their demand will
entail. In 1 Kgs 19, the repetition strikes the point home that here dialogue has
reached an impasse; there is a stalemate here that seeks a resolution.
Secondly, as we have already shown, repetition is a literary device that carries the
reader back and forth along the axis of the narrative. As we have seen to be true of the
Jotham, Samuel and Joseph narratives, it not only compels him to revisit a prior event
but also to anticipate the future. At Horeb, the repeated exchange of words becomes
the means by which to cause a backflow of the narration in progress. In so doing it
stirs up reader anticipation in the direction of the LORD's dealings with rebellious
249
Coats ( 1977), 105-6.
130
Israel-if Elijah can prevail on him not to forsake Israel, how else will he deal with
her sin?
Thirdly, the "dialectics of similarity and difference" 250 that must come into play in the
repeat of a string of words in direct speech in a narrative is exploited to define the
roles of the speakers. In the Joseph narrative, the words remain the same, but the
speakers change; this brings out the complementarity between them-one speaker
misleads and the other is misled. In 1 Kgs 19, a similar harmonious balance of roles
emerges via the repeated dialogue. In the first round, God is the one being consulted,
since the implication of Elijah's pilgrimage to Horeb is that he desires audience with
God. Indeed, God meets with him, and opens the consultation with an invitation for
Elijah to speak his mind. This suggests that the LORD will hear Elijah out, and
arbitrate on issues as necessary, just as one would expect of a king holding court. The
second time round, however, there is a slide towards almost complete role reversal.
The LORD is the one consulting; and, it appears, the prophet is now in the role of
arbitrator. This subtly reiterates the dynamic of the relationship between God and
prophet, and places this interchange in the continuum where belong the conversations
of God with Abraham, Moses, Samuel and Jeremiah.
With this, we move on to the last exchange at Horeb, to see how that will influence
the direction of our reading of this episode at Horeb.
3.3 1 Kgs 19:15-18: The Commission

15 And the LORD said to him, "Go return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; when
you arrive you shall anoint Hazael as king over Aram.
16 Also you shall anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha
son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place.
17 Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the
sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill.
18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and
every mouth that has not kissed him.
25
°Fokkelman (1999), 116, 121.
131
LXX
15 Kat ELTIEV KUplO~ Tipo~ auc6v TIOpEUOU &v&acpE~E EL~ c~V ObOV aou Kat ~~El~ EL~
c~V Mov Ep~IJ.OU LlaiJ.aOKOU Kat xpLaEL~ cOV A(aTJA EL~ paaLA.Ea cf]~ I:up[a~
16 Kat cOV lou uiov NaiJ.EaOL xpLaEL~ EL~ paaLA.Ea ETit IapaTJA Kat cOV EA.LaaLE uiov
I:a~ac UTIO APEA.IJ.aouA.a XP LaE l~ Et~ Tipo~~cTJV ave t aou
17 Kat EOtaL cov a<:¥(OIJ.Evov EK po!J.~a[a~ A(aTJA. 8avacwaEL lou Kat cov aC¥(OIJ.EVov
EK po!J.~a[a~ lou 8avan..SaEL EA.LaaLE
18 Kat KataAEl\jJEL~ EV IapaTJA Em& XLALUba~ avbpwv TIUVca yovaca & OUK WKA.aaav
y6vu cc.;i BaaA. Kat miv acOIJ.a 0 au TipOOEKUVTJOEV aucc.;i
The LXX departs from the Hebrew in that Elijah is cast as the one who will leave the seven
thousand remnant. This change possibly reflects a desire to harmonize, keeping the second
person singular constant throughout the LORD's address to Elijah. 251 Such a reading
somewhat weakens the case for this speech as a termination of Elijah's office.
These four verses, which close the Horeb episode, are the LORD's final words to
Elijah. They divide into two halves; the first two verses are a series of instructions to
the prophet, and the last two describe Israel's future. The text has been interpreted in
several ways. First, it is read as a termination of office. 252 Robinson explains:
... [Elijah] re-iterates his whining self-justification ... He is the last prophet left and
(he implies) self-interest should therefore ensure that God take special steps to
preserve him ... He [God] is not interested in continuing to employ this tetchy and
arrogant prima donna of a prophet on these terms. He therefore lets him know that he
has no longer any use for his ministry: the future lies with Hazael, Jehu and Elisha.
The theophany represents Elijah's last chance; now that he has failed to respond, he
receives notice of dismissal, and the initiative passes elsewhere. 253
Such a reading relies heavily on rendering the preposition nnn as "instead of," and
needs to be reconciled with the narrative that follows on several scores. We shall
return to this under the discussion of nnn.
251
Paul renders the LORD's words, "I have kept for myself seven thousand ... "; it is his central point in
arguing'that there has "always been· "a remnant chosen' bYe grace"· (Roin. t I :4 );
252
E.g., Robinson (1991), 528; Hauser and Gregory (1990), 142-47; Kissling (1996), 123-24; Brichto
(1992), 144.
253
Robinson (1991), 535.
132
Secondly, the text is read from a diametrically opposite point-it is not a termination
of office, but a re-commissioning. Proponents of this view read Elijah's two replies as
a resignation from office. The severe depression, which prompted the request that
God take his life, has not lifted. He travels to Horeb to present his inability to continue
in office, in "despondency ... which neither logic not the showiest theophany can
cure." 254 However, God will not accept his resignation, and instead, effectively
rehabilitates the severely depressed prophet by restoring his sense of purpose.Z55
Simon sees more than just psychotherapy here: " ... the LORD commands him to
inaugurate a new epoch, in which the arena of the struggle will be transferred from
nature to history, and the attempt to influence the people will be replaced by the
annihilation of almost all of them." 256 Habel proposes that this is more than just a
re-commissioning; it is has the elements of the genre of prophetic call narrative. 257
Reading the LORD's words as a re-commissioning is a more plausible than reading it
as a dismissal, chiefly because it fits in with the rest of the narrative without difficulty,
a point we shall return to.
This returns us to considering the first proposal at greater length, and the particle nnn,
being central to the reading of this text, serves well as a starting point.
3.3.1 nnn and its Implications

nnn is used here as a preposition. Sifting out the possibilities, 258 the following three
senses are relevant to the text under study: (a) "under" in the sense of being under
authority; 259 (b) "in place of' or "instead of," in a transferred sense; (c) in the same
sense of transfer, it could also mean "to succeed to the place of."
254
Nelson (1987), 129.
255
Nelson 1987), 127, 129; Wiseman (1993), 173; House (1995), 224; DeVries (1985), 236-37; Simon
(1997), 214-17; Coote (1981), 116.
256
Simon (1997), 217. Simon (1997), 209-10, compares this episode with Jer. 15:10-21, while
Brueggemann compares it with Jer. 12:1-6. (2000), 237.
257
Habel (1965), 298. Habel makes a study of the calls of Moses, Gideon, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel
and II Isaiah.
258
BDif, nnn, H)6s~66.
259
E.g., Hagar is instructed to place herself under Sarah's hands (i'1,,,nnn ,Jl1ni1,; Gen. 16:9);
princes and warriors place themselves under Solomon (l',~i1 i1~',!,Li nnn ,, ,JnJ;l Chron. 29:24).
133
Sense (a) would apply, since, as the narrative unfolds, Elisha takes up service under
Elijah (1 Kgs 19:21), and in 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, Elijah is recognized publicly to have been
Elisha's master (111~).
Sense (b), the one preferred by Robinson who reads the text as a dismissal of Elijah, is
grammatically possible (cf. LXX: aV'd ao'O) and not at all uncommon in Biblical
narrative. 260 However, to make it viable within the demands of a narrative reading as
distinct from a historical-critical one, several issues would need explanation. First,
Elijah's ministry continues without a break through 1 Kgs 21 and 2 Kgs 1, and, as
before Horeb, the "word of the LORD" comes to him and he is asked to deliver
messages of divine rebuke to the crown. Robinson does not explain this; Kissling,
another proponent, offers with reference to the choice of Elijah to carry the message
to Ahab: "Elijah has been somewhat rehabilitated in Yahweh's eyes since the events
of Horeb." 261 This is rather inadequate, especially considering that it must be argued
from silence. Further, it weakens the case for a dismissal of any seriousness and
consequence, especially since in the same episode Ahab is rebuked severely, and
pardoned only after "he has humbled himself before [the LORD]" (1 Kgs 21 :29); if
Elijah has been dismissed on account of his being an "arrogant prima donna," one
would expect some indication of his "rehabilitation" in the post-Horeb narrative,
before it becomes "business as usual" between him and the LORD.
Secondly, if this were a speech of termination of office, logically, it would suffice that
Elijah is commanded to anoint Elisha as prophet in his stead. Even this would be a
rather odd procedure, since dismissal would imply that from then on Elijah is divested
of his position and authority as the LORD's prophet, and as such, automatically
disqualified for cultic activities within a prophet's purview, such as anointing. 262 The
260
E.g., as it concerns individuals-
Seth is given in place of Abel ('-,:li1 nnn ,nN l1,f; Gen. 4:25); Judah offers himself in place of
Benjamin (,l1Ji1 nnn l1:ll1 NJ :l!ll,; Gen. 44:33); the Levites are ordained instead of Israel's
firstborn ('-,N,W, ,J:l~ en, ,~El ,,::1:::1 '-,::1 nnn '-,tot,tv, ,J:l 1m~ c,,,i1 ntot ,nnp'-,; Num.
3:12, etc.); Samson is offered his sister-in-law instead of his wife (i1,nnn 1'-, NJ ,i1n; Judg. 15:2); a
queen is sought to replace Vashti enlli, nnn l'-,~n; Esth. 2:4).
261
-Kisslingt1996), 131. - -
262
The other case of removal from position that comes to mind is that of Saul. Once the LORD rejects
him (1 Sam. 15:26), he cuts off all communication with Saul (1 Sam. 28:6, 15), and the initiative passes
to the anointed successor, David.
134
additional onerous and risk-fraught commissions to appoint two heads of state by

stealth against powerful incumbent monarchs appear even more anomalous if they are
handed to an unmanageable prophet being relieved of his duties. 263
Thirdly, neither Robinson nor any of the other proponents of the dismissal premise
explain why a de-badged prophet is being requested for a double share of his spirit by
the one who has supposedly replaced him already, why his departure carries all the
marks of unprecedented divine favour, why in summary statement it is implied that he
has been Israel's defence, and why, both to Elisha and the watching prophets, Elisha's
success at re-enacting Elijah's miracle of parting the Jordan is taken as the sign that
the prophetic spirit of Elijah has fallen upon Elisha (2 Kgs 2). Elijah continues as
undiminished in stature as before Horeb, and unless this question is sufficiently
addressed, the proposal that he has been terminated in office at Horeb is hard to
sustain.
This brings us to the third sense for nnn, namely, "to succeed to the place of." 264 This
has much wider usage than the other two senses and may be used of succession to an
office, 265 of a generation or people group that succeeds another, 266 and of descendants
that succeed their forebear. 267 However, the most copious usage by far is in routinely
describing successiQn to the throne, where it becomes a technical term, part of the
formulaic record of transition of kingship; 268 in the books of Kings alone it is used
about forty five times (e.g., 2 Kgs 15:7-38). Its technical use in recording succession
.
to the position of priest and king makes it very possible that the use of nnn in 1 Kgs
19: 16 is with reference to prophetic succession, of which there are no other accounts
for comparison, save the succession of Moses the prophet by Joshua the leader (which
does not use the preposition).
263
One recognizes that Elisha eventually performs the tasks. However the point here is that the LORD
entrusts Elijah with the responsibility.
264
This involves the issue of the prophetic succession of Elijah by Elisha, which will be treated
separately and at length, with reference to 1 Kgs 19:19-21 and 2 Kgs 2:1-18.
26
E.g., the office of priest (Exod. 29:30; Lev. 6:22; 16:32; Deut. 10:6; 1 Kgs 2:35) and commander of
the army (2 Sam. 17:25; 1 Kgs 2:35).
266
'E:"g:;·Nuni:· 32: 12;~Deiif 2:12,'21~23; 4:37; Josh. 5:7; cr. Eccl. ~: 18.
267
E.g., Num. 25:13.
268
E.g., Gen. 36:33-39; 2 Sam. 10:1; 16:18; Isa. 37:38; Jer. 37:1; and extensive use in Kings and
Chronicles.
135
A second reason why nnn here is better read with sense (c) is because its context is
the appointment of two others to positions of high authority-Hazael and Jehu. This
choice of another king to replace the incumbent recalls Saul and David. After Saul is
rejected, David is anointed king-in-waiting, explicitly to replace Saul (1 Sam. 16:1-2).
Similarly, Hazael and Jehu are anointed to occupy the throne at some later time
(whether immediately succeeding the incumbent ruler or not). However, Elisha's
appointment must be clarified, since the matter concerns Elijah personally; so, along
with the extra details of parentage and hometown (given so that Elijah may readily
locate him? Cf. "Jesse the Bethlehemite" among whose sons a successor to Saul might
be found; 1 Sam. 16:1) it seems likely that Elisha is being specified as Elijah's
immediate successor.
Thirdly, the narrative itself follows a route that supports the reading of nnn as "to
succeed to the place of." Elisha puts himself under the authority of Elijah (sense (a) of
nnn) and remains so until his assumption. Only following this does Elisha prove to
himself and to the expectantly watching band of prophets that he is indeed Elijah's
successor, and he does this by parting the Jordan following the same procedure as
Elijah's. From this point on Elisha assumes the functions of a prophet and these
include the trademark speaking on behalf of the LORD (2 Kgs 2:21). 2 Kgs 3:11
makes the distinction between his past role as Elijah's minister and his present status:
Jehoshaphat said, "Is there no prophet of the LORD here, through whom we may
inquire of the LORD?" Then one of the servants of the king of Israel answered,
"Elisha son of Shaphat, who used to pour water on the hands of Elijah, is here."
It appears then that, in the context, sense (c) is the best fit for nnn. Appealing to the
wider context, the only other account of the succession of a prophet is at once evoked,
namely the succession of Moses by Joshua. The fact that it belongs to the same corpus
that the 1 Kgs 19 narrative evokes at several other points adds to its significance. We
will briefly examine the story level parallels; if these are significant enough, we may
justifiably draw from this narrative in order to confirm or correct our reading of nnn.
Taking Num. 27:12-23 as the main "succession" text, one notes that the context of the
succession is the impending death of Moses (vv.12-14). Though the exact day has not
136
yet been intimated, this is the second reminder that Moses has not long to live (cf.
Num. 20: 12). His response to the situation is to request a successor be appointed so
that there will be no vacuum in leadership on his departure, whenever that may be.
Promptly, the LORD returns Joshua as the answer.
Elijah's situation at Horeb parallels this insofar as he believes uncertainty hangs over
his life in the face of the systematic removal of the prophets of the LORD in progress.
We have argued that his "I alone remain" is an expression of his concern for the
continuing voice of true prophecy in Israel, which he believes is in jeopardy. Though
this cannot be read as an implicit request for a true prophet to succeed him in the
event of his death, it is possible such a solution be provided in answer to the problem.
Such is the case in Num. 11; the LORD answers Moses' complaint that he is unable to
bear alone the burden of Israel's leadership (v.14) with the immediate appointment of
seventy elders who will share the task (vv.16-17). So, in 1 Kgs 19, the directive to
anoint Elisha may serve a comparable cause-effect function.
Next, instructions are given for Joshua to be publicly and ceremonially commissioned
(Num. 27: 18-23), and this procedure is shortly carried out. The appointment is of a
politico-military nature. 269 Not only is it the first transition in leadership, but it is also
a transition that must be carefully handled if at all the objective of the exodus, namely,
bringing Israel into Canaan, is to be achieved; for Israel to be convinced to accept him
in the role of Moses, his appointment must be seen to have divine sanction (cf. Deut.
31: 14, 23), must be promoted by Moses and must be meshed into the sacral
component of Israel's leadership, here represented by Eleazar the high priest. For all
these reasons, the installation is elaborately structured and its message subsequently
reinforced on more than one occasion (Deut. 3:28; 31) till Moses departs and Joshua
moves into his place.
269
Moses asks that the LORD "appoint someone over the congregation who shall go out before them
and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in ... " (Num. 27: 16-17). These
expressions, though not necessarily military in reference (e.g., 2 Kgs 11:18), are predominantly so (e.g.,
Deut. 31:2-3; Josh. 14:11; 1 Sam. 18:13, 16; 29:6; 1 Kgs 3:7) and these military images are appropriate
since Joshua's task is predominantly the conquest of Canaan. Milgrom notes that the second expression
employs the same verbs as in tHe 'first Bill'in tfiechipliil; theft!oy· den6tinfthe rilffitary o·fficer who. not
only leads his troops but also plans its strategy, e.g., David in 2 Sam. 5:2. (1990), 235; cf., among
others, Ashley (1993), 551; Budd (1984), 306. Thus Joshua appropriates Moses' duties of governance
and defence (Deut. 31 :2-3). The question of prophetic succession is addressed in Deut. 18.
137
Elisha's appointment, however, does not carry the wide-ranging implications of

Joshua's, especially in the political and military senses. If he is God's answer to
Elijah's concern for Israel, then his appointment is for a prophet who will fearlessly
represent true prophecy after Elijah has passed on. Thus, it suffices that Elisha's
appointment has only the people of Abel-meholah as witness, and is accomplished
with two "ceremonies." These, however, in their symbolic content more than
sufficiently express what has transpired; Elijah lays a personal item, his mantle, on
Elisha signifying the latter's position as successor, and Elisha simultaneously bids
farewell to both his profession and his people with a ceremonial meal.
Following the installation of Joshua, Moses continues in his duties as Israel's leader,
and this underlines Joshua's position as leader in waiting. 270 This is no co-regency in
the normal sense, 271 because further communication between the LORD and Israel
still flows through Moses (Num. 28: 1; 30: 1), and even in the event of military action,
it is Moses and Eleazar who play the pivotal roles (Num. 31:1-2, 13, 25-26, 51, 54).
There is no mention of Joshua in the war against Midian. 272 This is how it continues
till Moses departs. So also, Elijah carries on his prophetic responsibilities as before till
the day of his assumption; there is no involvement of Elisha either in his confrontation
with Ahab or with Ahaziah.
After both the older men, Moses and Elijah, depart, the younger men come into their
own. "After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD spoke to Joshua
the son of Nun, Moses' assistant, (n1W~) saying, 'My servant Moses is dead. Now
proceed ... '." (Josh. 1: 1-2) A concrete event demarcates the Joshua who was "the one
who was serving Moses" and Joshua, leader of Israel. This is a situation not unlike
Elisha's: following his installation, he is said to be in Elijah's service (--Jn1W; 1 Kgs
19:21); when for the first time he is spoken of as a "prophet of the LORD" it is after
the departure of Elijah, and it is recalled then that before this he "used to pour water
on the hands of Elijah" (2 Kgs 3: 11).
270
So, for example, Ashley (1993), 555.
271
As suggested by Wenham. The ceremony of Num. 27 "inaugurates a co-regency, when Moses and
Joshua were joint leaders of the people, a transition period that was terminated by the death of Moses
on Mount Nebo." (1981), 195.
272
This would be particularly significant in the light of the military connotations in Joshua's job
description, discussed earlier.
138
A last resonance, remarkable for the similarity, is that both successors are proved in
the eyes of the people by the miraculous parting of the Jordan. "On that day the
LORD exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they stood in awe of him, as they
had stood in awe of Moses, all the days of his life (Josh. 4: 14)." In Elisha's case:
"When the company of prophets who were at Jericho saw him at a distance, they
declared, 'The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.' They came to meet him and bowed to
the ground before him (2 Kgs 2: 15)." Following this event, the successors are held in
the same respect as the ones they succeeded.
Thus, it appears there is sufficient cause for reading nnn in 1 Kgs 19: 16 to mean, "to
succeed to the place of." We conclude that Elisha's appointment need not imply the
termination of Elijah from office.
The alternative left, then, is to read the text as a re-commissioning. A

re-commissioning would imply that Elijah's tenure in office has lapsed, either because
the LORD has dismissed him or because he himself has tendered his resignation.
There is no indication of the former up to this point in the narrative; as for the latter,
we have argued that resignation from office is confined to the broom tree episode.
Thus, rather than a re-commissioning, this could be read as a re-alignment of divine
plans re Israel. If Elijah's second reply is taken as a refusal to accept the LORD's
proposal for a punitive lapse of his covenant obligations, then in response to this
refusal the conversation can move forward only in one of two directions: either the
LORD insists on following through with his proposal, or he, in mercy, concedes a less
severe alternative. The latter is not unfamiliar in the OT; in fact, it is arguably the
norm rather than the exception. Within the Moses and Elijah narratives themselves the
pattern is played out, not only at two key points in the story of Exod. 32-34 (32: 10ff;
33:3ff), but several times over in the course of Israel's wilderness journey (Num.
14:10ff; 16:44ff; Num. 21:6ff) and in the case of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:17ff). 1 Kgs 19:15-
18, may be taken as just such an alternative, and in this one God seizes the initiative
to set right the covenant relationship with Israel.
A key term in this approach to reading the text is the root 1tott.V and its role in the
remnant motif.
139
3.3.2 The root 1NW and the Remnant Motif
The verb ~1~1J.i and corresponding noun li~1~1J.i render the sense of "remnant," "rest,"
"residue," "remainder," "that which is left over" without any apparent variation of
meaning?73 "The basic meaning of the root 1~ll.i is to remain or be left over from a
larger number or quantity which has in some way been disposed of." 274 As such, it
may be used of the inanimate, such as wood or land; 275 otherwise, it is most often
used with respect to Israel/Judah, though it is sometime descriptive of other
peoples, 276 and even of all living creatures. 277 It may have a negative connotation, in
that the magnitude of the catastrophe has been so great that any remnant that survives
is of no consequence; 278 in many cases it has a positive implication-despite the
cataclysm, a remnant survives, and functions as the seed of a restored community?79
Sometimes the remnant survives despite the fact that the whole is worthy of
destruction; 280 sometimes, the remnant is described as faithful. 281 Whether the
catastrophe is seen as an act of divine judgement (which in most cases it is) or as a
general calamity, the survival of a viable remnant is understood specifically as an act
of divine mercy, or of divine grace and providence, respectively. 282
The idea of a remnant reaches fullness in the "writing" prophets, but may be found
throughout the OT. Especially since the root 1Nll.i occurs in the course of a narrative in
1 Kgs 19, it may be fruitful to examine its occurrence and usage in other narrative
contexts. Of these, the stories concerning Noah and Joseph are of particular
significance to us, first, because they are prior to the Elijah narrative in canonical
order, and so may help lead up to an understanding of the concept; secondly, because
they deal with key events of survival through calamitous events-the survival of
humankind and of incipient Israel, respectively.
273
Widengren (1984), 240. Cf. in BDB, ,KW, n,,KW, 985-86. Clements (2004), 273-77; Wildberger
(1997), 1255.
274
Henton (1952), 28.
275
Isa. 44:17 and 15:9, respectively.
276
E.g., Isa. 14:30; 17:3; Amos 1:8; 9:12; Zech. 9:7.
277
Gen.7:23; cf. vv.l-5.
278
E.g., Isa. 17:4-6; Jer. 8:3; Amos 5:3.
279
E.g., Gen. 8:15-19, cf. 7-:23; 45:7; Jer. 23:3; Mic. 2:12; 4:7; Zeph. 3:12-13.
280
E.g., Jer. 5:10-18 (though the root ,KW is not used here, the concept is evident).
281
E.g., Zeph. 3:12-13.
282
Jer. 23:3-4; 31:7-9; Amos 5:14-15; Mic. 4:6-7.
140
3.3.2.1 Noah: Gen. 7:17-24

We will summarize from the wealth of comment that understands this climactic scene
as a reversal of creation. 283 C"~ and f1~:-t ',17 occur six times each, often in close
conjunction, in strong reminiscence of Gen.l; the heavenly sea above the firmament
empties downward into the sea gushing up from the great deeps below the earth
(v.ll), and separation of one from the other blurs as the world sinks into pre-creation
barrenness; "the very verb of proliferation [..J:-t:J1; Gen. 1:28] employed in the
Creation story for living creatures is here attached to the instrument of their
destruction"; 284 the breath of life (C""n n~teJ; Gen. 2:7) breathed into man's nostrils
with face-to-face intimacy in the act of making now expires in the nostrils of all living
things.
With alliteration and repetition, the narrator overwhelms the scene with the magnitude
of the victory of the waters. The verb ..J1::J.J brings in undertones of a military
conquest. The waters triumph (v.l8) and triumph exceedingly (v.l9), submerging the
very mountain peaks; the eightfold repeat of ',::l underlines the totality of the
devastation they inflict. And life does not merely die; God wipes clean the record
(:-tn~) 285 of all things living, fulfilling his stated resolve (Gen. 6:7; 7:4). With
paronomastic allusion, the verb ..Jnn~ looks forward to the mention of the one who
escapes this obliteration, namely, nJ. Ironically, the same death-dealing waters are the
medium of rescue from death, for the flood's increase causes the ark to float.
Hamilton points out that the contrast between the condemned and the spared is
enhanced by two niphals, ,n~" and 1~te"-the former are blotted out from the earth,
while the latter alone is left remnant (with those in the ark with him). 286 The
suggestion is that the controlling agent here is God, and he deploys the waters to work
his ends, simultaneously both extinguishing life and carefully conserving it.
283
Wenham (1987); Alter (1996); Kidner (1967); Hamilton (1990); Westermann (1984), 438-40; von
Rad (1972),'128~30; Sarna (1989), 55-57.
284
Alter (1996), 33.
285
Cf. Exod. 17:14; 32:32-33; sometimes the act used water (Num. 5:23).
286
Hamilton (1990), 297.
141
Wenham comments that the absence of personal names, except for a "parenthetic"
mention of Noah "enhances the desolation." 287 On the contrary, the introduction of
Noah at the very end of the list of the blotted out, as one not blotted out but left
remaining by design, is particularly noteworthy. There are two points of significance
here.
First, we consider the purpose for the preserving of the remnant. Hasel in his The
Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah
comments:
The remnant motif of primeval history is firmly grounded in unique events of the
past, such as creation and flood, but directing its full attention to the future. Stress is
actually placed on the fact that a remnant was actually preserved, that it survived the
destructive cataclysm, and made possible the future existence of mankind ... One can
say that it contains in a real sense an inherent future expectation, which in the later
development of this motif in Israelite religion becomes enriched and further
developed to a considerable degree.Z88
The survived remnant, containing as it does, all the necessary seeds of life for the
continuing existence of mankind, makes the future its purpose and goal.
Secondly, we consider the factor that makes possible the preserving of the said
remnant. The flood, as stated unambiguously in the prologue to the story, was the
effect of which sin was the cause (Gen. 6:5-7). Post-flood, the LORD must resolve to
"never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human
heart is evil from its youth" (Gen. 8:21 ). It is the will of God that prevails, and his
gracious will is for salvation, not for judgement. As Hasel sums up: "The remnant
motif is from the start securely anchored in salvation history. Though the devisings of
the heart of men are still evil, Yahweh's grace alone made possible the continuation of
the existence of the human race by means of the righteous Noah and his family who
constitute the remnant." 289
The Flood story has given us three threads that weave together to form the remnant
motif, and we will follow these into the Joseph story: one, a death-dealing
287
Wenham (1987), 182.
288
Hasel (1980), 140-41.
289
Hasel (1980), 146.
142
catastrophe; two, the preservation of life through the catastrophe; and three, the
gracious will of God operating to preserve that life.
3.3.2.2 Joseph: Gen. 45:4b-8a
:;,1?~':1~~ ,nk Cl)l~7?-,'#~ c~,m~ ~Qi, ,)~ ,7?~~1
c,;-t',~
' ·;:
,m',w
' - T :
n,n~', ,:?
T : ' :
mn ,nk
T ''
en,~~-,~ c~,),l7:l ,n,-',~, 1:l~lm·',~
·: ! - : ' '; '' '' : - ' - : : T '' -
i1nl71
T - ;
:c~,~·~"
:,,~i?l !li,,r:t_l,~ ,'#~ c,~~ lli~r:t 1il7l f}~ij ::lJP~ ::ltJ':1iJ c:JJ~ll,i m-,~
:n7'1~ ntt~~~ c~7 ni,~:J0'7, f)~~ n,"'J~ll,i c~7 c1w7 c~,~.~~ c,~6~ ,m7ll:i!l1
c,;-t',~;, ,:?
' ·:: T
mn ,nk cnn',w en~-~" i1nl7,
T " '.' : - : •; - T - :
In 45:3, Joseph makes his statement of self-disclosure-"! am Joseph." His brothers

are overwhelmed into silence. He repeats himself, this time adding information that
nobody else could have possessed; he is Joseph whom they sold into Egypt. As if
reading their dismay at this vocalization of the crime, he hastens to reassure them.
Three times in the speech that follows he articulates it: "God sent me before you to
preserve life"; "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant"; "It was not
you who sent me here but God." Joseph, however, is not attempting to shield his
brothers from their conscience with a euphemism. As von Rad emphasizes:
Here in the scene of recognition the narrator indicates clearly for the first time what is
of paramount importance to him in the entire Joseph story: God's hand, which in all
the confusion of human guilt directs everything to a gracious goal. .. [I]t would be
wrong to see only distracting friendliness in Joseph's remarks; rather, Joseph wants to
state an objective truth, in which, to be sure, the enigma mentioned above, the
question of how this activity of God is related to the brothers' drastically described
activity, remains an absolutely unresolved mystery. The matter must rest with the fact
that ultimately it was not the brothers' hate but God who brought Joseph to
290
Egypt. ..
Just as important, if not more, is the reason why God sent Joseph ahead. Twice Joseph
mentions it-it is so that the clan may not die, but live; i1,n~"ln1,ni1" (vv .5, 7), and
the first time, the term occupies an emphatic frontal position. Joseph will repeat it
290
Von Rad (1963 ), 393.
143
years hence post Jacob's death, in recapitulating for his fearful brothers the purpose of
his hard experiences-to preserve alive a numerous people, as indeed may be
demonstrated as having reached fulfilment "this day" (Gen. 50:20). It is also a phrase
central to the expressed purpose of the ark (Gen. 6:19, 20; 7:3).
These twice repeated affirmations bracket a grim forecast of the desperation that will
overwhelm lands which have no stores of grain; the famine, the severity of which has
sent Jacob's sons to Egypt twice already, is still young; in the five years remaining,
chances for survival outside Egypt will become increasingly bleak. The bounding of
the forecast by the assertions that life will yet be preserved throws into relief the
meagre chance of survival but for the intervention of a God who seeks to safeguard
the life of this otherwise inconsequential clan.
Two significant terms are used to describe the purpose God has in mind for Jacob's
clan-n~1~!Li and :-t~~'?E:l. Hamilton notes that these two occur in combination not
infrequently, and in a variety of relationships-in the construct state, in syndetic

parataxis, in parallelism and as name and its adjective. 291 The noun :-t~~'?E:l, occurring
twenty-eight times in the OT, is primarily used to refer to the remnant of God's
chosen people; but the escaped do not owe their survival to fortuitous circumstances
or luck. Rather, their survival is an unquestionable display of divine mercy. 292 Thus,
most EVV render :-t~~'?E:l as "deliverance" in 2 Chron. 12:7, implying a deliverer. In
the usage of the term, the goodness of God in letting a part of the whole escape, rather
than liquidating the whole, is emphasized. 293 When :-t~~'?D is associated with n~1~!Li,
which as we have noted earlier also bears overtones of divine mercy, grace or
providence, the terms reinforce the associations.Z94 Here, the words are clearly
indicative of the sovereign act of God in carefully designing the endurance of all
twelve families in the household of Jacob.
291
1 Chron. 4:43 ("they destroyed the remnant of the escaped-it~':l~it n,1KW"); Ezra 9: 14 ("so that
there should be no remnant nor any to escape-it~,';!~, n,1Kll.i"); lsa. 10:20 ("the remnant of Israel
and the survivors of the house of Jacob-:lpl1, n,:l n~~':!El, ':!K1iLr 1Kll.i"); Exod. 10:5 ("and they
shall eat that which is escaped, which remains to you-n1Kll.iJit it~':l~it"). See Hamilton (1995), 576.
~ 9~-Hasel{2001), 551-567.
293
E.g., Ezra 9:8, 13-15.
294
The two nouns occur frequently as parallels, it~,';!~ being firmly linked to the OT notion of the
remnant. Hasel (2001), 560, 562-65.
144
Westermann challenges this rendering of n,1N!l.i as "remnant": "How can Jacob's
family be described as a 'remnant'? A remnant of what?" Thus "descendants" would

suit t~e context of the story better, because all members of Jacob's family have been
kept alive. 295 Exactly such a meaning for n,1N!l.i may be found in 2 Sam. 14:7; the
woman of Tekoa laments that should her one remaining son be killed, her late
husband will be with "neither name nor remnant-n,1N!l.i, C!l.i-on the face of the
earth. " 296
Certainly, the context of 2 Sam. 14:7 moves the reading of n,1N!l.i to most naturally
mean "descendants." In Gen. 45:7, however, one must take into account the context of
the remnant motif, as seen in the Flood story or elsewhere in the prophets. There is a
world-scale calamity in progress. Jacob's family has escaped it. Joseph belabours the
point that but for divine design, such a remnant would not have been possible. The
survivors, as in the Flood story, are the seed from which a perfect whole will emerge,
in this case, a twelve-tribed nation. Thus, the family of Jacob "in narrowly escaping
destruction is like a remnant which is the bearer of hopes for the future existence;" 297
in this sense this n,1N!l.i is a remnant. In fact, precisely by using the loaded term
n,1N!l.i in a context that would not normally justify its use (in that there is no clearly
defined whole from which the "remnant" is separated), the narrator may have
succeeded in drawing attention to the enormous significance of this act of God. "[l]t is
not possible," von Rad stresses, "to overlook the great theological and programmatic
significance of [Joseph's] statements, for through this guidance that family was
preserved which was heir of the promise to the fathers." 298
Having identified the common features of the remnant motif in these two narratives,
we return to see if the motif may be picked up in the Elijah narrative.
295
Westermann (1987), 144; Cf. Skinner (1910), 487; Driver (1926), 362.
296
Westermann (1987), 144.
297
Hasel (1980), 154.
298
Von Rad, (1963), 393.
145
3.3.2.3 An Israel Within Israel

'
Scholars propose several passages in the Elijah cycle as carrying the remnant motif. 299
Hasel, among others, is of the opinion that the remnant terminology in these sections,
if any, is tenuous except for two key texts in the Carmel and Horeb scenes. 300 The first
is found repeated in two places, and uses the verb ·hn~, often used synonymously
with --.},~!Jj in articulating the remnant theme. 301 "I, even I only, am left (--.f,n~) a
prophet of the LORD" (1 Kgs 18:22); "I alone am left (--.f,n~), and they are seeking
my life, to take it away" (1 Kgs 19: 1Ob ).
We have previously addressed the issue of whether Elijah here is referring to himself
as the last of the faithful in all Israel, or the only prophet in the field, and concluded
the argument in favour of the latter. Hasel reads the text similarly, and goes on to find
here a new development to the remnant motif in that "Elijah represents a remnant of
the prophets of Yahweh, i.e., a remnant of one loyal to Yahweh within apostate
Israel." One must test this possibility by checking for markers common to the other
two instances of motif studied. First, there is here a large-scale threat to life. Jezebel's
programme of elimination (1 Kgs 18:4, 13), which is made possible by apostate
Israel's collusion (1 Kings 19: 10), has driven the Yah wist prophets into hiding and
left Elijah the last one in open opposition. Secondly, one looks for the preservation of
the remnant through the threat of death. Here, Elijah is still alive, but by no means
safe. By his own statement, Israel is still hunting him, to kill him. He is not yet, if at
any point he can be considered to be one, a remnant in the technical sense. One must
keep in mirid too, that the remnant in its technical sense "concentrates in itself the life
and promise of the community" and as such, concerns a corporate whole, rather than
an individual. 302 Thirdly, one seeks the most theologically significant component of
the remnant motif, namely, the controlling hand of God. This was evident at Cherith
and Zarephath, but hardly at Horeb. Elijah's escape strategy is clearly of his own
devising and even that reached its terminus in a suicide bid. Thus, neither the Carmel
nor the Horeb texts make a natural fit for the motif.
299
See Hasel (1980), 159.
300
Hasel (1980), 159-60.
301
See BE>B';''lM\ 451; "'ll(W, 983.
302
Rowley (1956), 118. He mentions also, however, that individuals may represent the community,
e.g., the Suffering Servant. In such a case Elijah fails to qualify, since in his statement here it is clear
that he represents no one but himself.
146
The other text that Hasel presents for the remnant motif, is 1 Kgs 19:18, which
contains the root 1~lli: t:l,£)"~ lilJ:lW "~1ill,:l ,li,~W:"n. Checking for markers: first,
there is no doubt about the magnitude of the approaching calamity. This time it is
neither a flood nor a famine; Israel will be diminished from without and from within
by a politico-military operation. The rhythmically recurring words of the oracle
pattern a carefully calculated strategy for a triple phase purge that cuts off all
possibility of escape. 303
Secondly, there is a remnant that will survive this bloodbath. Seven thousand are
mentioned, an idiomatic figure denoting adequacy; 304 the remnant spared, though
small, will still be a number meaningful enough for Israel to continue as a nation
under God. More importantly, it is sufficient to perform as the seed that will
re-establish decimated Israel. Here, as in the technical sense of the root 1~W,
"remnant" is a word of expectation and hope. Thirdly, there is no ambiguity that the
LORD is in control of the operation; he conceives this solution, he formulates the
strategy, his anointing is on the wielders of the sword, and he selects those knees and
mouths that death will pass over; ,li1~Wi1,-he is the causal force. Though the seven
thousand are faithful they are an integral part of a whole that has breached the
covenant stipulations and as such, come under judgement by default. It is God's
gracious will for salvation that separates them to life: "The Remnant is always
presented as a mark of the mercy of God." 305
The text contains all three elemental components of the remnant motif. A point of
discontinuity with the motif as seen in the Noah and Joseph narratives is that while
these two speak of remnant saved, "on Mt. Horeb we have for the first time a remnant
spoken of as a future entity." 306 Hasel concurs with Jeremias, "this is the locus
classicus of the promised remnant in the sense that we meet in this passage for the
first time in the history of Israel the promise of a future remnant that constitutes the
303
The grimly systematic sequence is similar to that described in lsa. 24:17-18: "Terror, and the pit,
and the snare are upon you ... whoever flees the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and whoever
climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare."
304
Walsh (1996), 278.
305
de Vaux ( 1933), 528.
306
Hasel ( 1980), 171.
147
kernel of a new Israel." 307 Further, a watershed is defined here in that for the first time
an "Israel" is sifted out from Israel, and that along ethico-religious lines. 308 The
significant point of continuity, however, is that just as in early history, as against the
later forms of the remnant concept where the emphasis becomes distinctly
eschatological, the LORD's leaving of the seven thousand is incorporated into
. h'Istory. 309
saIvat10n
To return briefly to the idea of an Israel within Israel: hitherto, the entire nation had
borne joint responsibility for sin, and had been both punished and pardoned
corporately. This is best seen in the cycles of apostasy, bondage and deliverance in the
book of Judges. Looking further back to the first act of rebellion post-covenant, we
find that the LORD at first decides to consume all Israel (Exod. 32:1 0); then, he
relents but stiii punishes by sending a plague on the people (Exod. 32:35). In Exod. 33
he decides to withdraw his presence from Israel altogether. In Exod. 34, pardon is
awarded to the people as a whole and the covenant renewed. Yet, even as God
forgives Israel as a nation and renews his covenant with her, the individual is warned
of his personal responsibility. The covenant word 10n is promised to the faithful; the
iniquity of the idolater will be personally visited on him ( Exod. 20:5-6; 34:6-7).
The narrative in 1 Kgs 18 opens with a drought being announced on all Israel, on
account of Israel's turning to other gods, at the encouragement of the crown. At
Horeb, there is a proposal to retributively abandon the covenant with Israel. The
alternative, in 1 Kgs 19:15-18, is the playing out of both the promise and the warning
of Exod. 20 and 34. The LORD separates the faithful from the apostate. The LORD
himself will preserve the faithful, presumably so that they may enjoy a continued
covenant relationship, since they are identified by the same criterion as in the context
of the making of the covenant; "all those whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and
every mouth that has not kissed him" (cf. Exod 20:5-6). Meanwhile, the apostate
comes under the sword, and is literally "cut off' from the covenant. From this point
307
See Hasel (1980), 172.
308
Hasel ( 1980), 172.
309
Hasel (1980), 402.
148
on, as Israel inexorably moves towards the ultimate disaster of the exile, it will be a
spared remnant through which the covenant relationship will be perpetuated. 310
This discussion on the significance of the root 1~W serves as useful background as
we return to examine if, as we have proposed, 1 Kgs 19: 15-18 is indeed an alternate
response to Elijah's statement of problem in 19:10, 14. If this is to be so, the former
text must respond to the latter, and we must check if this is the case.
Elijah opens with an expression of his zeal and follows up with an explanation of the
context of that zeal-Israel's abandoning of the covenant as evidenced by her
treatment of the LORD's altars and prophets. He addresses the LORD by his military
title, underlining the gravity of the politico-religious threat against Israel's covenanted
faith. The LORD ratifies Elijah's ardor by carrying it further in his own reaction to
Israel's apostasy. The energy that pulses through the formula recalls the Song of the
Sword in Ezek. 21:14-22 (EVV 21:8-17):
Let the sword fall twice, thrice;/It is a sword for killing.
A sword for great slaughter-/It surrounds them ...
Ah! It is made for flashing,llt is polished for slaughter.
Attack to the right!/Engage to the left!/Wherever your edge is directed.
If, as Terrien observes, this prophecy required of the prophet "a mimetic portrayal of
the Deity," then one can readily imagine his "choreographic stance interpret[ing]
visually and kinesthetically the prophetic oracle couched in the first person
singular. " 311 The Horeb oracle calls up just such a picture of God stirred into action by
an avenging zeal.
The LORD's sword(s) adequately answer(s) the crisis Elijah articulates. In keeping
with the order of responsibility for covenant keeping as established in the book of
310
Perhaps this is not the first instance of such alteration to the operation of the covenant. Moberly
suggests that the wording of the declaration in Exod. 34:27-"I have made a covenant with you and
with Israel"-"with Israel in secondary position points to an understanding of the renewed covenant as
being not only mediated through, but in some sense necessarily dependent upon, Moses." This, he
argues, is in line with Exod. 33:12-17 and 34:9, where it is upon Moses' special merit that God's
decision against Israel is reversed. "So the position of Israel in the restored covenant is not identical to
what it would have been had" the people neve{ sinned. Henceforth thei'r life as a "pimple clep'(mcfs -not
only on the mercy of God but also upon the intercession of God's chosen mediator." Moberly (1983),
105-6.
311
Terrien (1978), 267.
149
312
Kings, the first action is against the apostate head of the state; Jehu will replace
Ahab, and in turn, Jehu aided by Hazael and Elisha, will act to purge Israel of the
Baalist faction.
The second half of Elijah's statement (according to the punctuation of the MT),
concerns his position (as we have previously argued) as the only active prophet
remaining. If there is here a shade of concern for personal safety, and there may well
be, it is answered implicitly by the promise that the prophet slayers will themselves be
slain in the great purge. Still, one notes that Elijah's concern for himself is unlikely to
be a major issue since on the one hand, there is neither explicit guarantee of safety,
nor the familiar "Do not be afraid" formula usually offered a fearful respondent by
way of reassurance; on the other hand, there is no rebuke for anxiety unbecoming of a
prophet. Instead, the promise of remnant is given, indicating that Elijah's concern is
not so much himself but the continuing of Israel within the covenant, and to mediate
this, the continuing voice of true prophecy. God lays his fears to rest with an
unprecedented directive-he is to anoint a prophetic successor even while in office.
One more response is anticipated in the LORD's answer here, and that is to clarify
whether he will still abandon Israel as a nation. When he finally addresses this issue,
one finds that it is the very penalty that awaits Israel that performs as the instrument
by which true Israel will be saved. 313 A remnant has already been identified, and will
come through the upheaval unharmed. In his grace, the LORD separates and spares
these seven thousand who have loyally kept the faith, and with them the covenant
continues in operation. Thus, the alignment of opposites is not Elijah's "I alone" with
the "seven thousand," as most commentators make out. In the context of covenant, so
crucial to this narrative, the contrast is between the covenant-breakers and the seven
thousand covenant-keepers.
With this we may reasonably conclude that the LORD's speech does answer the
various concerns raised by Elijah, and as such, may be the alternative that Elijah had
pressed for.
312
Cf. 1 Kgs 6:11-13 where the LORD's relationship with Israel depends on Solomon's obedience.
313
Cf. Ellul (1972), 76.
150
One further and final comment: when God re-engages with Israel, he does so with a
burst of energy. He briskly commissions the prophet using the verb ...Jl";,
characteristic of authoritative and formal sending of his representative to inaugurate a
new task. 314 In this, there is a critical interlacing of divine and prophetic endeavour in
the interest of Israel, and this is in keeping with the pattern established since the
commissioning of the archetypal prophet, Moses. 315 The triple directive "you shall
anoint" is seamlessly conjoined with "I will leave" (19: 15-18). Without an
appreciation of this mechanism, one might wrongly read the LORD's declaration of a
remnant as a rebuff aimed at Elijah's statement that he alone remains. 316
3.4 Comparing the Story Outlines of Exod. 32-34 and 1 Kgs 19

Having worked through the account of Elijah at Horeb, we may now juxtapose its
outline with that of the Moses narrative that it has been shown to recall at various
levels, to see if the Elijah story is told generally keeping the plot and development of
the Moses one in mind. One finds that there is a striking correspondence of episodes,
even if they are not in exactly the same order. One bears in mind, of course, that the
implications of these events are different in the different narratives (points 3, 6, 9);
many, however, have significant conceptual overlaps (points 1-2, 4-5, 7-8).
Exodus 1 Kings
1. Israel turns to another god 32: 1 implied in 19:17-18
2. Israel dismisses the true prophet 32:1 19:1, 10, 14
3. The prophet considers death 32:32 19:4
4. The prophet presents Israel before God 32:30 19:10
5. God proposes to withdraw his presence 33:1-6 19:11-12
6. God grants a personal theophany at Horeb 33:19-34:7 19:11-12
7. God's involves prophet in decision 32:10; 33:5 19:13
8. The prophet presses the case for Israel 33:12-16; 34:8 19:14
9. The covenant comes into operation
in anew way 34:10ff 19:15-18
( 10. The prophet is affirmed before Israel 34:29-35 19:19-21) 317
314
Cf. Exod. 4:19; Judg. 6:14, Isa. 6:8, Jer. 1:7.
315
Cf. "I have come to deliver ... so come, I will send you" (3:8-10).
316
E.g., Robinson (1991), 528; Provan (1995), 147; Walsh (1996), 278; Brueggemann (2000), 241.
317
Elijah promptly returns to Israel and engages with Elisha. Elisha's positive response, which is a
public one, will be argued as an affirmation of Elijah's status as prophet and spiritual leader in Israel.
151
There seems to be here collusion between the narrator and his principal character in
the telling of the story of Elijah at Horeb. As for Elijah, at this critical point in Israel's
history when apostasy threatens the distinctive relationship of the people with their
God, Elijah models himself after the archetypal prophet, Moses. Like him, Elijah
approaches the place of the making of the covenant, seeking a solution; like him, he
pleads Israel's case, even though they have rejected him. The outcome is that in the
tradition of the great intercessor and covenant mediator, he plays a part in the
emerging present: Israel remains within the covenant, even if only as a remnant. The
narrator, for his part provides the setting necessary for a Mosaic event, working in the
exodus motif, as pointed out, at all levels from the verbal to the conceptual.
However the postulate that Israel has fallen away in the interim between Carmel and
Horeb needs to be supported. The account reads that at Carmel the people fall down in
awe before the theophanic fire and confess the LORD as God indeed. The next we
hear of Israel is in Elijah's report at Horeb, which portrays her seriously and
systematically attempting to break free of the covenant. Scholars who privilege the
received text have limited choices for reconciling these passages. In fact, as
interaction with scholarship has shown, there is only one way out, and that concerns
the reliability of the character Elijah; at this point in the narrative, he is either reliable
or he is not.
3.5 'fhe Reliability of the Character Elijah

If one argues that Elijah is not reliable in his statement re Israel, a problem is created:
his unreliability has to be reconciled at multiple points with the narrative that follows,
namely, the lack of criticism either by the narrator or by the character God, the
high-profile commissions he is entrusted with, the fact that he leaves Horeb to
continue in office as before, and the undeniable acclamation that the manner of his
departure is. As already observed, scholarship has not engaged with this task to any
significant degree.
On the other hand, if one argues Elijah's reliability, the problem described above does
not arise, and the Horeb story joins seamlessly with the further narrative in 1 Kgs 19,
21 and 2 Kgs 1-2. However, it immediately puts the story at odds with the narrative
that precedes it, namely, the Carmel episode. The dissonance between Carmel and
152
Horeb boils down to two narrative features. First, at no point does the narrator inform
the reader of Israel's backsliding, if any. Secondly, narrated time seems not to allow
for it, since Jezebel's threat appears immediately to follow the incidents at Carmel.
These two issues require discussion.
3.5.1 Levels of Knowledge

The narrator, in choosing how to tell the story, manipulates not only the characters
within the world of the story, but also the reader, who, like him, is outside it. One way
he does this is by creating and controlling levels of knowledge. "Manipulation of the
data stream," Fokkelman explains, "is at the same time manipulation of knowledge.
The writer may decide to give us the same amount of insight as the character he
introduces, or more, or less." 318 He offers Gen. 22 as an example where the reader has
a head start over Abraham who does not know that the experience that will shortly
come upon him is a test. Judg. 8, the story of Gideon, is given as an example in which
the reader is at a disadvantage re knowledge. 319 The latter case may prove instructive
to discerning the narrative technique in 1 Kgs 19.
The postlude to the war against Midian contains a most unexpected twist, unexpected,
that is, for the reader. Gideon, in his pursuit of Zebah and Zalmunna the two
Midianite kings, stops at Succoth and, stating his mission, requests refreshment for his
exhausted 300. Succoth refuses with the taunt, "Do you already have in your
possession the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna, that we should give bread to your
army?" (v.6). The scene is repeated at the next stop, Penuel. To both, Gideon makes a
reply that appears unnecessarily severe (vv.7, 9). After he defeats and captures the
two enemy kings, he returns to these two cities, takes particular pains to obtain
information about the leadership, and brutally avenges himself on the elders of
Succoth and the male population of Penuel just as he had threatened to.
After this, a conversation ensues between Gideon and the captive kings on an issue
that the reader has no knowledge of up to this moment. Gideon asks, "What manner
of men [were they] whom you killed at Tabor?" "The question," remarks Boling, "is
318
Fokkelman (1999), 130.
319
Fokkelman (1999), 126-129.
153
intended to be as startling as it sounds." 320 It turns out from their reply and Gideon's
further response that Midian has been responsible for the deaths of Gideon's brothers.
The very same Zebah and Zalmunna, it appears, had either killed them in battle, or
more probably, publicly executed them perhaps in retaliation for acts of resistance or
as an intimidation strategy. 321 At this point in the narrative the identity of their captor
is revealed with reference to their victims. They catch up with Gideon's level of
knowledge, and simultaneously, the reader, who suddenly realizes he has been at the
lowest level all along, catches up with the Midianites and with Gideon. The narrator,
who always operates at the highest level of knowledge, shared it with Gideon, and
opted to keep the reader at the lowest.
This disclosure of information at the very end of the narrative impels the reader to
review the previous events, particularly the character Gideon. Unbeknown to the
reader, he has carried with him the recent loss of his blood brothers. Sharing in this
knowledge, the reader at once evaluates him from an entirely new perspective; he
reassesses Gideon's instinctive objection to the commission, the request of the
messenger for a sign, his operating under cover of darkness to pull down a Baalist
altar, the need for him to be reassured repeatedly by sign and finally, the vengefulness
with which he deals with his own countrymen because they do not aid him in his
cause against the Midianite chieftains.
Sternberg, in a section titled "Surprise and the Dynamics of Recognition" comments

that such "manipulation of antecedents thus launches a surprise chain reaction from
the point of retrospective (dis)closure"; in the more dramatic cases, "antecedents
unexpectedly arise not to clinch an initial impression (portrait, response, assessment)
but to qualify and complicate it, sometimes to the point of reversal." 322
320
Boling (1975), 157.
321
The seven years of hostilities alluded to in Judg. 6:1-5 may provide a context for "Tabor."
322
Thus Gideon, post Zeba and Zalmunna, may strike the reader as less admirable than before, driven
as he is by considerations of personal vendetta. Sternberg (1985), 312,315. Sternberg has several other
interesting examples, among them 2 Kgs 4:8-16, the story of the Shunamite woman. When the
disclosure is made that she is childless, "the surprise involves a retrospective illumination of all that has
gone before, notably of the woman's character as well as her state. No ulterior motive, the discovery
eshtblfshes, hhs lain. bel1111d her 'hiKing a1Ctlfis trouble.' ... [W]fi'ere an anticipatory disclosure of the
Shunamite's plight would first render her motives suspect and then her scepticism implausible .. .its
temporary withholding and abrupt emergence maintain throughout an attractive yet credible portrait of
a woman who deems virtue its own recompense." Sternberg (1985), 310.
154
The possibility is that in 1 Kgs 19 the narrator employs a similar narrative technique
in that he has the characters Elijah and God operating at his level of knowledge,
letting the reader do the catching up at the end of the story. The reader is uninformed
as far as the falling away of Israel post Carmel is concerned, and thus the conversation
between prophet and God at Horeb puzzles him. Elijah's statement that Israel has
abandoned the covenant is as unanticipated and befuddling as Gideon's question
about men killed at Tabor. To the reader, the prophet appears to engage in falsifying
facts against Israel, which in itself does not quite fit with his consistent integrity thus
far. Odder still, the LORD does not reprimand this untruth. Alarmingly odd is that the
LORD bases his programme for Israel on this misrepresentation and decides to wipe
out the entire nation but for a remnant. With this the episode ends, forcing the reader
to rethink the story in order to make sense of it.
Let us suppose he works backwards from the last speech he has heard. The reliability
of the character God is a given in biblical narrative, and that is a safe place to start.
"Judgement by God," remarks Bar-Efrat, "is not like that by one of the characters in
the plot, and is far more effective and convincing even than judgement by the
narrator; for God is the absolute and supreme authority, and this naturally reflects
upon the value and importance of His judgements (although it should not be forgotten
that we know what God's attitude is only on the narrator's authority)." Thus, for
example, in the case of David's adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11), a reader may
judge David as an ancient eastern king, not subject to the limitations imposed on
ordinary citizens; thus he is entitled to any woman he desires and as supreme military
commander he controls deployment of soldiers in war. The narrator counters this
royal canon by attributing the final judgement on the case to God, a system of
absolute norms to which the king is also subject. 323
If the LORD's decision re Israel reflects his absolute justice (in bringing the sword
against faithless Israel), then Elijah's statement about Israel's falling away must be
true. And if Israel has fallen away, this must have happened somewhere between
Elijah's triumphant arrival at Jezreel and the arrival at his door of Jezebel's
323
Bar-Efrat (1989), 19~20. Forthis reason the narrator often cedes the judgement to God rather than
present it as his own. For example, within the Ahab-Elijah material itself: the sentence on Ahab for his
treaty with Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 20:42); the incident ofNaboth's vineyard (1 Kgs 21:17-24 and 29); and
the death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1: 16).
155
messenger. I Kgs 18:45b informs the reader "Ahab rode and went to Jezreel." The
verse following describes how Elijah was enabled to run so as to reach Jezreel before
Ahab. 19: I tells how Ahab narrates the incidents at Carmel to Jezebel. Let us suppose
that this rounds off the Carmel episode. The next episode would then open with 19:2,
where Jezebel sends a messenger to Elijah. Between the two episodes the reader must
interpolate a time lapse long enough for the effect of Carmel to have worn out on
Israel. This brings us to the second issue raised, namely, the issue of narrated time as
against narration time.
3.5.2 Time-Objective and Internal

Two time systems meet and mesh in a narrative. There is objective or narration time,
which is the time required for reading or telling the narrative, and there is internal or
narrated time, time as it flows within the world of the story. The latter may flow faster
or slower than the former, or be coterminous with it. A variety of temporal markers
may be used to indicate the pace of narrated time. Within the Elijah corpus itself (1
Kgs 17-2 Kgs 2) there are several, 324 so it does seem odd that if there is a significant
time lapse between the incidents of Carmel and Horeb, the narrator should not
mention it. But before the case is shut, one may look for indicators other than
temporal to see if there is a case for inserting a time period where the narrator has not
mentioned one. Here, three possible non-temporal indicators may be discussed.
The first consideration is the framework that the narrator uses for his telling of the
story. Alter comments: the "intersection of characters ... does not take place in a
trackless void ... [a] stylising convention like the type-scene can offer thematic clues to
the road that will be taken in the larger progress of the narrative and its implicit
values." 325 What we have here is not merely a type-scene; the narrator plays off his
characters against each other within one of the most significant motifs of all-that of
the exodus.
324
See "after a while" (17:7), "many days" (17:15), "after many days" (18:1), "in a little
while/nieahwhile" (18:45), "a day's journey" (19:4), "forty days and forty nights" (19:8), "spent the
night" (19:9), "in the spring" (20: 26), "seven days" (20:29), "as soon as" (21 :15, 16), "for three years"
(22: 1), "until evening," "about sunset" (22:35, 36), and "for three days" (2: 17).
325
Alter (1981), 87.
156
Fishbane argues "[t]he simulataneous capacity of the exodus paradigm to elicit

memory and expectation, recollection and anticipation discloses ... its deep
embeddedness as a fundamental structure of biblical historical imagination." 326 It
further discloses that, as Daube explains, "[t]he kind of salvation portrayed in the
exodus was not, by its nature, an isolated occurrence, giving rise to nebulous hopes
for similar good luck in the future: it had its root in, and set the seal on, a permanent
institution-hence it was something on which absolute reliance might be placed." 327
He rightly concludes, "Surely, this particular quality must have greatly contributed to
the coming into existence and popularity of the pattern. By being fashioned on the
exodus, later deliverances became manifestations of this eternal, certainty-giving
relationship between God and his people." 328
Indeed, the exodus motif has at its heart, not Moses, but Israel. As much as it says
about Moses and his remarkable relationship with God, the fundamental theme is
God's dealings with a wayward people. The narrator seizes these events of history and
uses them as "prismatic openings to the transhistorical" 329 because his story is about
the people of the exodus paradigm. Therefore, it is not an unreasonable proposition
that as much as the Exod. 19-20 and 32-34 are about the covenant and the faithfulness
of the signatory parties thereto, 1 Kgs 18-19, in using the exodus stories as template,
is re-creating the story for a new but disappointingly comparable generation, and
herein lie the "thematic clues" that Alter speaks about. Both stories end on a similar
note of hope-the covenant is to remain; thus the likelihood is that both stories begin
similarly, with the covenant endangered. In Exod. 32, the narrator gives an explicit
account of Israel's faithlessness. In 1 Kgs 18, Israel's divided loyalty has already been
described at length, and when the reader next hears of it at Horeb, he hears it within
the paradigm of the exodus story; the inference is that Carmel has been another
"Sinai," and within not too long a period, Israel has returned to her Baals.
Secondly, there is the consideration that the biblical storyteller does not always insert
temporal indicators. Sometimes, he leaves it to the commonsense of the reader to
recognize where narrated time overtakes narration time and fill in the gap as required;
326
Fishbaiie (1979), 122.
327
Daube (1963), 14.
328
Daube (1963), 14.
329
Fishbane (1979), 122.
157
meanwhile he gets on with the more crucial parts of the storytelling. For example,
Gen. 38 opens with the account of Judah making himself a family. In the space of five
short verses, he settles in a new place, chooses a woman, marries, and has three sons
by her. In v.6, Judah gets his eldest son Era wife. In v.7 Er dies by the hand of LORD
for some unnamed wickedness. The narrated time slows down only when Tamar
emerges as a player in the drama, making it clear that the narrative up to this point is
largely background and the narrator does not wish to spend too much time over it.
Thus, the reader must interpolate between verses 5 and 6 enough time for Er to grow
to a marriageable age and in the course of that period, offend the LORD in some way,
the details of which are unimportant to the story; the fact that he died for it is
sufficient to move the plot forward.
A different case is when a story is told twice and the reader finds that one account
may be longer than the other in terms of internal time. This means that the shorter
story, for reasons of its own, has edited out a time period. The account of the golden
calf is a case in point. After he has broken the tablets (Exod. 32: 19), the furious
prophet immediately turns his attention to the idol, reducing it to dust (v.20). Then he
confronts Aaron. It might occur to the reader that God seems to have overlooked
Aaron's culpability in this affair. It is only in another account of this episode that the
reader is informed that God had indeed taken note of Aaron's role, and only Moses'
intercession had saved him. Reviewing the incident from a different perspective in
Deuteronomy (9: 15ff), the sequence of events includes a forty-day period of fasting
and intercession for Israel and Aaron on the part of Moses, interpolated between the
breaking of the tablets and the destroying of the golden calf.
The point is that the absence of a temporal marker need not necessarily mean that the
narrated time is flowing more or less in synchrony with narration time. In 1 Kgs 19
itself, it appears that there is need for the reader to insert a time adjustment between
Horeb and Abel-meholah, to give Jezebel's death warrant enough time to lapse.
Otherwise, the apparent openness that marks the appointment of Elisha as successor
and their safety thereafter would be hard to reconcile with the kind of situation that
158
sent Elijah on the run. 330 Thus there is no compelling reason why we may not insert
time post Carmel and prior to Jezebel's warrant.
A third possible non-temporal indicator of a time gap may be found in Jezebel's

modus operandi. In the matter of Naboth's vineyard, what impresses is her careful
planning. It appears that she is careful not to turn public opinion against the crown,
for she devises a sophisticated stratagem to gain her ends. It involves elders, the
declaring of a fast, the convening of the city council, the hiring of false witnesses, a
trial, and a stoning to death. It takes time, and Jezebel is prepared to wait to win. If
this is in any way indicative of her method, then it is very likely that in the matter of
the elimination of a person of Elijah's standing she plays her cards with care. It is not
so probable that she would choose to threaten Elijah on the heels of his victory at
Carmel, when the nation has demonstrated by the slaughter of her prophets that it is
on his side. She would choose rather to wait till the revival has cooled off and Israel
has relapsed into their old ways.
Let us suppose that this is what has happened. Elijah is now disadvantaged; his loss of
territory is Jezebel's gain; and as Jezebel gains, Elijah's position becomes particularly
precarious because he stands responsible for emptying her table of 450 prophets. Let
us say Jezebel makes her move now. She sets the assassination in place and so
confident is she that he cannot escape, that she sends him a twenty-four hour notice of
death. It is not entirely unreasonable then that Elijah, receiving a death warrant under
such circumstances from a queen who is no amateur at killing off prophets, flees.
As in the Gideon story, the reader is admitted into the narrator's level of knowledge
only at the close of the episode, and from the point of the reliability of the character
God, he undertakes an informed review of the story. He is in a position to make a
more sympathetic judgement on Elijah's fear-fed flight, his deep, suicidal depression
and his unusual pilgrimage to find God. The covert narrator of 1 Kgs 19 creates
suspense, for "the order of suspense is the order of self-effacement," and he channels
330
One may argue that Jezebel's threat was an empty one, and that Elijah's pariic-f'uelled run was
unnecessary. However, one recalls that the LORD himself saw reason to hide Elijah from the crown
after the announcement of the drought, and that Jezebel did actually kill off prophets till possibly only
those who had gone underground remained alive.
159
this suspense towards "the closural point of vantage" from which "details as well as
contours assume new shape, meaning, determinacy." 331
3.5.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, any attempt to read in sequence the narratives of 1 Kgs 18 and 19 must
engage with the issue of Elijah's reliability, and in this exercise, one looks for help
from the narrator and finds the usual intimations missing-there is neither a summary
narration of Israel's falling away, nor is there comment on Elijah's integrity. This is
not an unusual situation, for, as Fokkelman points out, biblical writers employ a range
of tools with which to convey their values to the reader, so that the story may not be
reduced to didactics; "these forms and techniques may be arranged along a scale that
runs from very clear and explicit to vague, implicit and well-hidden." 332 The narrator
in 1 Kgs 19 is in his covert manifestation rather than his overt one, letting his reader
work at discovering where a judgement has been incorporated, and thus effectively
draws him into the story.
The submission here is that the narrator has addressed the issue of Elijah's reliability.
He has chosen not to state it in terms of his own evaluation; rather he embeds Elijah's
reliability in the absolute reliability of God, by showing God taking Elijah's word as
basis for drastic, programmatic action. By this he awards Elijah the highest possible
endorsement. Working back from this last speech of the scene, the reader mulls over
the story, making the adjustments necessary for a fresh understanding of what has
gone on at Horeb, among these, making the necessary insertion of a time period
during the course of which Israel returns to their folly.
4. 1 Kgs 19:19-21: Elisha becomes Elijah's Minister

19 So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. There were
twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and
threw his mantle over him.
20 He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, "Let me kiss my father and my mother; and
then I will follow you." Then Elijah said to him, "Go back again; for what have I done to
you?"
331
Sternberg (1985), 266, 316.
332
Fokkelman (1999), 149; also Bar-Efrat on the overt and covert manifestations of the narrator,
(1989), 23-45.
160
21 He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the
equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then
he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant.
LXX
19 K!Xl cXlTi'jA8EV E'KEL8EV K!Xl EUpLOKEL tOV EALOOCLE ui.ov !:acf>oct KOCl autoc; ~potp[a EV
poua(v OWOEK!X (EUYll Powv EVWlTLOV ocutou KOCl ocutoc; EV tal.c; OWOEK!X K!Xl ElTi'jA8EV ElT'
autov K!Xl E1TEppt$E t~V llllAWt~V O:UtOU ElT' ocu-r6v
20 Kat KatEALTTEv EA.taatE -rae; p6ac; Kat KatE&pallEV 6TT[aw HA.tou Kat ELTTEv
Koc-racf>tA.~aw -rov TTO:tEpa I-LOU Kat aKoA.ou8~aw 6TT[aw aou Kat ELTTEV Hhou &:vaa-rpE!f>E
on lTElTOLllKU OOL
21 Kat avEatpE$Ev E:~6TTta8Ev au-rou Kat EAIXPEv -ra (EUYll -rwv powv Kocl. E8uaEv Kat
~WllOEV au-ra EV -rol.c; OKEUEOL tWV powv K!Xl EOWKEV n;> A.ocQ KOCl Ecf>ayov KOCl cXVEOtll
K!Xl ElTOpEU811 OlTLOW HA.tou Kal EAELtoupyEL au-rQ
We note that the LXX varies from the MT at v.19 in having Elijah come up to Elisha: KO:L
E:nf]A.9Ev E=n' a.idw. Also, it renders Elijah's difficult response to Elisha with &.v&.atpEcpE on
1TElTOLTJKa aoL-"retum, for I have done (a work) for you."
4.1 The Question of Elijah's "Lapses"

At the conclusion of the LORD's speech, the reader expects that Elijah will (given his
record of implicit obedience in 1 Kgs 17 -18) proceed to the wilderness of Damascus
to anoint Hazael, and follow up with the anointing of Jehu and Elisha. He does not,
and some critics see this as a further mark against Elijah. We may take Walsh's
summing up of the issues as representative:
... as the stories of 1 and 2 Kings unfold, Elijah will carry out only one of these
commissions, and that only in terms that differ from Yahweh's command. Elisha, not
Elijah, will visit Damascus and nominate Hazael to the throne (2 Kgs 8:7-15); Elisha,
not Elijah, will send a disciple to anoint Jehu king of Israel (2 Kgs 9: 1-13). Elijah will
choose Elisha as his servant (1 Kgs 19:19-21) and eventual successor (2 Kgs 2:1-14),
but both events involve investing Elisha with Elijah's mantle rather than anointing
him.333
There are two matters raised here for consideration; first, the seeming non-compliance
of Elijah re the appointments of Hazael and Jehu; secondly, the issue of "anointing."
333
Walsh (1996), 278.
161
4.1.1 The Appointments of Hazael and Jehu

Let us consider first, the "unfinished" business. The manner of its execution suggests
that it is neither simple nor straightforward a matter.
It is significant that Elisha does not rush into these tasks immediately following his
succession to Elijah's place. He engages in "calculated opportunism." 334 In 2 Kgs 8,
his trip to Damascus is timed to coincide with Ben-hadad's illness (v.7). He is
recognized as an important visitor, for his arrival is immediately reported to the king,
and he is honoured by the state with gifts as a "man of God" who may be consulted
for an oracle (vv.7-8). Hazael addresses Elisha as "lord" (1,1~). refers to Ben-hadad
as Elisha's "son" and to himself as but a "dog." It appears that it would not have been
easy for a prophet of Elisha's standing to visit Damascus unnoticed.
Ben-hadad's choice of Hazael as emissary perfectly suits Elisha's purposes, and the
reader wonders if this is exactly as Elisha expected. Elisha's communication to Hazael
is open to two readings, the regular one being that a falsehood is conveyed to the
ailing king, while the truth is revealed to Hazael, namely, that he will succeed to the
throne of Aram. 335 Labuschagne's is one of the several suggested solutions; 336 he
reads ,t, (as in some Hebrew mss and most LXX mss) rather than~',. and reads the
first pronoun as referring to Hazael rather than Ben-hadad. Thus: "Go say to him
[that] you [Hazael] shall certainly live, and [that] Yahweh has shown me that he
[Ben-hadad] shall certainly die." Hazael does not understand it till Elisha plainly tells
him (vv.ll-13). Hazael then cunningly uses the ipsissima verba of the prophet in his
response to Ben-hadad: "He said to me, 'You shall certainly live (v.l4)."' The king
understands this as indirect narration, and is falsely reassured. 337 Both readings are
possible; both reinforce the covert nature of the operation.
Hazael works the fulfilment of the oracle himself, and that without much delay. By
the next day, Ben-hadad has been suffocated to death. The manner of the murder
334
Ellul (1972), 80.
335
E.g., Nelson (1987), 193; House (2001), 283; Fretheim (1999), 164; Brueggemann (2000), 372.
336
See Montgomery (1951), 393; Gray (1964), 477-78.
337
Labuschagne (1965), 327-28. Cf. Provan (1995), 207-08.
162
suggests that Hazael intends the death to seem natural, and his succession to the
throne appears spontaneous, suggesting he was the most likely candidate in any event.
The next appointee is Jehu and here again, the procedure is opportunely timed (2 Kgs
8:25-9:37). 338 Elisha chooses a time when Joram of Israel (the son of Ahab) has
retired wounded from the battlefield, and repaired to Jezreel to recover, a situation
grave enough to prompt a visit from Ahaziah of Judah. Meanwhile Jehu is at the
battlefront, Ramoth-gilead, in a key position of command. The reader notes that
Elisha sends one from among "the sons of the prophets," with very specific
instructions to perform the anointing privately, maintaining the utmost secrecy; he is
to say no more than a line to explain the anointing, and then he is to flee before he can
be apprehended for further questioning (9: 1-3). The urgent need for stealth bespeaks
the hazardous nature of the mission. 339 Again, the anointed is not given any directive
on how he will come into power. Once he is spontaneously "crowned" by the military
officers, Jehu moves very quickly and decisively. He seals off Ramoth-gilead so that
the news may not reach Jezreel. Then he sets off to Jezreel, kills two kings, and
eventually wipes out Ahab's seventy sons and all those in any way connected to the
house of Ahab.
The two cases-Jehu's and Hazael's-are marked by similarities: (1) Elisha chooses a
time when the incumbent monarch is gravely ill, and the appointee is in a position of
strength. (2) The operation is indubitably tactical and undercover, and risks severe
consequences on discovery. (3) The appointment of the king-to-be directly instigates a
coup; the immediacy and speed of the revolts affirms that timing is absolutely critical.
These suggest that carrying out the directive of the LORD to "anoint" Hazael and
Jehu is not quite as straightforward as it would seem. The possibility needs to be kept
open that in being entrusted with these strategic tasks, Elijah is privileged with the
responsibility of planning and executing them. 340 This possibility gains some support
from the usage of nnn in 1 Kgs 19: 15-16. As mentioned in an earlier discussion, the
word is regularly employed in Kings as part of the formulaic expression for
succession to a position, and the likelihood is great that this is the usage with respect
338
See Ellul (1972), 99-100.
339
Cf. e.g., Schulte (1994), 137.
340
Also Fretheim (1999), 110-11.
163
to Elisha's appointment. In this case, one notes that the formula is not used with
respect to Hazael and Jehu; whom Hazael and Jehu are to displace is left unsaid. If by
this we are to understand that Elijah, by prophetic discernment, is to fill in these gaps
himself, Elijah's modus operandi could be interpreted thus: he makes the installation
of Elisha the immediate priority-"The missions are dangerous. In case Elijah should
be killed, Elisha will fulfil that which is undone." 341 The other two appointments, one
supposes then, are not made during the course of his life because the expedient
moment does not arrive. In Ahab's case, one must consider that he "humbled himself'
before the LORD with sackcloth and fasting; his response to the message of rebuke
earns him a waiver-the disaster to come will strike only in the days of his son (1 Kgs
21:27-29).
Thus these tasks of appointment pass from Elijah to his successor Elisha (reminding
of the tasks that Joshua inherits from his predecessor Moses). Elisha, in tum, bides his
time and strikes when the chance of success is optimum. As Miscall remarks: "Divine
commissions can be carried out in circuitous and incomplete fashion because of the
circumstances at the time of execution and because of the character of the one or ones
who carry out the commission." 342
This harmonious working in tandem of prophets and God towards a given goal is
demonstrated at several points in these two Elisha narratives. To begin with, in the
case of the Aramean succession, Elisha's authority in the matter is significant. He is
certain of Ben-hadad's impending death and Hazael's coming to power because "the
LORD has shown (v':1~1) me" (2 Kgs 8:10, 13); the verb, with its prophetic
connotations, reinforces the oracular. He foretells the catastrophe that Hazael will
bring on Israel in graphic detail, weeping in the knowledge of its certainty (vv.11-12).
The reader sees that this is an expansion of the summary prophecy granted Elijah at
Horeb on the sword of Hazael. Elisha acts, not on secondary and devolved authority,
but as one fully cognisant of and participating in the future, as God will direct it.
In the Jehu episode, though it is from Elisha that the initiative and authority to anoint
Jehu originates, he may send a "young prophet" in his stead, losing nothing of the
341
Scolnic (1987), 333.
342
Miscall (1989), 77.
164
force and validity of the anointing. The highest level of military command accepts his
action as sound enough basis for an immediate coup. Further, the young prophet is
ordered to say "Thus says the LORD: I anoint you king over Israel" (2 Kgs 9:3). One
notes that his position is that of direct representative of the LORD, even though he
acts at Elisha's behest. What is of even greater interest is that the young prophet
appears to overstep his brief. He adds in a prophetic commission-"You shall strike
down the house of your master Ahab, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my
servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the LORD (v.7)"-and
follows it with a prophecy that recalls Elijah's pronouncements on the house of Ahab
(1 Kgs 21:21-24 ). The fact that the whole speech flows from the introductory "thus
says the LORD" eclipses any tenor of the second-hand; he speaks with his own
prophetic authority; he "places himself in a line of great prophets: Ahijah of Shiloh,
Jehu son of Hanani and Elijah the Tishbite" who "respectively pronounce annihilation
for the first three royal dynasties of Israe1." 343 The oracle he brings Jehu meshes
perfectly with the purposes of the LORD as the reader knows has been revealed to
Elijah and is being acted on by Elisha.
The way the narrator tells the story directs our understanding of the working out of
the LORD's commission. He repeatedly recalls Elijah's oracles at key points in the
narrative of Jehu's rise to power. He inserts the detail that Joram and Ahaziah meet
Jehu at the property of N aboth of Jezreel (2 Kgs 9:21). This immediateIy creates recall
of the murder and the associated curse, and anticipates Jehu's dealing with Joram.
Jehu's summary statement (2 Kgs 9:25-26) recalls 1 Kgs 21: 17-19, for this is the only
other account of the LORD rebuking Ahab on the death of Naboth. Though Elijah is
not mentioned by name, and the cited oracle is not exactly the same as in 1 Kgs 21,
the intention of retribution is identical, and Joram's dead body on Naboth's field is "in
accordance with the word of the LORD." Then again, at the description of Jezebel's
death, Jehu makes another summary statement, and this time he explicitly recalls
Elijah, citing what appears to be a longer version of the oracle in 1 Kgs 21:23 (2 Kgs
9:36-37). On the slaughter of Ahab's seventy sons, Jehu categorically evokes Elijah
with "Know then that there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of the LORD,
which the LORD spoke concerning the house of Ahab; for the LORD has done what
343
Miscall (1989), 77-78; Cf. Scolnic (1987), 334.
165
he said through his servant Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10; cf. 1 Kgs 21:21)." The word of the
LORD and of Elijah are one and the same, and Jehu's acts bring it to pass. Even the
word Jehu uses to describe his attitude towards the crown and the state-patronised
religion is a key point of recall of Elijah at Horeb; like Elijah, he reacts with "zeal for
the LORD," announcing it as the motivation for his acts (:"'T,i1,'? ,nKJp~ i'TK11; 2 Kgs
10: 16).
The reliability of Jehu's use of Elijah to justify his deeds is affirmed at the two highest
levels in Hebrew narrative-by the narrator, and then by the ultimate authority, the
LORD himself. In his summary statement, the narrator recalls Elijah for the last time:
"he ... wiped them out, according to the word of the LORD that he spoke to Elijah (2
Kgs 10: 17)." In the final statement the LORD affirms that Jehu's actions were "in
accordance with all that was in my heart" and as reward, his line is assured Israel's
throne to the fourth generation (2 Kgs 10:30). 344
It appears then, that there is a surprisingly wide ownership both of Elijah's oracles
and commission. There is no rebuke of Elijah within the narrative for unfinished
business. ("God has not only refrained from punishing him for his failure to complete
the assigned missions, but has obviously honoured him" in the manner of his
departure. 345 ) Rather, the commission smoothly moves into Elisha's hands, and at
every key point in the narrative, as the sword of Jehu moves in its deadly arc wiping
out Baalism and the house that promoted it, Elijah is recalled. Miscall sums it up well:
"The word of the Lord has been spoken by himself and others; it has been repeated
and declared fulfilled, all in a series of interpretations and reinterpretations that
involve the great and not-so-great, the named and the unnamed ... never is it a matter
of a one-to-one mechanical correspondence. " 346
344
We note the problem of reading this in relation to Hos. I :4-5. See Miller (1967), 322, who attel!lpts
a solUtion within 'the ·context of the' divine curses agafnst the house of 6mri.
345
Scolnic (1987), 334.
346
Miscall (1989), 81. Also von Rad (1965), 211-12, on the Elijah stories as demonstrative of the
"self-fulfilling relationship between the divinely inspired prophecy and the historical occurrence."
166
4.1.2 The "Anointing" of Elisha

The second issue Walsh raises concerns the order from the LORD on Elisha's
anointing.
The verb --Jnw~ when used with a person as its accusative object, involves solemn
setting apart to an office; it is an act with sacral effectiveness and legal force, made
tangible with oil poured on the head. While it is mostly used with respect to the
installation of kings and the consecration of priests, --Jnw~ appears with respect to
prophets in 1 Kgs 19: 16 and Isa. 61: 1. The frequent construction of the verb with ',
(as in 1 Kgs 19:15, 16) shows that the process signifies a change in status. From 1
Sam. 16:1-13, one derives the theological implications associated with the act of such
anointing: it is a visible sign of divine election; a representative of the LORD
performs the symbolic ritual; the anointed one is empowered with the spirit of the
LORD? 47 In 1 Kgs 19, Elijah does not anoint with oil, but rather, uses his mantle on
Elisha. 348 (Here, we will restrict our consideration of the role of the mantle to this
particular text, and deal with its role in 2 Kgs 2 when we come to that episode.) What
are the implications?
Walsh explains that with the mantle, "we are probably dealing with a cultural
convention familiar to ancient audiences concerning the prophet's mantle as a
distinctive badge of office." 349 In support he cites 2 Kgs 1:8 where Elijah is identified
as a 1liiL1 "li~ w,~ (more probably "a man with a garment of skin" rather than "a
hairy man") 350 , Zech. 13:4 (false prophets put on hairy mantles-1liiL1 n11~-to pass
as true prophets), and Mark 1:6 and Matt. 3:4 (John the Baptist's camel-hair
garment). 351 This mantle is cast on Elisha.
347
BDB, nw~. 602-03; Seybold (1998), 45-49.
348
A conventional approach ascribes this section (1 Kgs 19:19-21) to a different hand from the section
earlier, thereby settling the non-anointing of Elisha. See De Vries (1978), 112-13. Even if so, we will
see·that the·redacted text clearly construes VI1W~'in a non-literalist way.
349
Cf. e.g., Gray (1964), 368; Montgomery (1951), 316.
350
BDB, ,llW, 972.
351
Walsh (1996), 279.
167
It is striking that Elijah performs the action hardly breaking stride, as the MT would
suggest: ,,t,~ 1n1i~ 1',w,, ,,',~ 1il,t,~ 1:::ll7,l 352 Rice suggests, quite plausibly,
that in wordlessly continuing on his way, "Elijah both tests Elisha's readiness to serve
and allows him to respond in freedom." 353 But, the fact that there is no "anointing"
(in the usual sense) gives rise to the possibility that Elijah is not being faithful to the
mandate given at Horeb. 354 In answer to this, one notes that the factors that define the
significance of -.Jnw~ as seen earlier from 1 Sam. 16: 1-13 are present in the Elisha
narratives: 1 Kgs 19 makes explicit that the LORD himself makes the appointment,
and it is his representative Elijah who is to install Elisha; the empowering by the spirit
of the LORD occurs in 2 Kgs 2, and the gap between installation and empowerment is
explained by the circumstance that Elisha succeeds Elijah only at his departure.
Further, the significance of Elijah's act becomes apparent as the narrative unfolds, by
way of the reaction it elicits from Elisha. Elisha immediately recognizes a call here,
for he directly leaves his ploughing, runs after Elijah and requests permission to take
leave of his parents properly, after which, he says, he will follow Elijah. Elisha seems
quite certain that he has been "invested" into service by the mantle 355 in a manner that
loses none of the weight and burden of an "anointing."
Elijah's reply to this is, however, not so clear to us. Walsh holds that Elijah's answer
"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. It is more likely that Elijah intends the question literally. What does
Elisha think this investiture means?" 356 The LXX may also move the reading in this
direction with its &v&o-rpE<jlE on lTElTOL11KcX OOL-"retum, for I have done (a work) for
you." Again, the issue is clarified by Elisha's response. Rice sums up well: "Whatever
the precise meaning, it is clear from the context that Elisha understands that he may
352
Recognizing the oddness, the LXX modifies it to read that Elijah came up to Elisha----Kal. E-rri'jA.OEv
E-rr' airtov.
353
Rice (1990), 165.
354
E.g., Provan (1995), 147.
355
Thus Eissfeldt concludes that the command was used "im iibertragenen Sinne"-in a figurative
sense. (1922-23), 329. Cf. Fretheim (1999), 110; Rice (1990), 165; House (1995), 225; Brueggemann
(2000), 242; DeVries (1985), 239. Gray suggests that the verb is used in the weak sense of "set apart."
(1964), 41'1. . ..· ..
356
Walsh (1996), 279. Cf. Wiseman (1993), 174-75; cf. Provan (1995), 148; contra Fretheim, who
agrees that "[w]hether Elijah rebukes him is unclear," but suggests that "he appears to tell Elisha (a rich
man) to return to what he was doing as if the call had not occurred." (1999), Ill.
168
follow Elijah and that he may also take leave of his parents." 357 Elisha returns and
straightaway engages in activity that makes it unquestionably clear that he is making a
decisive and enthusiastic break with his current occupation. He slaughters one yoke of
oxen and uses the tackle to cook "the people" a meal, presumably in farewell, 358 for
immediately following he arises, follows after Elijah and ministers to him. Thus
Elijah's non-verbal communication via mantle, and his spoken statement are both
elucidated by Elisha's prompt responses; even if there is no literal anointing, Elijah
"sets apart" Elisha to an office as in the sense of ...Jnrzi~, and Elisha himself seems to
have no difficulty at all in discerning and appreciating the high honour accorded him.
4.2 Mosaic Resonances

The final scene of 1 Kgs 19 not only flows from the Horeb episode, but recalls the
concluding section of the story of the golden calf, namely, Exod. 34:29-35. Both
narratives, one recollects, had opened with the prophet in some way losing credibility
(Exod. 32:1; 1 Kgs 19:3-4). (We must stress the difference here-Moses loses
reliability in the eyes of the misguided Israelites; Elijah, however, loses credibility
with himself, and consequently with the reader.) Thereafter, there is a resolution of
crisis via an encounter between prophet and God at Horeb (Exod. 34:4-28; 1 Kgs
19:8-18); following this, the prophet returns to the people, and is affirmed. In the case
of Moses, this affirmation takes the shape of a face that shines "because he had been
talking with God" (Exod. 34:29). The awed withdrawal of the people recalls their
retreat from the closeness of deity at Sinai (Exod. 20:18-21 ). The narrator positions
Moses as the LORD's undeniable and incontestable representative. 359 "If Moses
should remain discredited, both the repetition of Yahweh's revelation and instruction
given already and also the continuing revelation and instruction to be given through
357
Rice (1990), 165.
358
Walsh sees a "deeper meaning of the meal" in the verb .Yn~T, since it "generally means to kill an
animal as a sacrifice." He also thinks that the phrase c';lr.ti~-"he boiled them"-evokes a c';lr.ti, the
"communion sacrifice, in which a person offers an animal to Yahweh in thanksgiving for divine
blessings and uses the sacrificial meat to host a meal for family and friends." (e.g., the n~T of Exod.
24:5 and 1 Sam. 11:15 is also a c';lr.ti; also, Lang (1980), 11, 22-24; BDB, c';lr.ti, 1023. He concludes,
"Elisha's action, therefore, combines elements of separation from his old life, cultic thanksgiving upon
undertaking the -new; and ritual solidarity with 'the people>=among whom- hl wiifp'tirsu_e_ his prophetic
service." (1996), 279-80. If this is so, it would nicely clarify the direction of the exchange between
Elijah and Elisha (the verbal and non-verbal components included).
359
So, for example, Morgenstern (1925), 5; Durham (1987), 466; Moberly (1983), 108-09.
169
him would be compromised. Moses' authority must therefore be re-established in the

eyes of the very people who have rejected him ... " 360
In the case of Elijah also, there is a similar narratorial affirmation. Here, the role of
the people is taken over by one individual, namely, Elisha. Elijah's wordless gesture
is authority enough to make Elisha drop his work and run after him in implicit
obedience. In the presence of the people who eat the leave-taking meal, it is
established that Elijah is a prophet of God, whom a rich man may count it a privilege
to serve, renouncing all. 361
The story of the golden calf ends with Moses passing on to Israel the instruction he
had received from the LORD at Sinai (Exod. 34:32), for their obedience; so also, 1
Kgs 19 ends with Elijah executing an order received at Horeb.
Elisha becomes Elijah's "minister." Provan points out that though --Jn1lli is used to
describe Joshua's relationship with Moses and Joshua does go on to become Moses'
successor, --Jn1!1i has already been used in Kings of Abishag the Shunammite (1 Kgs
I :4, 15) and will be later used of Elisha's servant (2 Kgs 4:43; 6: 15), neither of which
cases involves succession of any sort. 362 However, considering the Mosaic tenor of
the entire chapter, the word takes on significance. As was pointed out in detail
previously (under the discussion of nnn in 1 Kgs 19: 16), the prophet, in anticipation
of his death, makes known his concern for Israel's future leadership and is directed to
install a successor. That successor is publicly invested, and then serves till such time
as the prophet is removed, upon which he becomes prophet in his master's place.
5. Concluding Summary to 1 Kgs 19

With 1 Kgs 19, the story makes a dramatic shift; the intrepid and triumphant Elijah
makes himself a fugitive. Assessing himself as a failure, he asks the LORD to take his
life. The answer takes the form of sustenance, and when Elijah eats in obedience to
the messenger, the command-compliance pattern so characteristic of the narrative thus
360
Durham ( 1987), 466.
361
It is of passing interest that Moses' veil carries associations of his most intimate encounters with
God, as does Elijah's mantle.
362
Provan (1995), 150.
170
far reasserts itself and the reader may understand this as a reversal of Elijah's lapse.
Elijah's subsequent move is to travel to Horeb. Reading his death wish under the
broom tree and his complaint at Horeb alongside the two death wishes of Moses (at
Sinai and at Kibroth-hattaavah), we located a verbal and conceptual intersection in the
phrase ~i:l'? ~:mt The expression identifies the common theme of the loneliness of
the leader that runs through the Kings, Exodus and Numbers stories. Further, we
noted that the contours of Elijah's complaint at Horeb resemble those of Moses' at
Kibroth-hattaavah. This led to the tentative proposal that Elijah, seeking divine
guidance in his situation of crisis, sought God at a place associated with Israel's
paradigmatic prophet, making a verbal presentation modelled on the Mosaic. We
noted that Elijah's speech turns on Israel's abandoning of the covenant, information
that takes the reader by surprise, and casts a shadow of doubt on Elijah's reliability
considering Israel's confession at Carmel.
The LORD's answer is graphic, coming m earthquake, wind, fire, and the
translation-defying it pi il~~i ',,p. Studying this phrase with reference to Job 4: 16,
the inference was that it signifies a natural phenomenon in the same sense as the other
three elements of the theophany are "natural"; but as much as the latter are (explicitly)
empty of the presence of deity, the former (implicitly) contains it. A clue to the
absence of the divine presence may be found in the verb --.f:lTlJ, which Elijah uses to
describe Israel's forsaking of the covenant. We noted that a principle of retribution
(stated in language not unlike the lex talionis) is frequently encountered in the event
of Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant. Here, God's withdrawing of his presence
could be read as a proposal to abandon Israel in punitive reciprocation. When
dialogue resumes, Elijah indicates his resistance to the proposal; his device of
deliberately repeating his earlier indictment returns the conversation to a point prior to
the "empty" theophany. The LORD is forced into considering an alternative solution
to Israel's apostasy; this takes the form of a strategy to create an Israel within Israel, a
faithful remnant. From this the reader infers that the narrator embeds Elijah's
reliability in the absolute reliability of the character God, by showing God taking
Elijah's word as basis for drastic, programmatic action; Israel has indeed relapsed
since Carmel.
171
The story reprises the events at Sinai; it does not take long for Israel to lapse from
confession into apostasy; and, as at Israel's first instance of unfaithfulness, the LORD
allows his prophet a role in fickle Israel's emergent future. Once more, because of that
prophet persevering in "loyal opposition," 363 as God expects of him, Israel's covenant
relationship is recovered, albeit this time in an unprecedented form, namely, in terms
of a remnant.
363
Coats ( 1977).
172
Chapter Five
1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18: Elijah and Ahaziah
Sirach's paean in celebration of Elijah's life and work recalls the events recorded in 2
Kgs 1, " ... also three times brought down fire ... You sent kings down to destruction,
and famous men, from their sickbeds" (Sir. 48:3, 6). These deeds earn him fulsome
praise: "How glorious you were, Elijah, in your wondrous deeds! Whose glory is
equal to yours?" (Sir. 48: 4). Reading the text in another age, the reader is not so sure
that these are exploits meriting applause. Indeed, Montgomery and Gehmann note
"the preposterousness of the miraculous element." 1 Since our interest is in following
the characterisation of Elijah, our study of this narrative will require us to engage with
this issue and resolve it as best as we may. However, the more important business is
to keep on the track of any resonance between this story and the Moses narratives.
One may safely say at the outset that in this aspect 2 Kgs 1 is not as rich as other
sections of the Elijah corpus. However, there may be material here that furthers the
argument we have been building up for Elijah as a second Moses, and this possibility
directs our reading.
1. 1 Kgs 22:51-53: Regnal Resume

Ahab has made his dramatic exit from the stage of Israel's history and his son
Ahaziah takes his place. The introductory regnal summary is bleak. He walks "in the
way of his father and mother"-a doubly damning indictment, given he has Jezebel
for a mother. Other than the brief opening notice on the loss of Moab (2 Kgs 1: 1), and
the closing personal detail that Ahaziah had no heir (necessary to explain his brother's
accession to the throne; 2 Kgs 1: 17), the story of this king' s reign is curious in that it
is restricted to a single incident, namely, his ultimately fatal accident. If in this, it is
the narrator's intention to revisit the themes that dominated his telling of the story of
Ahab in 1 Kgs 17-18, 2 the incident is well chosen. We tum first to the theme of Baal
versus the LORD.
1
Montgomery (1951), 348.
2
This is regularly noted. E.g., Robinson (1976), 19; Smend (1975 1), 178. Cf. Cogan and Tadmor
(1988), 27.
173
2. 2 Kgs 1: The Themes Revisited

2.1 Baal versus the LORD
Here is another king who chooses Baal over the LORD, and once more, Elijah is
commissioned to demonstrate the folly of the choice. A contest-like confrontation
ensues, and a show of power through word and deed both proves the LORD's
exclusive position as God of Israel and affirms Elijah's position as his representative.
As in 1 Kgs 17-18, the confrontation is at multiple levels. On the highest plane is the
struggle for Israel's allegiance (here represented by that of the king), covenanted to
the LORD but skewed towards Baal of Ekron. The characters in the narrative, human
and otherwise, are more or less clearly distributed between the two divine parties, and
are themselves brought into conflict in various combinations.
Events are set into motion with Ahaziah's choice of deity in his hour of need. He
sends 3 messengers to Baalzebub of Ekron, believing that this god holds the answer to
the pressing question of his survival. It is noted that the usage of -.Jw11 here is
specifically in the technical sense, that of seeking divine revelation by consulting an
oracle (cf. Amos 5:5). 4 This is no small sin, since Ahaziah ignores the fundamental
tenet oflsrael's faith system, which precludes the possibility of appealing to any other
deity. "Ahaziah clearly violates any belief that Yahweh is the sole God for Israel, and
the specific prohibition for such activity is found in the writer's blueprint for the
perfect Israelite society" (cf. Deut. 12:30). 5 In the more immediate context, that of the
chronicles of the Omrides, Ahaziah's foolishness is set against the point made
repeatedly in 1 Kgs 17-22, that the LORD is in control of matters of healing, and life
and death. 6
3
Supporting his argument for the unity of the narrative, Begg sets out the verb "n'-,w as one of the
motifs. "The various sendings cited in the course of the narrative emanate from two distinct 'sources',
namely, Ahaziah (vv.2, 9, 11, 13) and Yahweh acting through his mal'iik (vv.3, 15). These two sources
stand in sharpest opposition ... [and] intersect...[T]he narrative ... can be seen as revolving around the
question of which 'source' will have his commissions carried to completion !Jy those he s_ends," (1985),
76:77. - . '
4
Gray (1964), 413; Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 24-25.
5
Hobbs (1985), 9.
6
House (1995), 243.
174
Chapter Five: 1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18: Elijah andAhaziah
The LORD immediately counters Ahaziah by sending his messenger C1~',o) with the
answer to Ahaziah's enquiry. 7 Baal is brusquely removed from the equation; unlike
Carmel, he is not even accorded the dignity of a chance to speak. The implication is
that he simply does not matter, since Ahaziah's quest may be satisfied within Israel,
and by Israel's God. By this act of pre-emption, Baal loses even before he has entered
the game. Baal's defeat immediately reflects onto his adherent Ahaziah. He becomes
a victim of his unfortunate choice; because he chose Baal (we note that the sentence
of death flows from the indictment of his action: "now therefore"-r:h1), he is must
share in Baal's defeat. This knowledge, which only the reader and Elijah share, must
now filter down to the remaining characters.
The next encounter is between the prophet and the king's messengers; as at Carmel,
the numbers are against Elijah. Again as at Carmel, the opposing party is unresisting,
lapsing submissively into obedience. The telescoping of the narrative sharpens the
irony, 8 since we do not hear Elijah pronounce the word of the LORD. Rather, the
message moves directly from the mouth of the LORD's messenger into the mouths of
Ahaziah's messengers; the ones that were sent to bring back word from Baal return
with word from the opposing deity.
Fretheim makes an insightful contribution on the question that dominates, and

reverberates through, the narrative. It is theological in content, and at the first glance,
rhetorical in nature. Fretheim argues that both affirmative and negative replies to the
question would concede the inadequacy of Baal (as also of the LORD). If "no," it
would admit to the inferiority of the Baals already being worshipped in Israel under
royal sponsorship. If "yes," it would to reduce these Baals to nonentities. "And by not
addressing the question at all, they admit its force. The purpose of the question is not
simply to make a claim for the Lord, but to get these individuals themselves explicitly
7
The equivalence between messengers is regularly noted. It is also observed that while previously, the
word of the LORD came unmediated to Elijah, the divine messenger here appears to be to occasioned
by the intention to set up a counterpart to the royal messengers. Skinner (n.d.), 273-74; Cogan and
Tadmor (1988), 25; Wiseman (1993), 193; Hobbs (1985), 9; Provan (1995), 168-69; Nelson (1987),
155;Montgotnery (1951), 349; Briieggeniann(2000), 284, 287.c
8
The ellipsis is sometimes read as an omission (Gray (1964), 411), but more often as a case of
deferring a key scene to a later sequence in order to heighten dramatic effect (Cogan and Tadmor
(1988), 26, citing Gen. 42:21 and Exod. 14:12).
175
or implicitly to downgrade the godness of Baal. " 9 Considering that both times in the
question c~n',~ is used, the question may be read to embrace both the god and the
God in Israel; at once the question communicates both sarcasm and severity. The
proper answer to the question, Fretheim rightly observes, is to be found in Naaman's
mouth: "Now I know that there is no God (C~:-t"~) in all the earth except in Israel" (2
Kgs 5: 15). "Ahaziah has forfeited that source of healing by looking elsewhere and
hence cannot live." 10
With this the plot moves to the central triplet sequence. That interpreting this
sequence is no small puzzle is clear in the range of readings. Skinner, for example,
comments: "The calling down of fire from heaven on the presumptuous soldiery is the
only painful episode in all the histories of Elijah; and it is difficult to think that the
author of ch. xvii-xix would have lowered the moral grandeur of his hero by so
extravagant a display of superhuman power."II The opposing view may be
represented by Cogan and Tadmor: " ... there is nothing uncharacteristic about Elijah's
behaviour that does not fit his appearance in other parts of the cycle as a staunch
fighter for the exclusive worship of YHWH in Israel." 12 Fortunately, the narrative
itself is not unforthcoming as regards clues for interpretation.
Like his father before him, Ahaziah turns his energies to locating Elijah. His intention
is not made explicit. Fretheim thinks it was probably to placate Elijah and thus
neutralize the oracle, or to see what healing the prophet might offer. 13 However, the
narrative suggests that Ahaziah's intentions are not honourable, for Elijah must later
be divinely assured of his safety before the king (2 Kgs 1: 15). Thus, Hobbs is
probably more on the mark when he comments that Ahaziah's actions echo "a
common theme in prophetic literature, namely, the desire of those in authority to
silence an unfavourable prophetic word." 14 Thus, the companies that Ahaziah
successively sends out to escort Elijah to him become, by association, doomed to the
same failure as Baal, the king, and the messengers to Ekron. Further, because they are
9
Fretheim (1999), 134.
°Fretheim (1999), 134.
1
11
Skinner (n.d.), 274.
12
Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 28.
13
Fretheim (1999), 133.
14
Hobbs (1985), 10; Cf. Provan (1995), 169; Wiseman (1993), 194; House (1995), 243-44; Robinson
(1976), 20.
176
trained militia on a specific mission, by their very nature and numbers (a captain with
his full contingent) they are a belligerent and hostile move against Elijah. 15 By
introducing them into the ongoing confrontation between pro-Baal and pro-Yahwist
parties, Ahaziah notches it up to "battle" mode. Under such circumstances, the reader
may expect mortal danger to the weaker combatant. From the experience of 1 Kgs
17-18, the reader also appreciates that a party that aligns itself against the LORD of
Hosts is, to say the least, unwise, and anticipates for these soldiers a fate as dire as
that which befell the Baalist prophets at Carmel. 16
When the "battle" is joined, Elijah is unarmed and alone; arrayed against him is a
show of military power. The king's message is terse. "It might be an invitation to
parlay. The flat imperative, however, suggests it is a command, designed to
apprehend, perhaps silence, perhaps eliminate the prophetic threat." 17 If so, it sits
uneasily with the honorific the captain uses, "man of God." 18 Elijah seizes the implicit
contradiction and turns it into a weapon. In the prevailing military context (and we
remember that Ahaziah has created it), undisputed victory comes with the annihilation
of the enemy. For a battle cry, Elijah throws out a jussive; 19 it releases God to act as
Yhwh Sebaoth. As in the Elijah corpus thus far, the command-compliance pattern is
indicated by the fulfilment following hard upon the command, and by the parallel
phrasing between the two. The captain's order is overthrown by Elijah's as, instead of
the prophet having to descend (..J11"), the fire of God does (..J11"). As at Carmel, this
is a fire that "devours" c..J',~~) and functionally there is overlap in purpose, namely,
to prove Elijah's point on the superiority of his God over Baal. Indeed, as Fretheim
notes, the question of whether there is a God in Israel is directly answered: "The fire
is less a divine means to protect the prophet than a public demonstration of the power
15
Cf. Brueggemann (2000), 285.
16
Regarding Elijah's part in these parallel narratives, there is room for a fairly straightforward
equivalence, such as made by Cogan and Tadmor: "As in the other narratives of this cycle, Elijah is
portrayed as an uncompromising man of God, zealous in his demand for exclusive loyalty to YHWH
and terrifying in his acts of retribution (cf. 1 Kgs 18:40)." (1988), 28. One recognizes however, that the
two narratives handle the prophet's role in complexly different ways.
17
18
On the regular use of the term, see Hobbs (1985), 11; Bratsiotis (1974), 1:222-35, esp. 233-35.
19
The LXX rather presents Elijah's words as prophetic oracle: Kata~~OEt!XL TIUp EK tOU oupavou Kttl
KatacjlayEtaL aE ... ; "fire shall come down out of heaven and shall devour you ... " This adds to the
characterization of Elijah as possessing awesome power, but detracts somewhat from the dynamic of
interdependence and cooperation that marks the prophet-God relationship.
177
of Israel's God in a situation where that power (to heal) has been called into question
and a public verification of Elijah as mediator of this power." 20
The second captain and his regiment follow. As with most cases of repetition in
Hebrew narrative, the variations make a significant contribution and thus, merit
examination.
v.9: :-ti1 1~i l',~;, c~:-t',K:-t ll.i,K ,,',K 1~1~1.. .,~t,K ',lr,
v.ll: :-ti1 :11:-t~ l',~;, 1~K :-t::> c~n',K:-t ll.i~K ,~t,K 1~i~, 111~,
It is noted that this time, the verb "ascend" (--./:-t'-,11) is replaced by "answer" (--.f:-t'J11).
Reading without emendation, Cogan and Tadmor suggest that perhaps this officer did
not even risk coming up to Elijah, and rather preferred to shout up from the bottom of
the hill. 21
The captain's order has an added note of urgency, reflecting perhaps the royal
pressure he operates under; he wants Elijah to come down "quickly." Also, the
information that the directive comes from the king is phrased differently. In the
second instance it strongly echoes the formulaic introduction to a message from the
LORD as delivered by a prophet. The captain's l',~;, 1~K ;,;:, opposes Elijah's
mn~ 1~K ;,;:, already delivered to the king by messenger (vv.4, 6). It represents
Ahaziah's stubborn resistance to the word of the LORD, and his determination to
confront it. The reader now sees the captain and Elijah shift into the roles of
counterpart messengers, the former's authority being Ahaziah and the latter's, the
LORD. It is inevitable that the LORD and his word should prevail, and thus, even
more than the first captain, the second one invites disaster upon himself and his men.
With the third time, Ahaziah loses all pretensions to power as his representative is
literally brought to his knees. The captain entreats for life, quite abandoning his
responsibility to serve the royal summons. Here, at last, is a character who discerns
Elijah's position and power vis-a-vis that of the crown. In contrast to his master who
would resist Elijah, this captain demonstrates that acceptance is the only appropriate
2
°Fretheim (1999), 133.
21
Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 26.
178
response to the man of God as a representative of God's will. 22 With this end
Ahaziah's various commissions. Begg rightly notes: "[A]ll his messengers either turn
actively disloyal to him, or suffer destruction trying to carry out his instructions.'m
When Elijah relents and accompanies the captain, it is a decision independent of the
king, prompted by the only messenger who commands his allegiance, viz., the angel
of the LORD. The angel encourages Elijah with "Do not be afraid of him." The
formula is regularly used in the context of war and/or threat to life. The "him"
referred to could not be the captain for only in the previous speech he has been
begging on bended knee for his life. Thus, it must be the king that posed a threat to
Elijah, the nature of which warranted Elijah tactically seeking out the safety of a hill,
and protecting himself with combat measures. With the capitulation of the captain, the
rout of the Baal camp is almost complete.
Elijah sets out the indictment to the king's face, making it clear that because of his
seeking Baal rather than Israel's God, he is to die; his injury was not necessarily
fatal. 24 The silence with which Elijah's words are met implies the crushing of all
resistance. Like his father Ahab at Carmel, Ahaziah hears and "obeys.'' The narrative
is telescoped once more, again with dramatic effect. Elijah speaks death to the king,
and he simply expires. 25 The emphasis on the "dead" certainty of the event
(m~n m~) is vindicated, and the word of the LORD and of Elijah echoes in the
silence of the halls of the departed Baalist Ahaziah. 26
There may be a postscript to this the LORD's routing of Baal, and Brueggemann
notices it in the annalistic notice of succession. Ahaziah dies without an heir, and is
followed by his brother Jehoram.
Perhaps the court record only gives us a fact. But when the narrative is loaded, as is
this one, with talk of Baal, we notice. Baal is the one who allegedly fructifies and is
22
Fritz (2003), 231. Cf. Skinner (n.d.), 275; House (1995), 244.
23
Begg ( 1985), 77.
24
Cf. Brichto (1992), 157.
25
Cf. Brueggemann (2000), 287; Begg (1985), 77.
26
It lnust also be recognized that the pitting of king against prophet is of much wider and deeper
significance. As Hobbs perceptively points out, "In the broader view of the history of Israel presented
in the OT, this cannot be construed as a power struggle, but rather as a conflict over the very survival of
Israel as the people of God and the role of the prophets in that crisis." (1985), 13.
179
expected to give new life. But of course, Baal does not, yet another evidence that Baal
is a futile force ... The royal family never understood, but the narrative permits us to
notice what it failed to grasp. 27
2.2 The Affirmation of the Prophet

A second theme from the Elijah cycle thus far that 2 Kgs 1 revisits is that of the
affirmation of the prophet. The narrator directs the reader to Elijah's position and
authority in several ways, some more explicit than others.
First, we note what Begg identifies as one of the unifying factors of the narrative-the
28
development in the appreciation of Elijah's identity. The reader gets to see Elijah
from the point of view of the characters, and there is a gradual progression till he is
recognized in the measure the reader of Kings already knows him.
The first to encounter him are the king's messengers, and their knowledge of him is
virtually non-existent; he is "a man." This makes his impact on them all the more
astonishing: "simply at his word, the messengers had broken off their royal mission to
place themselves at his disposal." 29
When pressed for detail, the messengers can only describe him by physical
appearance. The king's level of awareness is more adequate, and he instantly matches
the description to "Elijah the Tishbite." His immediate action of sending to fetch
Elijah by show of force implies either his ignorance or his defiance of Elijah's status.
The first two captains do address Elijah in keeping with who he fundamentally is-a
"man of God"-but their intentions betray a woeful gap in perception. The only other
usage of the term for Elijah was in the context of an epistemological crisis, by the
Sidonian widow, newly cognisant of Elijah's incredibly powerful status as described
by this term. In contrast, the captains' use of it is in woeful ignorance, 30 as they
attempt the misguided task of taking this "man of God" by force. The challenge
27
28
Begg (1985), 78-79. Nelson recognizes that "the revelation of Elijah's identity is an important step in
the plot." (1987), 157.
29
Begg (1985), 78.
30
It may even be derogatory, Gray proposes. (1964), 414.
180
before Elijah, then, is to authenticate his position as this God's representative, and he
sets up the most effective route for this, by calling on the LORD to act on his behalf.
Burney may be right in noting the force of the , (2 Kgs 1: 10, though omitted in v.12)
in Elijah's comeback: "The ,, by emphasis of 'if,' imparts a grim sarcasm to the

prophet's words; the implication being, 'You glibly term me 'man of God,' while
overlooking my power to withstand the king's command." 31
The third captain wisely harnesses the experiences of his predecessors to protect
himself against the awful power Elijah commands. We may read in his address of
Elijah as "man of God" a new note of discernment and recognition. But the
culmination of the portrayal of Elijah as a man of extraordinary authority is at the
bedside of the sick king. The royal silence may be read as a neutralizing of all
resistance as he comes into a full knowledge of Elijah as a "man of God." Certainly,
Ahaziah' s wordlessness affirms the potency of Elijah and his word.
A corollary to this scheme, Begg notes, is the opportunity given the reader to note the
stances of the various characters towards the prophet, and their consequences. Thus,
the first two captains with their fifties offend against Elijah's status as man of God
and suffer instant obliteration, just as does Ahaziah who had instigated their
threatening stances. The third captain escapes destruction only because he abandons
his mission. Similarly, the envoys to Ekron defect to Elijah's camp, and "as his
messengers they participate in his own inviolability." 32
A second affirmation of Elijah at the story level is his characterization as the obedient
prophet, familiar from the stories of 1 Kgs 17-18. The chapter is bracketed by the
appearances of the divine messenger, and so the story begins and ends with a
showcasing of the prophet's compliance. Indeed, 2 Kgs 1, more than the preceding
Elijah narrative, makes a point of this characteristic, and it does this by juxtaposing
his instantaneous and total "submissiveness to Yahweh's directives" with his "total
superiority to all human coercion." 33
31
Burney (1903), 236.
32
Begg ( 1985), 80-81.
33
Begg (1985), 79.
181
Chapter Five: 1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18: Elijah andAhaziah
Thirdly, there is the word of death that Elijah speaks to the king. Straightaway (in the
telescoped narrative) the king dies. Nelson notes a significant point here: "The exact
and immediate correspondence between what the word announces and what follows is
emphasized in regard to both the fire from heaven and the death of Ahaziah." 34 The
parity drawn between God's word and Elijah's word flags the status of the latter.
The narrator then brings the story to a close with a final testimony, partly to Elijah, as
if this were the natural resting point of the narrative: as the narrator notes the passing
of Ahaziah he emphatically draws attention to the circumstances of his death. Elijah is
presented as the reliable channel of the word of the LORD; 35 "The focus is as much
on the prophet's own authority as on the efficacy of the word. " 36 Thus, both prophet
and divine word are vindicated in the untimely closure of the reign of yet another
Ornride.
Other narratorial affirmations of Elijah are at the verbal level. First, the heavenly fire:
in terms of function with respect to the prophet, the fire from heaven in 2 Kgs 1 shares
common ground with that in 1 Kgs 18; in both places, there is the intent is to prove
Elijah's position as representative of the one true God. Fretheim remarks: "It is almost
as if in approaching Elijah (on a hill) they [the militia] approach the reality of God
himself." 37 This testimony to Elijah's integrity in service prepares for the iconic
affirmation to follow in 2 Kgs 2, when all of Elijah's life and work will be summed up
in one glorious epithet and event. In anticipation of the theophany to come, aural
associations are set up as the phrase "man of God" (c~n"~ !D~~) is juxtaposed with
the description "fire of God" (c~n"~ TD~). 38 The former occasions the latter, both on
this anonymous hill and in the wilderness beyond the Jordan. The fire from heaven
legitimates Elijah at the highest possible level, that of God, who as a character ranks
highest in the scale of reliability.
34
Nelson (1987), 157.
35
This is in keeping with the history narrated in the Books of Kings, where the fulfilment of the
Erophetic word is the hallmark of the prophet. Cf. e.g., von Rad (1962), 334-46.
6
Nelson (1987), 157.
37
Fretheim (1999), 133.
38
The association is sometimes noted (e.g., Gray (1964), 414; Robinson (1976), 21; Nelson (1987),
155), but sometimes dismissed as inconsequential (e.g., Wiseman (1993), 194). Cogan and Tadmor
suggest that 0':-t'-,~ may be added in description of the fire to express the superlative-"an awesome
fire," cf. Gen. 30:8; Jon. 3:3; Job 1:16. (1988), 26-27. See Thomas (1953), 209-24.
182
Secondly, there is the variation in the third repeat of the question that recurs through
the narrative-" .. .is it because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word?"
Nelson sees in this the narrator's desire "to avoid monotony." 39 Fretheim, probably
more on track, compares this formulation of the question to Jehoshaphat's in 2 Kgs
3:11, and suggests that it "stress[es] the royal infidelity to the God of Israel. Only in
the word of the LORD through the prophet can healing and true life be found." 40
Indeed, a fresh factor-namely, the prophet-is introduced into this question of
condemnation the third time the reader hears it. As it falls on the ears of the king
directly from the mouth of Elijah, it carries not only redoubled force, but sets out the
second component of the offence-Ahaziah has not only marginalized the LORD, but
also done disrespect to his representative. As Begg observes, the author has
"deliberately left his fullest articulation of the word against Ahaziah until the moment
of its final employment." 41
Thus, though 2 Kgs 1 is another chapter in the long and disheartening story of
covenant violation in high places, and concerns itself at the deepest level with the
continuing struggle for Israel's loyalty, it presents the prophet so strikingly that he
appears set "in the foreground as a wonder-working 'man of God' to whom respect is
due." 42
3. 2 Kgs 1 in the Context of the Elijah-Elisha Cycles

2 Kgs 1, the last but one story in the Elijah corpus, has been read as preparation for
the Elisha cycle. For example, Hobbs notes the similarities between this story and
others in the Elisha narratives. He finds overt parallels in the account of Elisha's visit
to Damascus (2 Kgs 8:7-15); 43 in the stories of the war with Moab (2 Kgs 3: 11-12), he
44
hears an echo of the theme of the presence of God and his prophet in Israel, as also
45
in the story of Naaman's healing (2 Kgs 5:15); he reads the story of Elijah's
39
Nelson (1987), 155.
4
°Fretheim ( 1999), 134.
41
Begg (1985), 83.
42
Steck (1967), 547.
43
The thrice-occuning question of Benhadad to Elisha via Hazael; the linguistic form of the question
minoring that-of! Kgs 1:2; the similar expression used in the death oracles to emphasize the certainty
of the event. Hobbs (1985), 6.
44
"Is there no prophet of the LORD here, through whom we may inquire of the LORD?"
45
"Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel."
183
departure and Elisha's investiture as part of a chiastic pattern covering 2 Kgs 1-246 •
There is something in this, but, as we have seen, 2 Kgs 1 reaches back as well, to
engage with the earlier themes of the Elijah corpus. Like any chapter in a book, it
maintains its own integrity while, Janus-like, keeping connected with what has gone
before and what is still to come.
If the Elijah-Elisha narrative is dominated by one crucial concern, it is the LORD's

covenanted position as sole recipient of Israel's fidelity. As Childs sets out: "the
essence of Israel's idolatry is reflected in Elijah's contest on Mount Carmel. .. The
issue is not that Israel wanted to reject Yahweh and choose Baal, but rather to serve
them both."47 Of key significance in this concern are the king, and his religious
allegiance. Thus, the Elijah cycle opens with him challenging the king and his people
so as to bring them to reconsider their choice not to choose. This theme recurs
insistently, playing out in "contests," some overt, some subtle, till finally under Elisha
Baalism is wiped out by Jehu, at least for a time. The LORD is proved, in nearly all
instances vis-a-vis Baal, as the controller of rain (1 Kgs 17 -18), as the sustainer and
restorer of life (1 Kgs 17), the one who is and therefore can answer (1 Kgs 18), and as
the God who can grant his king victory whether in the hills or in the valleys ( 1 Kgs
20). By picking out the incident of Ahaziah's illness and death to fill his regnal
record, the theme of theological infidelity is visited once more, and again this is done
by pitting God against god in "contest." Besides its didactic value, it adds to the case
being built up for the wiping out and replacement of the house of Omri, and in the
wider context, prepares for the end of the Northern Kingdom.
Echoes of the Moses narratives may be found if one is particularly looking for them,
but these are hardly as distinct as in some other parts of the Elijah corpus. There are
the evocative motifs of the prophet on the "mountaintop" (inn lDl'(i recalling Exod.
19:20; 34:2) and the theophanic fire 48 . There is too, the familiar theme of prophet
against establishment, particularly, against an idolatrous king who, Pharaoh-like,
would send his army against the faithful, and the theme of the vindicated word of God
as spoken through his obedient servant and representative. By association, 2 Kgs
46
Hobbs (1985), 17-19.
47
Childs (1986), 65.
48
Wiseman (1993), 194.
184
borrows from the stronger resonance of 1 Kgs 18 with the Moses narratives, and
prepares the reader for the re-emergence of that resonance with full force in the
closing episode of the Elijah cycle, namely, 2 Kgs 2.
185
Chapter Six
2 Kgs 2: Elijah's Ascension and Elisha's Succession
2 Kgs 2 dovetails the closing episodes of the life and work of Elijah with the incidents
that mark the start of Elisha's ministry. This is the one other text, beside 1 Kgs 19, in
which the resonance between the Elijah-Elisha corpus and the Mosaic narratives is at
its richest, a factor which needs to be taken into account in any close reading. As in 1
Kgs 19, this resonance is complexly layered, making for intricate intertextuality.
Chief among the earlier texts recalled (as regards canonical order) are the two great
crossings, that of the Red Sea under the leadership of Moses and that of the Jordan
under Joshua. Other texts evoked are those that narrate the appointment of Joshua, the
death of Moses, and the succession of Joshua to the leadership of Israel.
In the first section of this essay, we shall read 2 Kgs 2:1-18, noting, in the process, the
parallels with the earlier stories at the verbal and story levels. The second section will
examine the resonance at these same levels between the two crossings, that of the Red
Sea and the Jordan, so as to establish the intertexuality between these two narratives.
This provides the rationale for the exercise undertaken in the third section, namely, to
study two key themes that run through the Red Sea and the Jordan crossings that 2
Kgs 2 picks up and appropriates in such a way as to significantly influence its
reading: (a) The theme of war, as fought on the twin planes of the historical and the
"cosmic." (b) The subject of prophetic status, and its significance to the complex
interrelationship between the LORD and his people.
1. 2 Kgs 2
1.1 Elijah's Ascension and Elisha's Succession
1.1.12 Kgs 2:1-6: Elisha accompanies Elijah
1 Now when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and
Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.
2 Elijah said to Elisha, "Stay here; for the LORD has sent me as far as Bethel." But Elisha
said, "As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you." So they went down
to Bethel.
186
3 The company of prophets who were in Bethel came out to Elisha, and said to him, "Do you
know that today the LORD will take your master away from you?" And he said, "Yes, I
know; keep silent."
4 Elijah said to him, "Elisha, stay here; for the LORD has sent me to Jericho." But he said,
"As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you." So they came to Jericho.
5 The company of prophets who were at Jericho drew near to Elisha, and said to him, "Do
you know that today the LORD will take your master away from you?" And he answered,
"Yes, I know; be silent."
6 Then Elijah said to him, "Stay here; for the LORD has sent me to the Jordan." But he said,
"As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you." So the two of them went
on.
LXX
1 KCX.l EYEVEtO EV n~ &vayuv KUpLOV tOV HA.Lou EV auaaHOIJ.t;'J W<; EL<; tOV oupa.vov
KCX.l EnOpEU8T] Hhou KCX.l EA.Laa.LE EK ra.A.ya.A.wv
The LXX shows significant variation only in v.l. It has Elijah being taken up "as if/as it
were" into heaven. Similarly, Tg. Jon. renders it, "And at the Lord's taking up Elijah in the
whirlwind toward the heavens ... " (2:1; cf. 2:11); Sir. 48:9 reads that he was taken "upwards"
rather than heavenward-0 &:vuA.TJf.l.<fl8Etc; EV A.u(A.um 1rupoc;. There is agreement that Elijah
was bodily removed from the earth while still alive, but where precisely he went is left
ambiguous. (The concern here is possibly the sanctity of the barrier between the divine and
human spheres. 1) The LXX rendering "in a whirlwind, as it were into heaven" is not much
help in deciphering what exactly it is that happened to Elijah. The ambiguity sets the tone for
an enigmatic narrative, rich with intertextual resonance and symbolism, but which to the very
end never explicitly resolves the issue.
As regularly noted, 2 Kgs 2 is placed outside the regnal chronology-"the material

fills a 'pausal moment' between the sequentially rehearsed reigns." 2 The action
1
That it was a very thorny issue to rabbinic scholarship is illustrated by the rationalizations of Rabbi
Jose: "Neither did the Shechinah ever descend to earth, nor did Moses or Elijah ever ascend to Heaven,
as it is written, 'The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath he given to the sons of
men.' But did not the Shechinah descend to earth? Is it not in fact written, And the Lord came down
upon Mount Sinai?-That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit] ... But did not Moses and
Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written, And Moses went up to God?-[That was] to a level
a
lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven]: Btifis it not wi"ittert~ And Elijlih wentupby -whirlwind
into heaven ?-[That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths." Sukkah 5a. The Babylonian Talmud:
Seder Mo 'ed.
2
Long (1991), 19. Cf. e.g., Fretheim (1999), 140; Nelson (1987), 158.
187
progresses from the mundane to an unnamed and uninhabited space, where time itself
fractures, temporality cracking open to become continuous with eternity, and then
action reverses gradually to the mundane. The literary device of bracketing off this
material highlights its thematic importance to the larger Elijah-Elisha corpus, a point
we shall return to examine at the end of the reading of the narrative.
2 Kgs 2 opens with a statement that gives away what might well be the high point of
the story. This choice of introduction has drawn comment, with scholars divided as to
whether this underscores the ascension of Elijah as the climax of the story, or proves
that this event cannot be the climax. 3 This argument closely relates to the debate over
which of the two prophets is the focus of the narrative, Elijah or Elisha; in other
words, which of the two events supersedes the other-the ascension of Elijah or the
4
succession of Elisha. Both questions are perhaps best addressed at the end of the
discussion of the text.
One notes that "storm wind" is prefaced with the definite article (as in v.ll later), and
this could (though not necessarily) mean that the writer is alluding to a tradition that
the readers are familiar with, re the departure of Elijah. 5 With this, the narrator sets
the scene by way of dramatis personae and locale, and lets the plot advance largely by
way of the ensuing dialogues. In the course of these, the reader begins to wonder if,
the giveaway opener notwithstanding, he must be on the disadvantaged end of the
"knowledge" spectrum; the interactions between the characters are startling, and the
reader finds himself trying to keep up; through the entire section he is never sure of
having caught up.
To begin with, Elijah discloses that on the LORD's command, he must go to Bethel,
and so Elisha should stay behind (causative,~). There is no indication that the divine
command particularly excludes a companion. The request is repeated twice more,
3
Thus, Gunkel: "This clause cannot be meant to indicate the climax of the narrative, for no skilful
storyteller would thus reveal his secret at the very start, and that too in a subordinate clause!" (1929),
182.
4
Critics who see the ascension as the climax include: Long (1991), 24-26; Hobbs (1985), 17. Those
who read prophetic succession as the highpoint include: Gunkel (1929), 185; Nelson (1987), 157; Jones
(1984 2), 387; Robinson (1976), 23; Rofe (1970), 436.
5
E.g., Gray (1964), 423; Hobbs (1985), 21; Rofe (1970), 436. See discussion on "the cave"-
:11.11~:1-in 1 Kgs 19:9 earlier.
188
citing the destinations Jericho and the Jordan. The regular usage of KJ as a particle of
entreaty6 is the best fit here, and makes Elijah's statement an appeal rather than a
command, one that Elisha may refuse, as he promptly does. Why does Elijah want to
make this last journey alone? Interpreters provides varied answers.
There is the regular reading of this request as a "test." 7 Elisha is being tested for
faithfulness, perseverance, and staying power. A test must have a purpose, and the one
regularly proposed is that if he passes he will have proved himself worthy to be
Elijah's successor. 8 Given Elisha's alacrity to abandon everything c-..J~tlJ) to follow
Elijah (.V,nK l',:1) at Abel-meholah, it is not unexpected that he doggedly refuses to
abandon Elijah (.V~tlJ), at Bethel and Jericho. Further, the reader recalls that the two
terms .V:JtlJ and -v,nK l',i1 appear as the elements of an opposing pair at key points
in the Elijah narratives of 1 Kgs re the options of king (18:18) and people (18:20 and
19: 10, 14) with respect to God. This significantly nuances the terms when they are
used of the decisions of Elisha with respect to Elijah, moving the interpretation
towards a commendation of Elisha. 9 If there is a further test of his faithfulness to his
calling here, Elisha is doing well.
If Elijah's request is not a "test," then it may be a request. But what is its purpose?
Gunkel proposes:
Elijah is unwilling to have his disciple with him. The reason is not given, but we are
meant to guess it. It is not fitting that the ordinary man should be a witness of the
Divine secret that is about to be revealed. Besides, Elijah is anxious to spare his
young friend. Jahveh is terrible, and how easily can His nearness prove destructive to
one who rashly and unbidden intrudes on His revelation. 10
6
BDB, ~), 609.
7
E.g., Robinson (1976), 24; Nelson (1987), 159; Brichto (1992), 161. Contra, Fretheim (1999), 136.
8
So, e.g., De Vries (1978), 82-83; Nelson (1987), 159.
9
This is supported by the Moses-Joshua parallel: Joshua is measured by his faithfulness to Moses,
which is counted as faithfulness towards God (e.g., Josh. I :7; 11 :15). This arrangement, of the prophet
representing the LORD to his successor, is perhaps suggested in the Elijah-Elisha relationship as well,
right at the start. Walsh observes the "peculiar analogy" set up in I Kgs 19:19-21, in that Elijah's
encounter with Elisha echoes of the LORD's with,Elijah. Like the' LORD; Elijah "passes by" Elisha;
the mantle that covered Elijah's face now covers Elisha; Elijah's first words to Elisha are identical to
the LORD's command to Elijah- "Go, return" (::l,W 1S). Walsh (1996), 281.
10
Gunkel (1929), 182.
189
Gunkel's "guess" might well be on the mark, but one cannot be sure since the text is
not forthcoming on how much of the manner of his departure Elijah knows. All it
gives away is that once he crosses the Jordan Elijah knows that he has arrived at the
place from which he will be "taken." 11
Considering the strongly Mosaic tenor of this narrative, we may legitimately look to
the pentateuchal texts for further illumination. The parallel passages are in the closing
chapters of Deuteronomy, which describe Moses' departure. His briefing is as
geographically specific as Elijah's: "Ascend this mountain of the Abarim, Mount
Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, across from Jericho ... you shall die there" (Deut.
32:49-50; cf. 3:27; 34: 1-6). Moses dies alone, and is buried in an unmarked grave the
whereabouts of which remain unknown, leaving behind a mission that must be carried
to completion by a divinely nominated successor whom he has installed (Num. 27:15-
23; Deut. 31: 1-23). Elijah too has a successor in place, and the following narrative
will tell how he completes the execution of the Horeb commission to install two kings
who will wipe out Baalism from Israel. We have proposed that in 1 Kgs 19, Elijah
models himself after Moses in his journey to Horeb and in his presentation before the
LORD. It is not improbable that here, considering the similarities in circumstance,
Elijah would pattern this journey to the place of his departure, after Moses'. Thus, he
would go unaccompanied.
If Elijah invoked the LORD in his command, Elisha invokes the LORD in order to
refuse. Elisha swears using an oath particle. Greenberg argues that in oath forms
where ~orr is joined to, say, WElJ, mn~ or :-tl11£l (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:2, 4, 6; Gen. 42: 15),
~n is often read as a participle and thus the translation, "As truly as X lives."
Difficulties with this arise in the forms Tn and 1tD£lJ ~n, since the former is most
11
O'Brien (1998), 7 puts a less positive slant on Elijah's motives: Elijah suspects that Elisha wants
something from him that he cannot, or does not want to give, and so attempts to leave him behind by
appealing deceptively to the authority of God. Cf. Provan (1995), 172. Along similar lines, Nelson calls
it a "silly journey," "pointless and roundabout," a journey with no quest other than that "Elijah is trying
to shake off his tail in the person ofElisha." (1987), 158-59.
This is hard to sustain in the event that it is Elijah who eventually initiates the proposal that Elisha
should ask of him a favour. Further, even when the request proves to be a "hard thing," Elijah does not
turn it down but sets up a situation by whiCh Elisha may obtain it. Thus, Brueggemann probably reads
Elijah's motives for the journey right: "Elijah is still commanded by Yahweh and until the last is
obedient. He goes where he is sent." (2000), 294.
190
naturally taken as a noun and if the latter be a participial construction, it is not only
anomalous in having the participle in the construct state in a nominal sentence, it is
bad grammar since IDDJ, being feminine, requires a feminine participle. Thus, he
argues, ~n should be taken as a noun in the construct and read as appealing to "the life
of X." In this way the Israelite customarily validated his oath by invoking the life of
God or some sacred/powerful substitute, "not merely to witness the truth and sincerity
of the statement, but chiefly to punish the swearer if he spoke falsely." 12
Reading the oath particle as Greenberg suggests has the effect of increasing the
intensity of the oath, and Elisha joins his to not just one, but two parties, further
doubling its asserverative force: "By the life of i1,ii~ and by the life of your soul." In
so swearing, he is invoking the highest possible authorities to testify to his
determination not to abandon Elijah, and putting himself at double jeopardy should
his oath be insincere.
Elisha's persistence is urgent. Considering the strong parallels between Elisha and
Joshua that the narrative will evoke, this could well be the first of these parallels, the
one that introduces the theme. Joshua comes through as the one most closely
associated with Moses: at the first military encounter in the desert, it is Joshua that
Moses chooses to organize the battle (Exod. 17:9); the LORD's decision on Amalek
has to be rehearsed in the ears of Joshua (Exod. 17: 14); he alone accompanies Moses
to the mount of God, waiting there till he returns (Exod. 24:13, 32: 17); he is with
Moses in the tabernacle (33: 11); he takes objection on behalf of Moses to Eldad and
Medad (Num. 11 :28). In his continuing close to Elijah, Elijah's n1!li~ may be seen
playing out the role of Moses'.
The third party in this section is made up of "the sons of the prophets." There is much
debate on the nature and functions of this group, and since this discussion is largely
historical-critical in approach, it does not contribute much to our literary reading. 13
12
Greenberg (1957), 34-39.
13
Widespread in Old Testament scholarship is the hypothesis of a continuing prophetic party- of
"amphictyonic orientation," which preserved the traditions of authentic Mosaic Yahwism, and that the
o~K~J);"'l ~)J stood in, and maintained, this prophetic succession. Thus they often posed a charismatic
corrective to a monarchy which sought to establish itself as autonomous. So, e.g., Rendtorff (1967), 21-
191
Our interest is in the role that the group C,~":lJ:1 ,J:l plays in the narrative. They
possess information, correct (Elijah will be taken) and detailed (Elijah will be taken
that very day). Closer examination of this information shows up interesting details,
and here we may begin with Beek's comments on the verbs used of Elijah's
disappearances:
It is possible that the author of the cycle of Elijah-Elisha-stories already made an
intentional allusion in 1 Kings xviii. Obadiah is afraid to convey a message of the
prophet to his king and says: 'What will happen? As soon as I leave you the i1,i1, m1
will carry you away, who knows where?' (xviii 12). This 'carry away' (n,',l1i1) is
realized as 'take up' (~ttlJ) when the i1,i1, m1 makes use of the whirlwind
14
(i11l10)."
There may be more here than Beek recognizes. One notices that the prophetic group
uses the verb ..Jnp", and they understand that Elijah will be taken (away) from being
Elisha's master. 15 Elijah will later use the same verb (2:9) to describe his departure,
and he speaks of being taken (away) from Elisha. The narrator, however, uses the
verb ..J;,"s; (2: 1; cf. 2: 11 ), making clear that Elijah will be taken up in a storm wind. 16
This leaves open the possibility that that the awareness of the characters re the coming
event may differ somewhat from that of the narrator. 17 It is not improbable that the
t:l,~,:lJ:1 ,J:l understand being "taken" c..Jnp") in the most natural sense, namely, as
28; Porteous and Newman (1962), 11-25, 86-97. Contra Porter, for example, who argues that the
C,~,:JJi1 ,J:J were a phenomenon of the Omride period and there is no warrant for tracing the group
forwards or backwards. Porter (1981), 423-28. For a succinct survey see Bergen (1999), 58-60; Hobbs
(1985), 25-27.
14
Beek (1972) 1.
15
Tg. Jon. has it: "Do you know that this day the Lord is taking your master from you?"
16
It appears that the LXX also maintains some demarcation in the levels of knowledge: it has the
prophetic group use "taken (away)"-A.a~avw (vv.3, 5)-and Elijah use "taken (up)"--iXva.A.a~avw
(v.IO), in line with the narrator (v.1l).
17
See O'Brien's discussion of the possibility that the characters in the story do not enjoy the same level
of knowledge. He agrees that initially one would understand the unusual phrase "the LORD is taking
your master from over your head" to refer to Elijah's permanent disappearance, and that as the story
evolves, Elisha is shown as understanding it in that sense from the start (as also Elijah), while the
prophetic group are not sure if it is a temporary or permanent departure and the narrative of the search
party leaves the uncertainty unresolved. (1998), 6-7, 8-l 0, 13-14. It seems odd that two different
prophetic groups should give the matter of Elijah's being "taken" such close attention if it was only
another of his regular temporary disappearances. The concern is obviously much deeper and has to do
with Elisha's status in the event of his master being permanently displaced from his position over
Elisha. In reverently declaring that Elijah's spirit rests on Elisha, it is clear, as we shall argue, that the
community has accepted Elishaas·successor·in·Elijah' s·steadrand any further searches·are'f6r"the·oody
of the departed erstwhile leader. Our reading is more in line with that of Bergen, who notes that it is
only in the voice of the narrator that the phrase C,0Wi1 is heard. Thus only the reader knows exactly
what will happen to Elijah. (1999), 65.
192
dying, 18 and that the verbal clue points to death being Elijah's expectation as well. 19
Post-event, the O,~,::l:l:-1 ':l::l move up a notch in clarity re the manner of "taking
(away)" and use ~~iJJj (2 Kgs 2:16) in a sense similar to Obadiah's usage of it; only,
here, as we shall discuss later, they seem to understand that the process of being taken
(up) has worked his death.
As for Elisha, when the O,~,::l:l:-1 ,:l:J present their information and ask if he knows
this (~lli'), he replies with, ,nlli, ,)~ OJ. As an emphatic particle, OJ is often used to
express correspondence (the OJ correlativum)-"1 also, as well as yourself." 20 In
having Elisha use the same verb ~lli, to affirm the information he has, and in having
him use emphasis to say that he knows what the O,~,::l:l:-1 ,:l:J know, the possibility is
that the narrator (and/or the character himself) is signalling that Elisha is on the same
level of knowledge as the prophetic group. (It is, of course, possible that he knows
more but will not be drawn into discussion, but this is never resolved.) So, when the
verb ~np', comes up for the third time (implicitly for the fifth time, taking Elisha's
two acknowledgements into account), this time in Elijah's speech, the impression
created is that Elijah too is included in that level of knowledge.
So, perhaps the reader is not as disadvantaged as he thinks he is. It may be that the
narrator has favoured him with a headstart with his very opening statement. If this is
so, then one of the roles of the O,~,:J:l:-1 ,:l:J in this section is that they sort out the
players along levels of knowledge-God, the narrator and the reader on the higher
level, and Elijah, Elisha and the O,~,::l:l:-1 ,:l:J on the lower-though this will be
recognized only in retrospect.
18
Cf. Ezek. 24:15-18.
19
It must also be noted, however, that the verb is "np', is used of the one other instance of translation,
namely, that of Enoch. Like Elijah, he too suddenly "is not" because the LORD "took" him.
c,;,',K mK np', ,~ m,K,; Gen. 5:24.
20
BDB, CJ, 168-69. A helpful parallel is the LORD's response to Abimelech's defence of himself, "In
the integrity of my heart.. .have I done this": "I also know (,nlJ1, ,~)K CJ) that in the integrity of
your heart you have done this." Gen. 20: 5, 6.
193
Another role of the o~~~::lJil ~J::l could be that they help to identify which of the two
prophets is the focus of the narrative. 21 The O.,~~::lJil ~J::l make an effort to get in
touch with Elisha: the first lot "came out to Elisha" ('/~~~; 2:3) and the second "drew
near to Elisha" {'illJ)J; 2:5) in order to dialogue with him. Their exertions are directed
at Elisha, not Elijah. Meanwhile, Elijah interacts only with Elisha. Taken together, it
appears that Elisha is the central character. However, one must take into consideration
too, that the topic of the exchange between the o~~"::lJil ~J::l and Elisha is "your
master," Elijah. The effort expended is so as to discuss a pressing matter of which

Elijah is the subject. The strategy seems to be to first assess if what they know is what
Elisha also knows, and then to probe further, for Elisha pre-empts the latter by
brusquely terminating the dialogue with the imperative "Be silent." So, by having two
groups deliberately bringing up the topic, the reader's attention is increasingly
focused on Elijah's departure. But since it is Elisha who is the respondent, a subtle
balance is maintained between the two prophets, allowing neither to dominate the
narrative.
If not for the o~~~::lJil ~J::l, Elijah would have literally taken over as the "leading"
actor, with Elisha passively following him from place to place. Because of the
o~~~::lJ;"T .,J::l the reader appreciates Elisha as one who is sought out by his colleagues,
as one who shows himself as informed as they, and as one who may issue an
imperative to, and be obeyed by, them. This adds character to his refusal to be parted
from Elijah, 22 in that he is seen, not as just tagging along, but as asserting himself and
his decision?3
To sum up, this section opened with the reader informed of one of the events that is to
take place in the narrative following-the departure of Elijah. The plot is advanced by
means of two series of dialogues, for all purposes verbatim repetitions. "The literary
device of repeated dialogue rivets one's attention to the fact of movement, and builds
21
See O'Brien for a note on recent debate on the subject. (1998), 8-9, n.20.
22
Gunkel observes: "In order to exhibit the heroism of Elisha's resolve to abide by his master, the
narrator .. .introduces other persons as a foil. These are the sons of the prophets ... filled with amazement
that Elisha ifdeteniiiried ·to follow his' master even ori<tli'is journey." (1929),' 183.
23
Considering the strong parallels that the narrative will shortly draw between Elisha and Joshua, this
delineation of Elisha's character helps recall Joshua's. He does not quietly tag along behind Moses
either; he voices his opinion (Exod. 32: 17) and urgently advises him (Num. 11 :28).
194
the chilling impatience of steady, inevitable closure with mystery." 24 The point
becomes increasingly clear that it is Elijah's departure that is the background against
which the actors play out their roles. Elijah sets his face towards it, following a
divinely prompted route, desiring, it appears, to meet it alone like his model, Moses.
Elisha, fully aware that the journey leads to this event, resolutely follows Elijah, and
in his decision is recalled Joshua's constant presence with Moses. The event is the
consuming concern of the c~~~:l.:J:-t ~.:J:l, who with their question intensify the reader's
anticipation of it. They may serve two literary purposes, that of distributing the
participants in the narrative along levels of knowledge, and that of holding m
equilibrium the twin focal points of the section-the characters Elijah and Elisha.
1.1.2 2 Kgs 2:7-8: Elijah parts the Jordan

7 Fifty of the company of prophets also went, and stood at some distance from them, as they
both were standing by the Jordan.
8 Then Elijah took his mantle and rolled it up and struck the water; the water was parted to
one side and to the other, until the two of them crossed on dry ground.
LXX
7 Kal. TTEVr~Kovra &v6pEc; uiol. rwv TTpocpT}rwv ml. EO"CT}aav E.~ E.vav-cl.ac; IJ.aKpo8EV Kal.
aiJ.cporEpot EOTT}aav hl. Tou IopMvou
8 KUL EA.aPEv Hhou "C~V IJ.T}AWT~V au-rou KUL E'LAT}OEV Kal. E.mha~EV TO uowp KUL
6q]pE8T} TO uowp Ev8a KUL Ev8a KUL OLEPTJOUV UIJ.QJOTEpOL EV EP~Ilt:¥
In v.7, the LXX shows a puzzling lack of equivalence to the MT's vf1',;, in describing the
actions of the prophetic group.
The c~~~:l.:J:-t ~J:l shift into performing a new function now, namely, that of
26
witnesses. 25 Perhaps they want definitive proof of Elisha's succession; or, perhaps it
is just a continuation of their consuming curiosity, as evidenced in their questioning of
Elisha.
24
Long (1991), 26.
25
Bergen observes that v.7 breaks the chain of waw-consecutive verbsbybeginningwith ~gmm. "T~is
disjunction informs the readerthat a new episode of the story is about-to begin. This is evidenced also
by the new role which the sons of the prophets play in the story ... as witnesses." (1999), 61. Cf. Long
(1991), 26.
26
Oertel (2002 1), 77.
195
Meanwhile, the prophet and his minister have reached the river and are standing at its
brink (or in it). Elijah's actions are precisely described. He takes his mantle, rolls it
up, and strikes the water with it. The river parts. The point of view intended here
seems to be that of the watching c~~~::JJ:-t ~J::J. What effect could the miracle have on
them? Given Elijah's life and work thus far, there is no necessity for a final act of
power to reiterate his authority. Besides the practicality of helping the prophet and his
minister get across the river (which perhaps could have been forded even otherwise),
the miracle would serve two purposes. First, it would set up a means by which Elisha
may later be favourably compared with Elijah when he too is able to accomplish the
same task, and thus validate the succession?7 Secondly, it immediately recalls the two
great events of the Exodus and Conquest. Going by the verbal and story details, it is
an interpretative framework that the text itself appears to recommend. 28
At the verbal level, details bring to mind the Jordan crossing. The two are said to
stand upon the river (11i~:-t ',l,7 11~!1), presumably at the edge of the water. In the
Jordan crossing under Joshua, the instructions are for the priests to come right to the
edge of the waters of the Jordan (11i~:-t ~~ ;,;:;p 1l1) and then stand in it
(11~l1n 11i~:l). (Josh. 3:8; cf. vv.13, 15) When the waters part, Elijah and Elisha
cross over ('/i::Jl1). Between Josh. 3:1 and 5:1, ~i':ll1 in various meanings occurs 24
times 29 ; ~1~l1 unites the activity of the priests with the stoppage of the waters. 30 In
fact, Nelson sees this word pair as key in holding together the whole composition of
the narrative of the crossing of the Jordan. 31 Be that as it may, the occurrence of the
verb pair in 2 Kgs 2 does recall their usage in describing the previous Jordan
crossing. 32
27
So, e.g., Gunkel (1929), 185.
28
These are not exact correspondences. For one thing, the resonances are drawn from two different
events in the history of Israel. Secondly, the correspondences with the River crossing cannot be precise,
because in 2 Kgs 2 there are two crossings made, one by each prophet, and only the second is in the
same direction as Joshua's crossing. However, the overall effect is what counts, for these verbal and
story level resonances set the scene for the emergence of important conceptual implications.
29
Hertzberg (1965), 24.
30
Josh. 3:8, 13, 16, 17; 4:10.
31
Nelson (1997), 59.
32
Bergen traces this verbal resonance even further back, to 1 Kgs 19:19, where Elijah crosses over
(~1~!J) to Elisha. (1999), 49-50. This may be too early for the introduction of the theme, and besides, it
takes the context of a river crossing to prompt the Sea-River crossing associations.
196
Two other verbal details summon up the Sea crossing. The water parts "to the one
side and to the other/hither and thither" (m:-11 i1)il) recalling the description of the
parting of the Red Sea which was to the Israelites "as a wall to them on their right and
on their left" (r::l',X~i.V~1 C~"~"~ il~n cil',; Exod. 14:22, 29). Just as the Israelites
crossed over on dry land (i1~1n; Exod. 14:21), so do Elijah and Elisha.
At the story level also both Sea and River crossings are evoked. Elijah and Elisha
cross in the vicinity of Jericho, which compares with Israel crossing over "opposite
Jericho" (Josh. 3: 16; cf. 4:13, 19). The conceptual significance of the associations
with Jericho (and Gilgal) will apply strongly to Elisha's crossing later on in the
narrative, as we shall discuss. Hess stresses Israel's role as observer (Josh. 4: 11); 33
indeed, they are to be witnesses of the miracle to future generations (Josh. 4:22-24).
This finds a parallel in the prophetic group of watchers in 2 Kgs 2. 34
The mantle evokes the other great crossing. This is the reader's third encounter with
the garment. On other occasions it has been used to shield Elijah at the moment of
theophany, and later, to invest Elisha into office as successor. As such, it reminds
powerfully of Elijah's prophetic status, demonstrated in these two occasions by his
unique privilege of conversing with deity face to face, and in his authority to install a
representative of God. Both instances recall Moses (Num. 12:8; 27: 15ff.). In the
context of water parting the Sea event is immediately recalled, especially since the
narrator inserts the small detail that Elijah rolls up the mantle; 35 the reader remembers
the comparable role of Moses' rod. 36
33
Hess (1996), 112.
34
There are looser correspondences: the three legs of the journey covered by Elijah and Elisha, and the
three days that lead up to the Jordan crossing (Josh. I: 11; 3:2); the I:I,K,~):-t ,)~ standing at a distance
to watch, and the command to Israel to keep a specified distance from the ark that leads the way into
the river (Josh. 3:4).
35
The verb ..Jc'-,J (cf. Ezek. 27:24; Ps. 139:16) found only here in biblical Hebrew is found in rabbinic
Hebrew with the same significance. Burney (1903), 265.
36
Cf. Fretheim (1999), 137. The spontaneous association of water-parting miracles with Moses, in
rabbihic tdiditioil, is exehiplified by the excla-rriaiioh that follows the accourit of the streafu pafting
thrice for Pinchas Ben Yair: "How great is this man! Greater than Moses ... For the latter [the sea
divided itself] but once, whilst for the former thrice!" Hullin 7a. The Babylonian Talmud: Seder
Kodashim, Hullin I.
197
We will argue at length, later, that one of the overarching themes of the two great
crossings-Sea and River-is military. In recalling these crossings in the telling of
the 2 Kgs 2 river parting, an anticipation is being created towards the introduction of
the war theme into this story. This is not unexpected, because it has already been
threaded into the larger narrative, emerging at key points: the title set the tenor of the
Carmel contest (1 Kgs 18:15) and the events following (19:10, 14) in the course of
which the LORD declared war against apostate Israel ( 19: 17). Here, as the scene
being set evokes the other crossings, it will be seen in retrospect that it anticipates the
military overtones in Elijah's ascension and in the apostrophe that Elisha will award
him.
1.1.3 2 Kgs 2:9-10: Elisha asks a "hard thing"

9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, "Tell me what I may do for you before I am
taken from you." Elisha said, "Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit."
10 He responded, "You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from
you, it will be/let it be granted you; if not, it will not."
LXX
9 KQ:L EYEVETO EV -rt;'l &ta~ftvat au-roue; KO:L Hhou El1TEV 1Tpoc; E.A..taatE ahTJOO:L 1'l
1TOt~aw aot 1rpl.v ~ avaATJf.lcf>8ftva[ f.!E aTio aoO KO:L El1TEV EhaatE yEVTJ8~-rw ()~ &t1TA.&
E:v 1TVEUf.l0:1'L aou h' Ef.!E

10 KO:L El1TEV Hhou EOKA~puva.c; 1'0U a.l-r~aa.a8a.t EftV '(&1Jc; f.!E avaA.a.f.L~O:VOflEVOV U1TO
..., \ " t1 \ ' \ I ' \ I
aou Kat Eo-rat aot ou-rwc; Kat Eav f.!TJ ou f.!TJ YEVTJ1'0:L
The LXX, in v.lO, uses the indicative Eotat ("it will be") in variance with the MT's jussive
~:-t~ ("let it be").
When the two have reached the final point on the itinerary, Elijah introduces into the
conversation the subject of his imminent departure. Elijah speaks as if he knows that
Elisha knows that they are now close to the end. Thus, there is no prefatory remark
about his being "taken"; instead, he introduces it into another issue. He asks what he
may do for Elisha before the event. 37 Does he ask because he thinks Elisha has a
request in mind that has motivated him to follow Elijah to the_place of his departure?
37
Tg. Jon.: "Ask what I will do for you while I am still not taken from your presence."
198
Is it a reward for Elisha's fidelity? 38 Or is he following a conventional pattern of

granting a final oracular blessing, perhaps still modeling himself on Moses, 39
modifying it here by inviting Elisha's participation?40 Any or all could be true, though
in the light of tradition, 41 the last possibility appeals.
Elisha surprises even Elijah with his request. He desires l:l,:l!li ,E:l of Elijah's spirit.
Gertel wonders if it is Elijah's Mosaic miracle that emboldens Elisha to ask for a
transfer of spirit (cf. Num. 11). 42 However that may be, Elisha's reply shows: (a) He
is already aware of his position as "son" and heir to the prophetic inheritance. 43 Thus,
it is not the request in general that is significant, as much as the appeal for I:I,J!li ,E:l
of Elijah's spirit. If I:I,J!li ,E:l is indeed the operative term here, what exactly does it
mean? The term is widely understood as "double portion," though sometimes it is

read as "two-thirds," based on the reading of the expression in Zech. 13:8. 44 Thus,
Elisha is thought to transfer the material law to the realm of the "spirit" and asks to be
given a firstborn's share45 , twice as much as any other son would receive, 46 from the
one he addresses as "my father." Hobbs sees this allusion to Deut. 21: 17 as keeping to
the fore the motif of rightful succession that runs through this narrative. 47
38
So Gunkel (1929), 184. This reminds of Elisha's request of the Shunammite in appreciation of her
hospitality, set out in identical language: lt, n,wl't, :1~ (2 Kgs 4: 13).
39
Cf. Deut. 31 :7-8.
40
Elisha himself later gives Joash an ("interactive") oracle from his deathbed, which is launched from
Joash's concern that Israel will lose its most powerful defence. 2 Kgs 13: 14ff.
41
Cf. the pre-death speeches of Isaac (Gen. 27:1ft), Jacob (Gen. 49), Moses (Deut. 31:7-8) and David
(1 Kgs 2: 1-9)- all examples of exhortation and assurance given to successors (in different senses of the
word).
42
Oertel (2002 2), 177, n.20.
43
Rofe sees a father-son relation between master and devotee, cf. the Mishnah (Baba Me~ia 2.11)
which decrees that the relationship of rabbi and student precedes, in some respects, that of father and
son. (1970), 439.
44
E.g., Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 32; Gunkel (1929), 184. Brown, (1971), 90, citing Ginzberg (1913),
239, notes that Jewish tradition translates "two-thirds." Burney resists this reading, arguing that in
Zech. 13:8, the expression has that meaning only through being brought into relationship with
n,ll.it,w;,, "the third part"; thus the term does not apply to 2 Kgs 2:9, which he translates: "Let there
now be a share of two in thy spirit upon me!" (1903), 265.
45
Cf. Deut. 21:15-17, which discusses the case of the inheritance of a man's first-born born of the less
favoured- wife: Carroll finds in this request a parallel to the reference to Israel as God's "firstborn."
Carroll (1969), 405, n.5.
46
E.g., Robinson (1976), 25; Gray (1964), 425; Nelson (1987), 159.
47
Hobbs (1985), 21.
199
Skinner reads "double portion" to mean twice as great a prophet as Elijah; 48 this is
debatable, but he smooths over the thorny issue with, "[T]he burden of Elisha's
petition is that he may be worthy to succeed Elijah as head of the prophetic body."49
We may reasonably infer that in specifying the c~Jfli ~5:), Elisha is requesting that he
will be endowed with a grant of a "double portion" in his inheritance of Elijah's spirit;
and this request springs, not from a desire to be Elijah's successor, for that has been
sealed from the moment the mantle was laid on him, but from his dissatisfaction with
his giftedness as concerns his taking Elijah's place. 5°
(b) Elisha seems to think that Elijah can give him this gift, or at least, arrange for it in
some way. We shall return to this after briefly considering the only other passage in
which m1 is transferred from one person to another, namely, Num. 11.
In Num. 11, the LORD addresses Moses' problem of bearing the burden of the people
alone. According to the instructions given, Moses gathers seventy "elders" of the
people to the tent of meeting. The LORD comes down, takes "from the spirit that is
on him" (,~',.u 1WK m1:1 1~; 11:25, cf. v.17) and puts it on the seventy. "When the
spirit rests on them" (m1:1 c;,~'?.u mJ~; 11 :25), they prophesy. Drawing from
Ashley, we make the following observations: The spirit is not simply the "spirit of
Moses" (:1fli~ n11) but the "spirit which is upon Moses" (:1fli~ '?.u 1WK n11).
Taking as a general guideline that out of the forty Old Testament instances of m1
used with '?.u, twenty-five refer to the LORD's spirit, this instance too may fall within
this category. 51 Secondly, it is common in the OT that mighty deeds, including
prophesying, were the result of the LORD's spirit coming upon a person (e.g., 1 Sam.
10: 10). Thirdly, within the story itself, Moses indicates that the spirit being given out
has a divine source, and is given at divine pleasure (Num. 11 :29). However, Ashley
48
Skinner (n.d.), 279. Cf. some Talmudic authorities, e.g., Sanhedrin 47a. The Babylonian Talmud:
Seder Nezi.fdn, Sanhedrin I. Following some strands of rabbinic tradition, Levine argues that Elisha's
miracles repeat and multiply elements of the miracles of his teacher from whom he requested and
gained twice as much as his spirit. He picks out common themes, motifs and wordplay in the two sets
of narratives to demonstrate that Elisha's miracles are more complex than Elijah's. (1999), 25-46. Cf.
Sirach: "Elisha was filled with his [Elijah's] spirit. He performed twice as many signs ... " (48:12).
49
Skinner (n.d.), 279. Cf. e.g., Gray (1964), 426; Carroll (1969), 405.
°
5
Cf. House: "Perhaps ... Elisha ... sitnply ask[ sf for-the splrihial power to do the job he has known he
would someday assume." (1995), 258.
51
Seven refer to other spirits sent by God, eight to other spirits, and six clearly to the human spirit.
Ashley (1993), 211.
200
concludes that this instance of the transfer of spirit is only partially parallel to the
incident in 2 Kgs 2, and this is because of the phrasing in the latter, 52 that is, the
watching prophetic group testifies, lilV~"~ "li ,i1~"~ n11 i1nJ ("The spirit of Elijah
rests on Elisha"; 2 Kgs 2: 15), and because 2 Kgs 2 deals with prophetic succession,
which is not the concern of the Numbers text. 53 This conclusion is debatable.
Even though there is a difference in phrasing, the argument common to both 2 Kgs 2
and Num. 11 is that it is by the enabling of the spirit of God bestowed on a human that
the said human is able to perform acts of power. It is clear that Elijah's and Elisha's
acts of power originated from beyond themselves; 54 thus, the accounts of some of
their miracles specifically include a record of prayer (1 Kgs 17:20ff.; 18:36ff.; 2 Kgs
4:32; 6: 18ff.). Further, the telling of Elisha's parting of the Jordan (which we shall
discuss) makes it clear that the act that accredits him as prophet is God-enabled, and
the comment that Elijah's spirit is to be given the recognition for it is a specific way
of making the larger assertion that the LORD has affirmed Elisha as prophet in
Elijah's stead. In the case of the seventy elders, they behaved in a manner that
accredited them as prophets in the eyes of watching Israel; this accreditation was
necessary if they were to function in the role the LORD intended for them, namely, to
share the burden of Moses in leading Israel.
That the "spirit" appears to have a secondary, human origin is also clear. Fretheim
rightly asserts "The 'spirit' is a theological and anthropological reference, linking
God's spirit and the human spirit, issuing in authority, wisdom and power." 55
However, the anthropological dimension can lead to misreading of the text. For
example, Gray comments that in Num. 11, the n11 "is conceived materially and, as in
52
Contra Weisman, who argues that "an examination of the dynamics of the construct state ... permits
an interpretation of 'the spirit that was on Elijah'." (1981), 226, n.3. Cf. the objective genitive, Jotion-
Muraoka, § 129 e.
53
Ashley (1993), 210-11.
54
Contra Weisman, who makes a lengthy argument for the phenomenological difference between the
"personal spirit" in the 2 Kgs 2 and Num. 11 stories, and the "personal spirit" in the recurring formula
"and the LORD stirred up the spirit of. .. " (e.g., 1 Chr. 5:26; 2 Chron. 36:25; Hag. 1:14). The latter is
an object that changes to an active factor only through the LORD's intervention, while the former is a
subject that has the power to affect others, and thus_ is akin to (but clearly distinguished by or! gin_ from)
the 'b:anscendental spirit that appears as "the. spirit of. the t:dRD/God" which~ when -it encounters
certain individuals stirs them to special tasks (e.g., Judg. 3:10; 1 Sam. 10:5). (1981), 226-28. Cf. Oertel
(2002\ 78, n.6.
55
Fretheim (1999), 137-38.
201
2 K. 2:9f., quantitatively" and if Moses has enough m1 to spare for seventy it is a

measure of his close relationship with the LORD and of his superiority. 56 Setting
aside the quantification of a material m1 as the superimposition of modern
distinctions over the exegesis of these texts, one tackles the more legitimate issue of
the point that these two texts are trying to make in linking the spirit with human
sources. In Num. 11, the elders are to share Moses' very exclusive task of leadership;
it would seem logical that in publicly linking the task to Moses', the enabling for the
task must also be clearly linked back to him, and in this case, it is the m1 that enables
(whether Moses or the elders). 57 The case is even stronger in 2 Kgs 2, because it
concerns succession; thus, that Elisha is able to replicate Elijah's miracle of river
parting is what explicitly links the element that enables him, back to the one that
enables Elijah. In these contexts, the question of superiority and/or subordination is
not really the issue, except perhaps in Joshua's mind, for which he is soundly
reproached. And neither is it implied anywhere that the elders' (or Elisha's) gain is in
any way Moses' (or Elijah's) loss.
It is of crucial importance, as Noth points out re Num. 11, that the LORD himself sees
to the dispensation of his m1-apparently only he can do it. 58 Moses makes this clear
when Joshua mistakenly assumes that Moses somehow has control over who may or
may not receive the n,1: "Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that
the LORD would put his spirit on them!" (Num. 11 :29). The implication then, is that
Eldad and Medad are as equally endowed as the elders at the tent of meeting, and that
neither the decision nor the ability to endow them was Moses'. Noth's point applies
even more forcefully to 2 Kgs 2, as we shall discuss. Elisha's request is just as
misinformed as Joshua's zealous urging to "stop them," and he too learns that it is not
the prophet who commands this m1.
We conclude then, contra Ashley, that the two cases are manifestly comparable: The
critical issue is that of divine affirmation of a certain role of leadership, and that
56
Gray (1964 ), 110-11. Cf. Binns (1927), 69: That the seventy receive part of the spirit that was
already on Moses, and not a direct unction from the LORD is seen as a sign of their subordination, as
alsoisthe case'in 2 Kgs'2. ,,O ~ ,
57
Cf. Young (1952), 69: "In order that the seventy might work with Moses in one spirit and purpose,
they were equipped with the same Spirit which had filled him."
58
Noth (1968), 87.
202
affirmation is made by a certain enabling, which comes by the bestowing of the spirit
of God by God himself; such bestowing is beyond the scope of the prophet even
though that spirit is associated with him.
Returning to the narrative of 2 Kgs 2, we note that Elijah's answer to Elisha's request
is hesitating, and neither a "yes" nor a "no." He can neither grant the request nor can
he arrange for it. The best he can do is set up a situation-Gunkel calls it a "sign" 59-
by which the LORD himself will operate on the request, and either grant or refuse it in
such a way that Elisha will know the result. Here, Moberly draws attention to the
irregularity that most modern EVV translate both ~n~ and n~n~ as the indicative "it
will be."60 If Elisha sees Elijah being taken, then, 1::l 1" ~n~; "let it be to you thus."
However if Elisha does not see, then n~n~ ~"; "it will not be." That Elijah cannot
firmly assure the reception of the gift of "spirit" is in line with our discussion of n1i
above. Elijah "can set up the appropriate test, but cannot pre-empt God's response
even to a successful outcome." 61
What are the implications of Elisha being able to see the event? The episode in 2 Kgs
6 bears conspicuous parallels and so, may be of help. Elisha prays/intercedes (--.J""El)
for his servant: "0 LORD please open his eyes that he may see (--.Jn~i)." So the
LORD opened the eyes of the servant, and he saw c--.Jn~i); the mountain was full of
horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha (2 Kgs 6: 17)." Three points immediately
become clear. First, there is a desire that the servant may see (expressed by the
prophet). Secondly, as expressed by the fact that the desire must be addressed to God
as prayer, and by the fact that it is the LORD who must cause the servant to see, it is
clear that "seeing" beyond what normally can be seen is by the divine unction alone.
Thirdly, "to see" is not merely to spectate, but to perceive and to understand.
Applying this situation to 2 Kgs 2, Skinner rightly asserts, as is generally agreed, that
since God is the one who withholds and discloses "heavenly realities," "if that gift
59
Gunkel (1929), 184. It is indeed a sign of divine approval that a hunian should see God and still live.
(e.g., Gen. 32:30; Exod. 33:18-23.) Cf. Robinson (1976), 25.
60
See Moberly (2006), 135.
61
Moberly (2006), 135, n.l2.
203
should be bestowed on Elisha, it will be the sign that God has answered his prayer." 62
On the other hand it is also agreed, as for example Jones observes, that Elisha's status
as successor depends on his ability to see and comprehend the spiritual world-it is a
condition he must meet. 63 Modifying Jones to keep in line with our argument: Elisha's
status as a worthy successor depends on his ability to pierce through the temporal and
human to that which is eternal and divine. 64 The two assertions are not mutually
exclusive. Elisha's seeing will be neither completely up to him, nor will it be totally
independent of him and dependent on the sovereignty of divine will. This is in line
with 2 Kgs 6, where the desire that the servant should see prompts the gift of sight. In
Elisha's case, there is the added complexity that the seeing will be concomitant with
Elisha's desire to be a true and potent prophet, one who can discern beyond what can
normally be discerned. He will see because he desires the prophetic gift of
discernment as befits a successor of Elijah, and he will see also because the gift is
divinely bestowed on him. Thus, his seeing will coalesce two features into one - the
sign that his request has been granted, and the granting of the request itself. Elijah's
role then, mutatis mutandis, would be that of Elisha's in 2 Kgs 6, namely, that of
mediator.
1.1.4 2 Kgs 2:11-12: Elijah is "taken"

11 As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the
two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.
12 Elisha kept watching and crying out, "Father, father! The chariots of Israel and its
horsemen!" But when he could no longer see him, he grasped his own clothes and tore them
into two pieces.
LXX
11 KUL EYEVHO Ull't:WV lTOpEUOIJ.EVWV E=nopEUOV't:O KUL E:A&.A.ouv KUL tcSou apiJ.U lTUpoc; KUL 'LTITIOL
lTUpoc; KUL OLEG'LHMW &:va IJ.EGOV UiJ.ci>O'LEpwv KUL &:vEA.~iJ.cJl811 HI..LOU EV GUGGEWIJ.Q we; EL<; 'LOV
oupav6v
62
Skinner (n.d.), 277,279. Cf. Robinson (1976), 25; Montgomery (1951), 354. The question of Elisha
being "found worthy of the sight of the mysterium" (Montogmery ( 1951 ), 354) may not be relevant.
63
Jones (1984 2), 385-86.
64
Thus the close association of the verbs of perception vilTn and vi1~1 with the prophet, ~,~l BDB,
i1Tn, 302; i1~1. 906-09. Jepsen (1980), 280-90.
204
12 Ka.l EA.wa.LE E:wpa. Ka.l EPoa. nutEp nutEp lipiJ.a. Iopa.TJA Ka.l lnnEu~ a.utou Ka.l ouK El6Ev
a.u-rov En Ka.l EnEMPEm twv LIJ.a.t(wv a.umu Ka.l OLEPPTJ~Ev a.uta El~ Mo p~ylla.ta.
The LXX describes Elijah being "taken up" with the verb &va.Aa.llP&vw, synonymous with the
&.v&.yw of v.l. It is the way he has described his departure in v.9. Elijah's removal is still "as it
were" into heaven. 65
As Elijah and Elisha continued to walk on, and converse, their privacy is invaded
dramatically by rli~ ~o,o, lLi~ ~::>i which part the two, and Elijah ascends into the
heavens in a storm wind. ~::>i being more often used as a collective noun, it is better
read "chariots" (contra LXX), 66 especially since this brings it in line with the image of
Dothan's hills thick with fiery celestial hosts (lLi~ ~::>i, c~o,O; 2 Kgs 6:17), and we
shall argue that both visions have a common theological function. 67
The general agreement is that the fiery elements are symbols of God's presence since
fire is a regular feature of divine manifestation (e.g., Exod. 3:2; 13:21; 19:18) and is
of the divine essence (cf. Deut. 4:24). 68 In fact, unearthly fire has been a motif of the
Elijah narrative, seen at Carmel, Horeb, and one other unnamed hilltop. So vivid are
the associations of Elijah and fire that Sirach's eulogy refers to him as "a prophet like
fire" whose "word burned like a torch"; he "three times brought down fire," and was
eventually "taken up by a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot with horses of fire" (Sir. 48:1,
3, 9). The misrepresentation of the ascension aside, Sirach correctly matches Elijah's
end to his life work, the literal with the figurative. 69
The storm wind, since it is associated with both theophany (Job 38:1; 40:6) and divine
punishment (Jer. 23:19; Zech. 9:14; Ps. 83:16), also conveys a sense of the
65
Refer to Chapter One (p.2) for Josephus' preferential use of the verb &:cj>av((oj.LctL, "to disappear," and
the associations he sets up between Enoch, Moses and Elijah with the singular expression npo<; to
0E1ov &:vaxwpiloaL, he "returned to the divinity" (Ant. 1.85; 4.326; 9.28).
Both these preferences, Begg holds, are "typical for Hellenistic Entriickung accounts" and Josephus'
accounts bear parallels with the telling of the disappearances of apotheosised Roman heroes Aeneas,
Romulus and Oedipus. (1990), 692. See Rom. Ant. (1937), 213; Sophocles (1982), 364. Cf. Tabor
(1989), 237-38; Feldman (1984), 407-8; Thackeray (1967), 116-17.
66
BDB, J~i. 939. Cf. Gray (1964), 426, who recommends "chariotry."
67
..JJ~i with:'!he -meaning of "chariots/chariotry~· in the context of cosmic hosts occurs elsewhere - Ps.
68:18 (EVV 17); Hab. 3:8.
68
Jones (1984 2), 386; Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 32; Skinner (n.d.), 279.
69
Bronner treats the implications of fire in the Baal myths for the Elijah narratives. (1968), 54-65.
205
numinous. 70 Both at Carmel and at Horeb, there was violent wind, the latter part of a
theophany. We shall incorporate the discussion of the significance of these symbols
and images into our comment on the following verses.
In v.l2, the participial forms suggest an iterative sense, thus "Elisha kept watching
and kept calling out," and, as at the theophany at Horeb (I Kgs 19: 11) insert a note of
immediacy and urgency. The apostrophe Elisha accords Elijah appears drawn from
the images that his eyes are recording. 71 All indications are that Elisha has seen
Elijah's departure and in doing so, received his request. 72
The content of Elisha's calling out deserves attention. Elisha addresses his master as
~~; we shall briefly comment on this title, before moving on the more significant
designation ,~!l,ii£)1 ',~;m~ ~::li. Historical critics propose that the spiritual leader of
the o~~~~J;"'l ~J~ was accorded the honorific title ~~. and the plural in c~~~~J;"'l ~J~
refers to the long tradition and succession of prophetic leaders whose authority the
group recognized. 73 Perhaps Elisha is using it in that sense. 74 Phillips takes this further
and makes a case for ~~ being used as a technical term for any person who possessed
special powers of wisdom in that he was able to reveal what was hidden to ordinary
men. He draws this conclusion from the usage of the term in several OT narratives, of
which we shall cite two.
Joseph is elevated to the position of ;"'llJi£) ~~ (Gen. 45:8) and the events that lead to
his rise include his ability to interpret dreams, the meaning of which was hidden to
everyone else. Then, in Judg. 17:7ff. Micah requests a young Levite to remain with
him and be to him "a~~ and a priest" (17: 10). As in Joseph's case the term~~ here is
not relevant to age, nor is it merely a title of honour; it has to do with his special
7
°Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 31.
71
Cf. Burney (1903), 265. Lundbom arrives at the same inference but by a very different route. His
hypothesis is that Elisha's cry described what was literally happening before his eyes - Elijah was
being kidnapped and taken to his death by Jehoram's chariots and horses in revenge for his brother
Ahaziah's death. (1973), 39-50. Long rightly dismisses it as a reading that "misses the literary point
and completely ignores the characteristic language of visionary experience." (1991), 27.
72
So, regularly (e.g., Nelson (1987), 160); contra, e.g., O'Brien, who sees ambiguity and a lack of
resolution re Elisha's succession till he performs his first miracle using the prophetic formula "thus
says the LORD," at Jericho. (1998), 10-14.
73
Williams (1966), 344-48.
74
Tg. Jon. has Elisha address his master as ,::l1.
206
abilities to reveal information not accessible ordinarily, and it is for this reason that
Micah installs in his shrine the necessary oracular instruments, the ephod and the
teraphim. Thus the Danite spies ask the Levite for information about the future (Judg.
18:5), and when the Danites take away the contents of Micah's shrine, it was only
natural that they should persuade the Levite to go with them in order that he may
continue this special function of being to them "a :l~ and a priest" (18: 19), since
without an :l~ the oracular instruments would have been of little use to them.
Phillips applies his conclusions from these two narratives to the usage of the term for
Elisha. Appealing to Elisha's extraordinary powers to obtain knowledge ordinarily
inaccessible (2 Kgs 6: 12; 7: 1), he proposes that Elisha occupied the special position of
royal :l~ to successive kings of Israel (2 Kgs 6:21; 13:14) to whom he was freely
available for consultation. The possibility extends to his being regarded in that
capacity by the Aramean king Ben-hadad as well, for he sends to ask of him an oracle
regarding his survival of an illness, placing himself in the position of Elisha's "son"
(2 Kgs 8:9).
Phillips goes on to relate the term :l~ to the l:l"~":J);"l ")::! (1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2; 4:1,
38; 5:22; 6: I; 9:1) and "bands of prophets" (1 Sam. 10:1 Off.) From these and other
usages, Phillips infers that the term applied technically to persons capable of
revelatory powers re dreams, the use of oracular instruments, the future and even
ecstatic utterances. The hypothesis is not implausible. However, Phillips' hypothesis
leaves no room for Elijah genuinely being addressed as :l~, since, he argues, Elijah
was never involved in politics as Elisha was, and because of his hostile relations with
the crown. Thus, Elisha's address of Elijah is a "transferred exclamation" (taken from
Joash' s description of Elisha in 2 Kgs 13: 14), introduced by a later compiler so as to
serve as the basis for the introduction of the fiery chariot and horses. 75
As we have noted, Phillips' premise IS generally conceivable, and within its

framework, the likelihood is that Elijah does fit the description of an :l~. He certainly
ha~taccess to extraordinary knowledge-he predicted a lengthy drought and its end (1
75
Cf. e.g., Gray (1964), 422, 542; Rofe (1970), 436-37; Phillips (1968), 183-194.
207
Kgs 17: 1; 18:44), and foretold the fall of the house of Ahab (1 Kgs 21: 17ff.) and the
death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1: 16). His stormy relationship with the royal house makes it
all the more impressive how implicitly he was obeyed-Ahab took orders from him
without demur (1 Kgs 18:17ff.; 18:41-42; 18:45-45), and repented with fasting and
sackcloth at his reprimand (1 Kgs 21 :27). Even if in hostility, both Ahab and Ahaziah
sought him in a crisis (1 Kgs 18:10; 2 Kgs 1:9ff.), the latter to hear if he would
survive his injury. Thus, even if he is not addressed as ::l~ by the king, he qualifies for
the position and apparently holds it, both with respect to the royal house, and the
c~~,::lJ:-t ,J::l who stand in awe of his "spirit"; it is this high standing that Elisha's
exclamation vocalizes.
If Phillips' proposal from the traditio-historical approach is valid, and if our reading
of Elijah within the parameters of that proposal stands, it informs our literary reading
of the text insofar as it sharpens the implication of Elisha's request in that he could be
said to ask for a double share in his ::l~' s legacy of extraordinary access to knowledge;
in other words, to be the next ::l~ in Israel, which indeed he goes on to become. Since
this knowledge manifestly has its source in God, this does not detract from our earlier
argument that it is the prophetic gift of discernment that Elisha values and is seeking
after. In fact, considering the heavy risk this position carried for Elijah, Elisha's
request is to his merit.
This brings us to the description of Elijah as ,~W1E:l, t,~,tu~ ::1;:,1. The consensus is
that Elisha means that the prophet stands for the LORD's invisible forces, which are
more Israel's safeguard than her own army, and conveys the apprehension that his
removal may leave the nation defenceless. 76 For further comment, an economical
approach will be to examine this expression in the context of the motif words !Li~.
0,0, !Li1E:l and ::l;:j1 which recur in the string of stories between 2 Kgs 2:1 and 13:14,
and in the context of the larger theme of cosmic hosts.
76
· E.g., Burney (1903), 265; Skinner (n.d.), 279-80; Robinson (1976), 26; Gray (1964), 426;
Brueggemann (2000), 297. Some propose that the term is a "standard cliche," but that discussion is of
little help in determining the significance of the title in the context. E.g., Gaster (1969), 512; von Rad
(1958), 100.
208
The parallel story that the motif words immediately recall is that found in 2 Kgs 6: 13-
17. Significantly, a major element in this story is the verb v'i1Ki, "to see." The
Aramean king orders his men to "Go and see where he [Elisha] is" (v.13)~ Elisha
prays for his servant "that he may see," and his servant "saw" (v.17); Elisha prays for
the blinded Arameans, "that they may see," and they "saw" (v.20). The "blindness" of
both servant and soldiers underscores Elisha's superiority in this regard, and recalls
his desire for prophetic discernment that had brought about the extraordinary
endowment of seeing, and recalls also, what he saw -the fiery chariotry and horses.
Here, it is the servant through whose eyes we see both the Aramean and cosmic hosts.
LaBarbera makes the interesting observation that the Aramean host, which consists of
an army with horses and chariots (:l~i, 0,0, ... t,~n) is balanced by the heavenly host
which shows itself as horses and chariots of fire around Elisha
(lHli~t,K n:l~:lo lliK :l~i, c~o,O); the implication is that the ',~n of the LORD is
concentrated in one man, Elisha. 77 To borrow from Galling, it is a

"Kontrastparallele. " 78
Indeed, as LaBarbera rightly observes, Elisha's prayer is the celestial hosts' order to
attack, for his words function as a military command: the LORD "struck them with
blindness according to the word of Elisha" (v.18). By the end of the story Elisha is
seen to completely outmanoeuvre the military establishment of both sides. He
provides the king of Israel with military intelligence his own men cannot gather; and
he helps the Arameans fulfil their king's mandate to "go and see," becoming their
ironic leader. LaBarbera reminds that the following story reinforces Elisha's unique
military role vis-a-vis the defence of Israel. In the episode of the Aramean siege, it is
Elisha who predicts the victory; "his" horses, chariots and army discomfit the enemy
(t,,,) t,~n t,,p 0,0 ',,p :::l~i t,,p; 2 Kgs 7:6). There is not one military person who
succeeds in the two stories - be it soldier, adjutant or king. 79 It is in appropriate
metaphor, therefore, that Joash should bewail his impending death with the
77
LaBarbera fl984), 64041.
78
He uses the term with reference to Elisha's name as contrasted against the name of an Aramaic war-
f.od. Galling (1956), 131-35.
9
LaBarbera (1984), 642, 645,651.
209
exclamation, "My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" 80 Even
from that deathbed, Elisha gives the king a war oracle. (2 Kgs 13: 14-19)
In 2 Kgs 2, it is the image of Elijah with "his" celestial horses and chariots, which
evokes the military title. 81 Considering he was never directly involved in matters of
war in a manner comparable to Elisha, how may this title be justified? Beek
approaches this problem through the recurrence of the motif words 010, ~~, and
82
lli1E:) in the tradition of the Sea crossing. In Exod. 14, the narrative of the incident,
the first mention of them in v.9: "all the horses and chariots of Pharoah, and his
horsemen and his army" (1t,~m 1~lli1£)1 :11715:) ~~, 010 t,~). The elements of this
war machine recur in combinations in vv.18, 23, 26 and 28. The victory poem in
Exod. 15 propagates the strain with its refrain, "Horse and rider he has thrown into the
sea" (1~~11 010 15: 1; cf. vv .4, 19, 21 ). The literal c~o10, ~~, and c~lli1£) take on a
symbolic meaning in formulas of liturgy. The Sea crossing demonstrated the
impotence of these elements of warfare, and the image of defeated Egypt that they
evoke is exploited in reminders, warnings and exhortations. 83 Thus Israel's kings are
forbidden from acquiring horses in large numbers (Deut. 17: 16); Joshua is specifically
instructed to bum the chariots and in some way disable (''hpl1) the horses of the
defeated Canaanites (Josh. 11:6; cf. v.9), an act repeated by David (2 Sam. 8:4);
Solomon's building up of chariotry and cavalry (1 Kgs 9:19, 22; 10:28-29) eventually
comes to nothing; and Israel confesses: "Some take pride in chariots, and some in
horses, but our pride is in the name of the LORD our God" (Ps. 20:7). 84
80
Josephus develops a much more elaborate scene than in the Old Testament. Joash remarks that
because of Elisha, the Israelites never had to use arms against the enemy, and that through his
prophecies they had actually overcome the enemy without a battle. Joash goes so far as to remark that
Elisha's death would leave him unarmed before the Syrians and that consequently, since it was no
longer safe for him to live, he would do best to join Elisha in death. Ant. 9. 179-80.
81
For discussion on the relationship of 0,0 (2 Kgs 6) with tV,£) ("horse/horseman"; 2 Kgs 2 and 13),
see Beek (1972), 4; Ap-Thomas (1970), 135-51. Cf. Arnold (1905), 45-53; Gesenius (1846), 693;
Koehler and Baumgartner (1993), 783; Mowinckel (1962), 278-99.
82
Beek ( 1972), 4-10.
83
For e.g., Isa. 31:1: "Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses (0~0,0),
who trust in chariots (::l::l,) because they are many and in horsemen (l::l~W1E:l) because they are very
strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel. .. "
&4 Cf. Ps. 30:17; 147:10; Hos. 14:3. Also Mic. 5:10; Hag. 2:22.
210
o~o,o, :l:l1 and o~lli1:::l have no place in the defence of Israel; they represent a power
that repeatedly proved itself to be powerless. In their place are the LORD and his
representatives, the prophets. Tg. Jon. brings this out in its exegetical rendering of
Elisha's ejaculation: " ~:l1, ~:l1, who did more good for Israel by his prayer than
chariots and horsemen." Thus, as Beek emphasizes, the title applies to Elijah, as it
applies to "the function ... of every prophet in the light of Israel's faith." 85 Von Rad,
who arguably reads this as "obviously a standard quotation," agrees that "in any case
it is a polemic expression, a very radical slogan, which concerns the most elementary
question of the very existence of Israel. .. Protection and help for Israel are guaranteed
only by the prophet." 86 In the Elijah-Elisha corpus the more critical foe is the lure of
Baalism, rather than the Aramean armies, and it is against the former that their swords
are employed (1 Kgs 18:40; 19:17) much more than against the latter (cf. 2 Kgs 6:21-
23). Both prophets make it their lifework to protect Israel against these enemies, and
in doing so, become the true "chariotry and horsemen of Israel."
Here at Elijah's passing, Elisha proves by his penetrating understanding of the critical
role and function of the prophetic office that he is worthy of succeeding to it in its
highest degree. 87
Elisha's cry is passionate, bursting out of the depth of his grief. The double expression
"My father, my father!" carries the personal dimension of the lament; 88 the
spontaneous epithet describes Israel's loss. Elisha keeps his eyes on Elijah till he can
see him no more, and then tears his clothes in the standard symbolic gesture of dismay
and/or grief (cf. 2 Kgs 5:7; 6:30 within the same cycle of stories). 89 With this the
85
Beek (1972), 10. Cf. Nelson (1987), 162.
86
Von Rad's line of argument leads him to the interesting, even if debatable, conclusion that prophecy,
seen as the guarantor of the protection of Israel, "pushed with its guarantee exactly into the place where
rreviously the institution of holy war stood." (1958), 100.
7
Brichto (1992), 163.
88
Cf. David's "My son, my son!" at the news of Absalom's death; 2 Sam. 19:4.
89
Long observes that the usual expression of tearing the garments is heightened here in that Elisha tears
his garments in two. The phrase {l:l~l',p c~JWS) recalls the two prophets in each other's company
(1:1:-t,JW; 2:6, 11) and "suggests the depth of change wrought by the trajectory from Gilgal to
Transjordan." (1991), 27.
211
reader is informed that Elisha understands Elijah's departure as equivalent to the

latter's death; 90 he is irretrievably lost to Israel and to Elisha.
1.1.5 2 Kgs 2:13-15: "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha"

13 He picked up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on
the bank of the Jordan.
14 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, and Elisha went over.
15 When the company of prophets who were at Jericho saw him at a distance, they declared,
"The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." They came to meet him and bowed to the ground before
him.
LXX
13 KO:l uljlwaEV ·~v f.I.T)AW1"~V HA.tou ~ ETIEOEV E'!T&vw8Ev EA.taa.tE KO:l ETIE01"pE\jJEV
EA.taa.tE ml. E01"T) ETIL wu XE[A.ouc; wu IopMvou
14 Ka.l. EA.a.PEV ·~v f.LllA.w•~v HA.tou ~ ETIEaEv E'!T&vw8Ev a.uwu Ka.l. E'!Ta•a.~EV •o U.Swp
(Ka.l ou 6tE01"T)) KO:l ELTIEV TIOU 6 8Eoc; HA.tou a.<fl<flw KO:l ETia1"a.~EV '["(X u6a.1"a. KO:l
6tEppayT)aa.v EV8a. Ka.l. Ev8a. Ka.l. 6tEP11 EA.taa.tE
15 Ka.l. Et6ov a.u•ov ol ulol. rwv Tipo<flll•wv ol EV lEptxw E~ Eva.v•[a.c; Ka.l. EtTiov
ETia.va.TIETia.ura.t ro TivEuf.La. HA.tou E'!Tl. EA.wa.tE Ka.l. ~A.eov Etc; auva.vr~v a.uwu Ka.l.
'
TipOOEKUVT)OO:V ' ,. ETil
a.Ut<¥ '\ ' YllV
't'T)V ....
The LXX has the mantle fall off Elijah onto Elisha, making the symbolism of transfer of
power even more explicit. Elisha's parting of the river is read as being accomplished after
twice smiting the water. The Lucianic's exegetical gloss-Ka.l. ou OLEG'tTJ-explains that he
was not successful the first time. 91 We shall return to discuss the necessity of the insertion.
In the LXX, Elisha's cry addresses "the God of Elijah" (omitting the preceding word i11i1~).
and reads l'(1i1 'll'( as t(1£lt(. This last is left transliterated, perhaps recognizing the
difficulties. Its being connected by accentuation to the following clause is syntactically

awkward. Most modems follow t(1£lt(, the expletive meaning "then/indeed," and connect the
90
As, for example, at the "death" of Joseph (Gen. 37:34) and the deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev.
10:6), Abner (2 Sam. 3:31), David's sons (2 Sam. 13:31) and Saul (2 Sam. 1:2, 11).
91
MSS of Vulgate follow: "et non sunt divisae."
212
term back to the previous clause. 92 One of the several usages of ~1£)~ (1E:l~M1£l~~) is in
connection with interrogative adverbs, and when combined with il~~ it is read, "Where,
then ... ?" (Judg. 9:38; Isa. 19:12; Job. 17:15).93 If this is the reading of the translators of the
Hebrew into Aramaic also, then, as Harrington and Saldarini suggest, perhaps they read a tone
of scepticism into the question, and so, replace it with a petition: "And he took the cloak of
Elijah that fell from him, and he struck the waters and said: 'Accept my petition, Lord God of
Elijah.' " 94
Elisha picks up the fallen mantle (~C1i), which the reader is reminded fell from off
Elijah. Skinner suggests that Elisha connects the fallen mantle with the personal
significance of the vision, in that the garment is indication that the sight of the vision
was a sign of his empowerment. 95 More than that, it carries connotations of prophetic
status, 96 and if Elisha had understood its being laid on him as an investiture into the
position of Elijah's successor, its presence here makes it clear to him that Elijah's
place is his for the taking, as much as the mantle is. "[W]ith a truly graphic touch, it is
now shown that Elisha has actually inherited his master's 'Spirit' .'.97 Not only his
"spirit" but also his unfinished mission has Elisha inherited; 98 the narrative will go on
to tell how he accomplishes this mission.
Elisha retraces his steps to the bank of the Jordan and stands there. Then he takes
cv'np',) the mantle, (and again the reader is reminded that the mantle has fallen from
off Elijah), and at this point the sequence of actions and speech becomes debatable.
Does Elisha strike the water once or twice, and at what point does he speak? The LXX
(Lucianic) constructs a sequence with the help of an exegetical gloss---Ka.l. ou DLEO!T).
It has Elisha strike the water, and when it does not part, he calls on the God of Elijah
(presumably, to prove himself) and then strikes again; 99 with this, the water parts and
Elisha crosses over. One implication of this sequence, as Cogan and Tadmor point
92
See, e.g., Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 32-33; Bronner (1968), 133.
93
Burney suggests that if this emendation is not accepted, the only alternative may be to omit N,i1 ~N
with the Lucianic, regarding the letters as an erroneous repetition of the preceding ,i1,"N. (1903), 266.
94
Tg. Jon. (1987), 267.
95
Skinner (n.d.), 277.
96
Elsewhere; in,,Zech. 13:4.
97
Gunkel (1929), 185.
98
Cf. Nelson (1987), 158.
99
So, e.g., Nelson (1987), 159.
213
out, would be a casting of doubt on the rank achieved by Elisha vis-a-vis Elijah; 100 the
former has not quite made the grade. In this vein, Nelson, for example, comments that
Elisha "repeats Elijah's power deed, albeit with a little extra effort." 101
However, the LXX's exegetical insertion may not be necessary, for there is another
possible construction. Burney refers to the use of the verb "to bless" (-J11::l) in Gen.
27:23, 27 as a comparable literary device. 102 The narrative has a series of "tests" by
the vulnerable Isaac, after which he blessed Jacob (,i1:l1::l~,; v.23), Then, Isaac
continues into further "tests" and he blesses him (,i1:l1::l~,; v.27) again. Of the several
approaches to solving this puzzle, two appeal to the literary critic. The first possibility
is that the first "and he blessed him" is proleptic - "so that is why he (eventually)
blessed him" (cf. NEB, NAB). 103 The argument raised against this is that it would
work against the logic of the plot, which continues to build up a second series of tests
by Isaac. The tension released, the literary purpose of these further tests is hard to see.
Thus, the suggestion that the imperfect of --J11::l in v .23 should be read as an
ingressive, an action about to take place, sits better with the development of the plot-
"he was about to bless him." 104 This reading of the phrase not only sustains the drama
but also notches it up significantly.
This could well be the device employed in 2 Kgs 2. The logic of the narrative
demands that Elisha must cross the Jordan to return to his community. Will he be able
to replicate his master's miracle, and so confirm to the watching prophetic group, the
reader and to himself that he is a worthy successor? The narrative slows down, as in
the case of the first parting of the water, and with every move of Elisha, the reader's
anticipation increases, especially since the narrator's description of this second parting
closely follows his description of the first.
100
Cogan and Tadmor ( 1988), 33.
101
Nelson {1987);, 160.
102
Burney (1903), 265-66; cf. Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 32-33.
103
E.g., Wenham (1994), 209.
104
E.g., Speiser (1964), 209; Fokkelman (1975), 103; Hamilton (1995), 218, n.6.
214
v.8
in"):;~-n~ 1:-t~~~ nj?~1 A
t:i"J~, B
O'~;:~-n~ :-tf-:1 c
:-tJ:-t1 m;,
'T •• T T ''
1~n~1
T ··-
D
v.l4
1:-1~"~ nJ7~-n~ nj?~1 A*
1'"l1~ :-t"Elr,tl!N B*
T T ·• T : T '." -;
O'~;:~-n~ :-tf-:1 C*
0'~;:1-n~ :-tf-:1 N1:-t-~~ 1:-t~~~ ';i"~ :-11:-1~ :-t~.~ ,~Nil1
m:-11 :-tJ:-t
T '' T T ''
1~n~,
T ,_
D*
We note that the verbs used are identical, as is the depiction of the parting of the
water. By delaying the striking of the water at the last possible moment, the narrator
not only ratchets up suspense, but also highlights the extra sequence of speech and
action in an otherwise perfectly matched sequence.
The careful construction would implicitly signal that Elisha is no less a prophet than
Elijah; he proves himself able to replicate Elijah's miracle. However the unmatched
detail, namely Elisha's question, serves the crucial purpose of explicitly connecting
Elisha's miracle back to Elijah. 105 Elisha clearly expects that the wonder will take
place, if at all, as a concrete and tangible affirmation by God of his position as
Elijah's successor; the LORD, Elijah's God, must perform the miracle by the hand of
the rightful successor. 106 Thus, when the river parts, it tangibly proves the legitimacy
of his position to himself; 107 it realizes the share of the firstborn that he had requested.
Thus the point is made that the replication of the nature miracle means more than just
that Elisha is as divinely gifted a prophet as Elijah; beyond that, and enormously
critical to the continuing narrative, is the assurance that though Elijah has departed,
105
Cf. Fretheim (1999), 138.
106
Bergen, ("Where is the God of Elijah, even he?") finds in it "a challenge of the impatient." (1999),
64. Contra Gunkel ("Where is Jahveh? The God of Elijah, where is he?"), to whom it is a pious
supplication: "Jahveh, who did marvels by Elijah, turn now to me." (1929), 185. Hobbs sees no need to
read any tone of anxiety into the prayer--; arid suggests ct!iiit a link with Deut. 3:2:37 is implied in the
question. (1985), 22.
107
"The symbolic value of a comparable succession is central here, not the 'miraculous' character of
what occurs." Fretheim (1999), 137. Cf. Rofe (1970), 438; Coote (1992), 29.
215
another has picked up the standard, and the battle continues without pause. 108 This is
immediately plain to the other players within the world of the story, namely, the
watching c~l'(~:lJ:'l ~J:l, and they, like a chorus, confirm what Elisha and the reader
have worked out: "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." Elisha's new status changes
their own; they are henceforth his "servants" (i:ll1; 2 Kgs 2: 16). 109 Thus, to seek in
this piece of narrative a statement concerning Elisha's rank as prophet with reference
to Elijah's (cf. Nelson above) would be misguided.
There is one last item, and this concerns the sections B-B* diagrammed above. We
noted that the verb .Yet,) in 2 Kgs 2:8 possibly links Elijah back with Moses in that it
recalls the latter's rod, held out over the Sea in dividing it. The corresponding
segment in 2 Kgs 2:14 (B*) could well be read as a parallel in that it links Elisha back
with Elijah, since it reiterates that the mantle Elisha holds had fallen off Elijah. Thus,
looking back over this portion of the text, we see that one theme that gets picked up
constantly is that of Elisha as successor to Elijah. The mantle itself, the two explicit
references to the ownership of the mantle, the words with which Elisha sets about his
first miracle, and the patterning of the report of the second water-parting on the first
are all explicitly summed up in the decisive declaration of the c~l'(~:lJ:'l ~J:l. 110
Certainly, the text evokes Mosaic parallels. The statement of the prophetic group
recalls Deut. 34:9 on three details. First, immediately following the telling of the
death of Moses, the reader is informed of the "spirit of wisdom" that Joshua was full
of. Secondly, this gift is associated back with Moses, from whose laying on of hands
it came. Thirdly, within the same statement, the reader is told that Israel hearkened to
Joshua, as if in consequence to his derived charisma.
108
Cf. Hobbs (1985), 27-28; Provan (1995), 175; Fretheim (1999), 139-40.
109
Coote observes that Elisha's reception of the "spirit" is validated in three places - by the act of
"seeing," by the parting of the waters and by the affirmation of the prophetic community. ( 1992), 29.
110
Later in 2 Kgs 2; Jericho's waters will be healed "according to 'the word of'Elislii:l," 'recaillng the
comment regarding the word of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:16; 2 Kgs 1:17), and a curse against the youth of
Bethel will be fulfilled, recalling the word that comes from Elijah's mouth (1 Kgs 17:24). These may
be read as narratorial affirmations that Elisha is Elijah's true and worthy successor.
216
The other narrative recalled is Joshua's crossing of the Jordan. This requires a
lengthier engagement and we will return to it at the end of the discussion on the 2 Kgs
2 narrative.
1.1.6 2 Kgs 2:16-18: The Search for Elijah

16 They said to him, "See now, we have fifty strong men among your servants; please let
them go and seek your master; it may be that the spirit of the LORD has caught him up and
thrown him down on some mountain or into some valley." He responded, "No, do not send
them."
17 But when they urged him until he was ashamed, he said, "Send them." So they sent fifty
men who searched for three days but did not find him.
18 When they came back to him (he had remained at Jericho), he said to them, "Did I not say
to you, Do not go?"
LXX
16 Kat ElTiov Tipoc; airr6v Uiou o~ f.!Eta rwv Tia[owv oou TIEvt~Kovra &vopE<; ui.ot ouvaf.LEW<;
1TOpEu9EvtE<; o~ (lltlloarwoav rov KUpLov oou f.l~TIOtE llPEV aurov TIVEUf.l!X. Kup(ou KIX.L EppLij!Ev
aurov Ev tQ Iopoavu ~ Ecjl' 'Ev rwv 6pEwv ~ Ecjl' Eva rwv pouvwv Kat ElTIEv EA.waLE ouK
aTIOOtEAEL tE
17 KIX.L 1T!X.pEPLaO!X.VtO autov EW<; OtOU uoxuvEtO KIX.L El1TEV aTIOO't"ELAatE KIX.L aTIEO't"ELAaV
TIEVt~Kovra &vopa<; Kat E(~tlloav tpE'i<; ~f.J.Epac; Kat oux Eupov aurov
18 KIX.L &.vEotpEljJaV 1Tp0<; !X.UtOV KIX.L auto<; EKU911t0 EV lEPLXW KIX.L El1TEV EA.LOIX.LE OUK El1TOV
1Tp0<; Uf.J.U<; f.!~ 1TOpEU9DtE
The LXX adds the detail that Elijah may have been cast "into the Jordan"; it substitutes
"hills" for the MT' s "valleys."
Gertel comments on the c~K~:l:li1 ~:l:l: "If these Disciples of the Prophets were to be
compared to a Greek chorus, they would have to be characterized as a rather annoying

one. They give Elisha no privacy and show no restraint. They have all the subtlety of
modem-day tabloid reporters. They offer him a party of 50 to go searching for the
departed Elijah ... " 111 This is amusingly true, and only emphasizes the literary purpose
of this group. Their role as witnesses is not over.
111
Gertel (200i), 77.
217
The request of the t:l,K,:lJ:-t ,)::l provokes the question-What is the purpose of the
search? The reader notes that they now use a different verb to describe Elijah's being
taken, not --Jnp~ as before, but --JKiJJJ. It appears that their knowledge of what has
happened to Elijah has become a little clearer; in being taken away, he was taken up.
We noted that this is same verb that Obadiah uses in describing Elijah's
disappearances. Obadiah seems quite familiar with the phenomenon; "As soon as I
have gone from you, the spirit of the LORD will carry you (lKiJJ, ;,,;,, m1,) I know
not where; so when I come and tell Ahab and he cannot find you, he will kill me ... "
(1 Kgs 18: 12). The t:l,K,::lJ:-t ,)::l too speak the same language: "perhaps the spirit of
the LORD has caught him up" (:11:-t, m1 ,KiJJJ lD). However, the latter party
continues to explain that the selfsame spirit may have cast him down (--Jl~!Li). The
verb has usage in Kings and elsewhere with the disposal of dead bodies, 112 and the
likelihood that this is the sense here as well is sustained by the further possibilities the
t:l,K,::lJ:-t ,)::l sketch - Elijah may have been thrown down onto one of the hills or into
one of the valleys.
Thus, adding together the understanding of the t:l,K,::l):-t ,)::l that Elijah was to be
taken (away) from over Elisha, the evidence to them from Elisha's tom garments of
Elijah's departure, their declaration that Elijah's spirit now rests on Elisha his
successor, and that Elijah may have been carried up and hurled down again to earth,
the picture that emerges is of a request to send out a search party for the body, so that
the corpse may receive a proper burial.ll3 The LXX moves the interpretation in this
direction with the insertion that Elijah may have been thrown into the Jordan.
If we assume (as argued earlier) that the t:l,K,::lJ:-t ,)::l and Elisha started off at the
same level of knowledge re Elijah's being "taken," the gap between them at the end of
the narrative is more a yawning chasm. Without having asked and received, Elisha's
level of prophetic discernment may have been no keener than that of his fellow
prophets. 114 Publicly invested as Elijah's successor, as he had already been, Elisha
112
2Kgs 9,25, 26; 13,21; Josh. 8:29; 10:27; Amos 8:3; Jer: 22:19:BDB, 1"fD, 1021.
113
So, e.g., Robinson (1976), 27; Provan (1995), 174; Wiseman (1993), 196-97.
114
Nelson's deduction is that the narrator shows the prophetic group to regress from correct predictions
(2:3, 5) and accurate interpretation (2: 15), when they insist on the search for Elijah- it shows "they are
218
might still have literally and/or figuratively been awarded the mantle of his master. In
fact, it is possible that nothing else in the "succession story" would have been
different, except, of course, for the crucial difference that Elisha would have been a
poorer "seer," much to Israel's loss. Like Solomon before him, Elisha seized the
opportunity to ask for special enabling in the task that he was succeeding a great
predecessor into. "It pleased the LORD that Solomon had asked this" (1 Kgs 3: 10),
and that appears to be the case with Elisha as well.
Meanwhile, Elisha maintains an enigmatic silence on the issue of what it is that has
really happened to Elijah. In this, he is consistent with his earlier behaviour, where he
had sharply hushed the c~K~:m1 ~J:\ rather than discuss with them what he knew of
the imminent event. Perhaps the matter is far too personal and beyond that, too sacred
to be commonly shared. At any rate, this suits the narrator, because he can orchestrate
it into a concluding flourish in his Mosaic composition of the life and work of Elijah.
The detail that the search party consists of fifty strong men ('-,~n ~J:\) emphasizes both
the competence and the futility of the search. Elijah is not to be found - dead or alive.
As Provan observes, finally, the narrative never resolves what exactly it is that has
happened to him - whether he died in the process of being taken up or was translated
into another life without experiencing death. We are only given pointers towards what
the various actors believed about his disappearance, while the narrator carefully
guards the mystery at the heart of the event, never quite letting on what he means by
that verb only he uses (')'i"T'-,li) of Elijah's disappearance.
This concluding section of the narrative is not only necessary, but also enormously
significant to the narrator; with it he consummates the Mosaic theme carried through
his telling of the life story of this prophet. In his departure too, Elijah resembles
Moses. Both prophets know the time and place of their departure (Deut. 32:48-50).
less perspicacious at the end of the story than they were at the start." (1987), 159. It seems to me that
this regression is an illusion Cl"eated by Elisha's journeying on, while they have remained "standing" on
the "far side" (2:7, 15). Moberly rightly concludes from his study of 2 Kgs 2, "Seeing God .. .is
something that exists unequally among those called to serve God" (2006), 138. This inequality has
arisen, in part, because Elisha made the right moves towards seeing.
219
Moses dies while still full of "sap," 115 meaning to say that he did not die of old age
but rather because the LORD willed it so, and because his work was done and his
service fulfilled. Elijah too remains in active service to the end. Both are last seen
journeying towards their end. Deut. 34 reviews Moses in terms of his intimacy with
the LORD (v.lO) and his deeds on behalf of Israel (vv.11-12). The symbols of divine
presence at Elijah's translation are a reminder of a similar intimacy, recalling as they
do, the wind and fire of his encounter with deity at Horeb; and, in celestial fiery
images and human exclamation his significance to Israel is proclaimed. Both
departures are mediated by God, and shrouded in mystery; Moses dies at God's
command and is buried by him, none knows where; Elijah is caught up by God and is
never seen again. The manner of each one's "death" speaks God's approval- a "Well
done, good and faithful servant!" 116
Meanwhile, the reader recalls that the account of the death of Moses is separated from
his epitaph by a quick but insistent mention that "Joshua the son of Nun was full of
the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him; and the Israelites
obeyed him, doing as the LORD had commanded Moses" (Deut. 34:9). Like his
namesake and counterpart, Elisha has demonstrated himself to be wise and discerning.
Like Joshua too, Elisha has seen a military vision in the environs of Jericho (Josh.
5: 13-15), though the plot progression in the latter story demands that the vision
happen before the parting of the Jordan. In both cases it is the water crossing that
affirms them as successors worthy of their predecessors. Like Joshua, Elisha will
follow the Jordan miracle with a miracle at Jericho. Both Joshua and Elisha have a
"purge" to perform, via the herem and the metaphorical "sword," respectively. Each
procedure functions in its own way to accomplish a comparable purpose, namely, the
securing of the land for the LORD's people; in the process it destroys and/or
dispossesses those who are outside the covenant. As we shall see in our examination
of Exod. 15, the conquest creates a sanctuary for the LORD, and establishes his
115
n':l is used of the freshness and moisture of growing or freshly cut wood. Cf. Gen. 30:37; Eze.
17:24; 21:3 (EVV 20:47).
116
Maccabees reads the manner of Elijah's departure as reward for work well done: "Elijah, because of
great zeal forthe law, was taken up irito heaven" (1 Mace. 2:58). C6gari'anlf Tadfuor offer that' this
nondeath "invested his with the qualities of eternal life, surpassing even Moses, the father of all
prophets, who dies and was buried (albeit by God himself: Deut. 34:5-6)." (1988), 33-34.
220
kingship. This is significant when applied to the context of Elisha's work since he will
catalyse the deconstruction of the political structures of Israel to make way for a king
who will represent the LORD.
1.2 Structure and Focus of the 2 Kgs 2 Narrative

We may conclude this close reading of 2 Kgs 2 by standing back to observe the larger
picture.
Commenting on the many attempts to map 2 Kgs 2 into a geographical chiasm, 117
Bergen comments: "The common feature that all share is their near success. Near
success is certainly a sign that something is happening ... " 118 Of these attempts, we
may mention Hobbs'; his pattern is event-based rather than geographical, and
embraces both chapters 1 and 2 of 2 Kgs with a climax at 2: 11, the ascension of
Elijah. On either side, in 2:10 Elisha's receiving of his request is dependent on seeing
and in 2: 12, Elisha "saw"; in 2:9 Elisha requests for the firstborn's share and in 2: 13
he picks up the mantle of Elijah, the symbol of succession; 2:8 and 2:14 describe the
two crossings in almost identical terms; in 2:7 and 2:15 mention is made of the
watching sons of the prophets"; in 2:2-6 this group asks Elisha if he knows of the
departure of his master and in 2: 16-18 they request permission of him to confirm that
departure. 2:19-22 balances with 1:1-8, 16-17, the common theme being sickness and
healing, the seeking out of a deity/prophet for help, the word of judgement/healing
and a fulfillment formula. Ahaziah dies without progeny and Elisha heals a city of its
barrenness. 1:9-15 is balanced by 2:23-24 in that in both, the status of the prophet is
challenged ("Come down!"/"Go up!"), and drastic judgement executed by a third
party (described in identical syntax). 119 Elisha's brief stop at Carmel (2:25) before he
moves on to the political centre, Samaria, is seen as bridging back to Elijah's great
work on that mountain. 120
117
The itinerary runs thus: Gil gal (v.l); Bethel (v.2); Jericho (v.4); Jordan (vv.6-14 ); Jericho (v.15);
Bethel (v.23); Mt. Carmel/Samaria (v.25). E.g., Lundbom (1973), 41-42; O'Brien (1998), 3-4; Long
(1991), 20"21.
118
Bergen (1999), 56.
119
Hobbs (1984), 327-34.
120
E.g., Nelson (1987), 158; Long (1991), 20.
221
The events are so ordered that they form a literary retracing of Elijah's steps by Elisha
in what Hobbs calls a "succession narrative." 121 Thus: "The 'copy' of Elijah found in
the figure and activity of Elisha-although it is by no means a perfect copy-serves to
emphasize the perpetuation of prophetic tradition, even after the disappearance of the
prophetic giant, Elijah." 122 This is not improbable. 123 The other narrative of prophetic
succession also makes continuity its refrain, as our discussion of Joshua 1-5 later will
remind. The two figures of Elijah and Elisha, their charisma, and their role as Israel's
leaders are seamlessly conjoined. In this endeavour, perhaps the other literary device,
that of setting the narrative of 2 Kgs 2 outside the regnal records, also helps. Long
suggests that this "pausal moment" creates the necessary space for "analogical image
making"; the Moses-Joshua model of transition is reworked for another critical period
of Israel's history, and setting the narrative in such relief compels the reader to make
124
new associations with the paradigm.
In bringing the reading of 2 Kgs 2 to a close, we must revisit the related questions of
which prophet is the protagonist of the narrative (Elijah or Elisha), and which of the
two events its climax (the ascension or the succession). We may briefly scan the
argument of one proponent from each camp, Long and Gunkel.
Long sees the gtveaway opening of 2 Kgs 2 as a "typical anticipatory device of

Hebrew narration" of which there are other examples within the Kings material,
namely, the accounts of the adversaries of Salomon-Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam (1
Kgs 11: 14a, 23a, 26a). He understands such anticipatory statement to establish a
hierarchy among possible readings of the narrative and defines at the outset the
121
Hobbs (1985), 19.
122
Hobbs (1984), 333.
123
Certainly, as we shall discuss later, authority is a key issue in the corpus Joshua-Kings, and the
schema here could well demonstrate that. The three sets of episodes (the two river crossings, the death
of Ahaziah/the healing of Jericho's waters, the fire/the bears) voice this theme each in its own way.
Carroll compares the fire from heaven incident to that of Nadab and Abihu in that the authority of the
prophet was questioned and the detractors punished by divine fire. (1969), 412. Woods makes out an
interesting argument for n,p in the jeer of the youths recalling Num. 16--rl,p stands for either
"baldhead" or "Korah" (the type of a usurper of authority), or, paranomastically, both. (1992), 47-58.
In trying to unlock this difficult text, it seems more probable that a consequence as serious as death
should follow the sin of questioning the authority of the prophet, rather than that of heckling. (Cf. the
other narrative of prophetic succession, Where death is promised those who rebel against of disobey the
new leader; Josh. l: 18). Along the same lines, Bakon sees a denial of Elisha's prophetic authority, in
that he was called bald in deliberate contrast to the hairy Elijah. (2001) 248.
124
Long (1991), 31-32.
222
narrator's preferred view, somewhat imposing this view on the reader. 125 It is
interesting then, that while the other three comparable stories revolve entirely around
the character named in the introductory summary, 2 Kgs 2 works differently. It is the
character of Elisha that steals the focus; he is the one with whom the other characters
dialogue; his is the radical transformation from a dependent protege to self-assured
prophet. Elijah moves through the narrative with a strange detachment, and actually
leaves the narrative mid-way, as against Hadad et al.
Gunkel's approach is more through hypothesizing on sources and redaction.

The purpose of the original story was to show how Elisha became Elijah's successor.
The hero of it is Elisha, not Elijah ... In order to set forth his conception of Elisha, the
narrator has utilized an older tradition of Elijah's ascension. Of course, in that
narrative Elijah was the centre of interest, but our author has ventured so to adapt the
story that his own hero, Elisha, plays the chief part. He has succeeded beyond
measure ... Without detracting from the greatness of Elijah, he has made Elisha the
central figure of his narrative. 126
The "original story," according to Gunkel, ends at v.l5; vv.16-18 are a "supplement"
added by a later hand, the purpose being to furnish proof of Elijah's nondeath. As for
the incidents that immediately follow it, they are not part of the narrator's scheme and
"completely destroy its symmetry." Gunkel is not comfortable with the "supplement"
either, since, judged from the aesthetic standpoint, "it again diverts the attention of the
reader from Elisha, who is the chief figure, to Elijah, about whom everything needful
has been told." 127
The questions of redaction aside, Gunkel's observations only reiterate the point we
have been making that the narrative sustains a remarkably fine twin focus right
through vv.l-18, if not to the end of the chapter. In the received form of the text,
Elisha is seen to detract in no way from Elijah's moment of glory; rather, he actively
contributes to it with the arresting and graphic epitaph. The character of Elijah,
meanwhile, allows room for Elisha from the start, withdrawing to the point of
seeming removed from the action. Even the ascension is not Elijah's moment alone,
since Elijah intentionally meshes it with Elisha's successorship.
125
Long (1991), 25-26.
126
Gunkel (1929), 186.
127
Gunkel (1929), 85-86.
223
We conclude then, that the unresolved debates only testify to the difficulty of locating
which, if any, is the climax of the narrative, and who, if either prophet, is the "hero."
The continuing argument is a tribute to the skill of the narrator.
1.3 Interim Conclusion

The close reading of 2 Kgs 2 shows it to be one that continuously challenges the
reader to engage with it. The reader must work out where he has been placed re level
of knowledge, and in doing so, attempt to resolve where the other players stand. To
the very end he can never be quite sure, though the probability is that he has been
privileged from the start, while the prophetic group, at the lowest level, is still groping
for answers at the close of the story. In the course of events, it is the character of
Elisha that develops, not only in terms of knowledge of the anticipated departure of
Elijah, but also in terms of maturing from dependent disciple to authoritative leader;
from seeker to possessor of the gift of the highest degree of prophetic discernment-
the gift of being able to see the divine. The narrator skilfully weaves his two concerns
into the climactic moment towards which the first half of the story moves, and from
which the second half moves away, namely, the theophany. In that one instant of time
encountering eternity, Elijah's life and work is brought to a splendid consummation,
and Elisha is established as a divinely legitimated and gifted successor.
The narrator throws these twin concerns into relief by setting up an analogy at
different levels with the only other prophetic "succession narrative," that of Moses
and Joshua; considering the Mosaic tenor of the larger narrative, this is but logical.
The fulcrum on which this analogy turns is the miracle of water parting, invoking, as
it does, the two great crossings in Israel's history and liturgy, rich with overlapping
themes. In order to discern which of these themes the narrator is seeking to evoke in
2 Kgs 2, we need to study first the resonance between the Sea and River crossings,
and to this task we tum.
224
2. Exod. 14-15 and Josh. 1, 3-5

2.1 The Two Great Water Crossings
Exod. 15, commonly called the Song of Sea, is often the starting point for discussion
on how the two crossings, that of the Red Sea under Moses' leadership and that of the
Jordan under Joshua's, resonate with each other. Tradition history regularly reads
Exod. 15: 11, 12 as a transition between the two themes of the song-the celebration
of the Sea crossing and the entry into the Promised Land. 128 Common concepts and
choice of words in the two texts (namely, Exod. 14-15 and Josh. 3-4) fuel the debate
over which tradition has influenced the other, and in what way. A common consensus
is that the River tradition is extrapolated back into the Sea tradition and hence the twin
themes of Exod. 15. 129 Alternatively, the Sea crossing is seen to influence the River
crossing: this influence is seen in the Sea motif being imported into the River
account, 130 or, more forcefully, the crossing of the Jordan is seen as a cultic re-
enactment of the Sea crossing. 131 An added dimension discussed in scholarship is that
of the influence on the water-separation motifs from the mythic patterns of Canaan,
namely, the Baal myths re Yamm, god of the Sea. 132
These considerations aside, let us note the resonance at the verbal and story levels
between the two texts, namely, Exod. 14-15 and Josh. 3:1-5:1, as extensively noted by
scholarship.
2.1.1 Verbal Parallels

In this section we list words, phrases and constructions that link the Jordan crossing
with that of the Sea.
Josh. 3:5: Joshua describes the miracle to come as "miraculous works" (...f~',£))
which the LORD will perform among Israel
Exod. 15:11: The Red Sea crossing is attributed to the LORD, who does
"miraculous works" (...f~',£))
Josh. 3:13, 16: The waters stand in a "single heap"-1n~ 1J

Exod. 15:8: The waters stand up "like a heap"-1J ,~;::,
128
See, e.g., Noth (1962), 124-25; Coats (1969), 1-17.
129
E.g., Coats (1969), 11; Hulst (1965), 167-68; Hay (1964), 402.
130
E:g., Noth (1953}, 33.
131
E.g., Kraus (1951), 181-99; cf. Childs (1970), 406-418: Cross (1966), 11-30, esp. pp. 26-27;
Winjgaards ( 1969).
132
E.g., Cross (1968) 1-25, esp. 22; Eakin (1967), 378-84.
225
Josh. 3:16: The waters flowing down from above the crossing heap up at Adam,
cutting off, on the other side of the crossing, the waters flowing down
to the Salt Sea.
Exod. 14:22, 29 The waters form a wall on the right and left of the crossing.
Josh. 3: 17; 4:22 Israel crosses over on dry ground-;"'t~in (3: 17)tnfli~~ (4:22), while
the priests stand in the middle of the Jordan-11i~n 11n~ (cf. 4:10,
18).
Exod. 14:21-22, 29 The sea is turned into dry land-;"'t~in (14:21)tnfli~~ (14:22, 29).
Israel goes into the midst of C11n:J) the sea.
Josh. 5:1 The kings of the cis-Jordan nations hear (..Jlmfli) of Israel's
miraculous crossing (..Ji~lJ) of the river with dismay. Their hearts
melt (..JOOO).
Exod. 15:16 The peoples hear (..JlJOfli) and are dismayed as Israel crosses over
(..Ji:llJ) into the land. The Canaanites melt away (..JJ10).
Josh. 4:14 The crossing causes Israel to "fear" (..JKi~) Joshua as they had
"feared" (..JKi~) Moses.
Exod. 14:31 The crossing causes Israel to believe (..JlOK) in the LORD and his
servant Moses.
Josh. 4:24 The purpose of the miraculous river crossing is that Israel may "fear"
{..JKi~) the LORD.
Exod. 14:31 The crossing inspires Israel to "fear" (..JKi~) the LORD.
Josh. 4:24 The crossing demonstrates that the hand of the LORD is mighty
(K~n nprn ~:l mn~ ,~).
Exod. 13:9 The Song of the Sea makes reference to the LORD's right hand q~o~
-15:6, 12) participating in the event; 13:9 uses "with a strong hand"
cnpTn 1~~) to describe the LORD's bringing Israel out of Egypt.
Significantly, the Joshua account itself also sets up resonance between the two
crossings at the verbal level, affirming the relevance and significance of the exercise
we are engaged in. Rahab's description of the Sea crossing parallels the narrator's
description of the River crossing:
Josh. 2:9-11 The inhabitants of the land hear (..JlJOfli)

that the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea
c~,o c~ ~o nK mn~ m~:J,n irliK)
and how Israel dealt with the two kings of the Amorites beyond the
Jordan (11i~n i~lJ~ irliK ~iOK;""t ~:l',o ~Jfli), i.e., the trans-
Jordan · ,
and "our" hearts melt (1J~~" oo~,)
and there is no longer any spirit left in any man
226
Josh. 5:1 All the kings of the Amorites beyond the Jordan to the west
(iT~~ ,,,~it 1:l11:l 11Li~ ~,~~it ~;::,',~ ',;::,)
hear ("11~1Li)
that the LORD has dried up the waters of the Jordan
(111~it ~~ n~ it1n~ !Li~:l,it 1!Li~)
their hearts melt (C:l:l', 0~~1)
and there is no longer any spirit left in them
(n11 1111 C:l iT~iT ~',,)
Further, Rahab describes the effect of the Sea crossing on the Canaanites, recalling the
language of Exod. 15:
Josh. 2:9: the inhabitants of the land melt (,~~J f1~it ~:l!Li~ ',;::,);
Exod. 15:15: the inhabitants of Canaan melt (111J;:, ~:l!Li~ ',;::, 1~~J)
Josh. 2:9: dread of "you" falls on "us" (1J~',11 c;:,n~~~ it',E)J)

Exod. 15: 16: dread falls on them (itn~~~ cn~',11 ',::m)
In conclusion, one notes the two explicit parallels the Joshua text draws between the
two crossings; the phrasing is pointedly equivalent.
Josh. 4:14: On that day the LORD exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and
they stood in awe of him as they had stood in awe of Moses, all the
days of his life.
Josh. 4:23: For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you
until you crossed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red Sea,
which he dried up for us until we crossed over ...
c;:,1:111 111 c;:,~J~~ ,,,~it ~~ n~ c~~it'?~ iT1iT~ m~:l,it 1!Li~
1J1:l11 111 1J~J~~ !Li~:l1it 11Li~ ~,o c~', c;:,~it',~ iT1iT~ i1il711 11Li~;:,
2.1.2 Story Level Parallels

This wealth of intertextuality at the verbal level is replicated at the next wider level,
namely that of story. Both crossings are marked by the symbolic presence of the
LORD. At the Red Sea, the "angel of God"/"pillar of cloud" covers Israel's
vulnerability as they cross, by taking up position as· Israel's rear guard, separating
them from the Egyptians who follow hard at their heels. At the end of the crossing
227
"the LORD in the pillar of fire and cloud" glares down on the Egyptians and throws
them into panic. (Exod. 14:19-20)
At Jordan (Josh. 3:2-6), Joshua is given instructions re "the ark of the covenant of the
LORD your God"; the purpose of it making up the vanguard of the crossing is
because the Israelites have not been this way before and the ark will guide them; they
are to "follow it." Presumably it will "carry" the priests along; (cf. 3:11-"the ark of
the covenant of the LORD of all the earth is going to pass before you into the
Jordan"). However, care must be taken to ke~p a specified distance between "you and
it." The implication of these directions is reinforced by Joshua's orders to Israel-
"Sanctify yourselves; for tomorrow the LORD will do wonders among you."
The ritual preparations and the setting of boundaries (and the inclusion of the minor
detail re the "third day") recall similar preparations before Israel meets the LORD at
Sinai (Exod. 19:10-12, 14-15, 21, 23-24). Soggin draws attention to the resonance
here with Num. 10:35-36, a passage where the ark and the LORD are wholly
identified, remarking that the ark "still" carries out the functions of a guide, and is a
sign of the presence of the LORD. 133 Thus, the ark becomes the locus of divine power
and presence. In fact, the narrative does not fail to connect regularly the miracle with
the ark- the parting and closing of the waters is consistently linked to it (Josh. 3: 13;
15-17; 4:10; 4:18). 134
Further, both crossings are closely associated with the celebration of the Passover.
The night of the observance of the first Passover, on the fourteenth day of the first
month, is followed by the day of Israel's exit from Egypt-"this very day"-
;,m 01~;, C~l1~. Further, the ordinance for the Passover specifically includes a
directive for circumcision of any foreigner who wants to join in its celebration, so that
he may "be regarded as a native of the land." (Exod. 12:6, 41-51) At Gilgal, "the
disgrace of Egypt" is finally removed from Israel, as they are circumcised. They keep
the Passover on the fourteenth day of the (first) month, and the very
133
Soggin (1972), 56.
134
See Miller and Tucker (1974), 35; Soggin (1972), 56.
228
day-:-TTil C1~ii C~l1:J-following it, manna ceases and they eat the produce of the
land. A wandering generation becomes natives of the land. (Josh. 5:2-12) 135
There are a couple of loose correspondences, where the Jordan crossing evokes
Mosaic elements from stories other than that of the Red Sea event. Joshua sets up
twelve stones on the riverbed; these are piled up over the "standing place" (:l~~) of
the feet of the priests who bore the ark of the covenant (Josh. 4:9). At Sinai, Moses
erects twelve pillars (sg. in Exod. 24:4-:-T:l~~) under the mountain of the covenant
making. In both cases, the number twelve explicitly represents the tribes of Israel; in
Exod. 24, the monument marks Israel's affirmation of obedience to the LORD; at the
Jordan too, the stone pile commemorates a crossing made possible by obedience
(Josh. 4:10; cf. 1:17-18).
Another instantly recognizable resonance is that of the theophanous encounter (Exod.

3:2 ff; Josh. 5: 13 ff). Joshua, like Moses, sees a divine being and is instructed (in
language almost identical to the earlier story) to take his shoes off in deference to the
sanctity of the place. In both cases, explicitly or implicitly, the message is that deity is
ready to intervene in history on Israel's behalf.
2.2 Interim Conclusion

Our examination of the Exodus and Joshua texts at the verbal and story levels clarifies
that the River crossing recapitulates the crossing of the Red Sea. We have also seen in
our reading of 2 Kgs 2 that the parting of the Jordan by Elijah and Elisha, by the very
nature of the miracle, immediately calls up associations with the Sea and River
partings in Israel's history. Further, we noted that the 2 Kings account carries echoes
of the earlier miracles at the level of words, expressions and story detail. These, in
themselves, would be of little value, unless we examine how these associations direct
the reading of the Elijah-Elisha cycle, especially at this point in narrative. This is the
undertaking in the section that follows.
135
Soggin comments on Josh. 3-5: "The first thing one notices is a striking analogy with the account of
the Passover and the crossing of the Red Sea, Exod. 12-15, to the extent that it seems safe to affirm a
substantial unity of content between these two passages." Soggin (1972), 51.
229
3. The Red Sea Crossing, the Jordan Crossing and 2 Kgs 2: Conceptual Parallels
The resonance at the verbal and story levels between the Exodus and Joshua texts sets
the scene for overarching conceptual parallels. Our intention here is to examine those
themes that unite the crossings of Moses and Joshua which appear to have been
exploited by the narrator of 2 Kgs 2. The two we will discuss are (1) the theme of
authoritative prophetic leadership and (2) the war theme, both concepts being overtly
treated and being a significant concern in all three texts.
3.1 The Dynamics of Authoritative Leadership: Moses and Joshua; Elijah and
Elisha
The narrative of Joshua's succession and the Jordan crossing is interlaced with threads
that extend back into the past, coordinating Joshua with Moses. Joshua's commission
comes in the context of Moses' death; his coming into leadership has been contingent
on Moses vacating that position (Josh. 1:1, 2). The most immediate issue concerns
Joshua's authority and the commissioning speech is quick to address it. The LORD
assures Joshua that both his position as leader and portfolio as the leader of the
conquest of the land are backed by him: God will be with Joshua as he was with
Moses (1 :5) and consequently, God will give him the land as promised to Moses
(1:3).
However, Israel needs demonstration that Joshua's authority is in no way lacking

when compared to Moses' and this comes out in the dialogue between Joshua and the
trans-Jordan tribes. The latter express their willingness to obey Joshua just as they
obeyed Moses, "Only, may the LORD your God be with you as he was with Moses
(1: 17). The use of p1 introduces a note of hesitation. As Nelson notes: "The syntax
asserts: 'A is true, but B is even more important' ." 136 It usually stands between two
assertions and normally signals an exception, restriction or limitation. After an
affirmative statement, it usually signals a strong disjunction and draws particular
attention to what follows. 137 This inserts a subtle note of contingency into the pledge
of obedience, Moses serving as the yardstick by which Joshua is measured. True
authority requires, as Nelson rightly observes, both legal warrant and the LORD's
136
Nelson (1997), 36. The second p1 in the speech is with respect to Joshua's courage, and in time, it
will be Joshua who will exhort Israel with exactly the same words (Josh. I: 18; 10:25).
137
Hawk (2000), 16.
230
favour, for leadership may be legitimate, yet devoid of the LORD's support, and
evil. 138 With the LORD, this reservation is a serious issue, one that he duly addresses.
As with Moses (Exod. 14:31), the proof of legitimisation to the people is via what
Overholt calls an "act of power." 139 In the narrative of the river crossing, Joshua's
position re Moses' is affirmed at the highest levels-by the LORD (Josh. 3:7) and by
the narrator (4: 14).
This concern with legitimacy and divine favour as regards leadership is reflected in
the Elijah-Elisha narrative. Privately, Elijah is "proved" to the widow of Zarephath; in
being able to restore her son to her he demonstrates himself to be a genuine "man of
God" (1 Kgs 17:24). Publicly, he is "proved" to "all Israel"; at his request fire
descends from heaven, demonstrating simultaneously that the LORD is God and that
Elijah is the one he has chosen to serve his purposes (1 Kgs 18:36ff). 2 Kgs 2, as we
have discussed in our close reading, is even more focussed in its concern to affirm
Elisha as Elijah's divinely chosen successor. As with Joshua, Elisha's position is
"proved" vis-a-vis Elijah's by acts of power-he replicates Elijah's miracle at the
Jordan, and at Jericho his "word" proves to be as potent as Elijah's was. He is
affirmed by God (in that he is granted the vision of Elijah's ascension), by the
characters (in the prophetic band's declaration, and in the deferential phrasing of the
request of the people of Jericho) and by the narrator (at the micro-level of words and
phrases, and at the macro-level of the parallel he sets up with Moses and Joshua).
The effect of Joshua's legitimisation is initially awe, and this leads to the desired end,
the obedience of Israel. The stones that Joshua sets up as memorial at the riverbed
verbally recall the "pillars" Moses set up at Sinai, as we observed earlier, and the
overlap between the two separate episodes is the obedience that unifies the tribes of
Israel. Moses' twelve pillars stand as testimony to the covenant between a respectfully
complying Israel and God (Exod. 24:3-8). Joshua's pile of twelve stones stands as
memorial to the crossing made possible because "everything was finished that the
LORD commanded Joshua to tell the people" (Josh. 4:10).
138
Cf. Saul, contra David (1 Sam. 18:12). Nelson (1981) 538-39. Along similar lines, McCarthy argues
that a theology of legitimate leadership is a concern that runs through Deuteronomistic History, the
assertion being that "Yahweh accomplishes his designs through a leader he chooses and sustains."
(1971 1) 175.
139
Overholt (1982), 23. Cf. Long (1977), 10-11, 15.
231
The effect of Elisha's act of power is a similar awe, demonstrated by the witnesses
bowing before him. They are immediately bound by his authority, and so, would
rather persuade him at length to send them rather than undertake a mission without his
permission. Eventually, Elisha's authority is established in the larger community, and
the symbolism of his guiding the twelve yoke of oxen translates into his directing the
prophetic community, the people and kings.
Since the narrator goes to great lengths to present Joshua as a leader who is correctly
and completely endorsed, the constant harking back to Moses in the telling of the
story of the conquest and settlement in no way detracts from Joshua. In the run-up to
the crossing itself, Moses' words and authority are recalled by God (Josh. 1:7), by the
author (4:10, 12), and by Joshua himself (1:12-15; cf. Deut. 3:18-20). Towards the
end of the conquest narrative, the narrator concisely portrays the synergy of the
interrelationships between God, Moses and Joshua: "As the LORD had commanded
his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing
undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses." (Josh. 11: 15) Rather than read
a hierarchy here, one does better to appreciate a harmonious working in tandem
towards the accomplishment of the great task of bringing God's people out of Egypt
and into Canaan. Joshua's authority is not second-hand; he is directly commissioned
by God, as much as Moses was. However, the task that Joshua brings to
consummation began with Moses. Thus, like warp and weft, the process by which
Canaan is taken possession of meshes the lifework of both leaders.
This corresponds remarkably with the picture the narrator presents of the interlocked
missions of Elijah and Elisha, discussed in detail in our reading of 1 Kgs 19:19-21.
Two of the three directives Elijah receives at Horeb become Elisha's tasks. Elijah
himself is allowed but a proleptic glimpse of the extermination of Baalism and the
promise of a remnant; it is through Elisha that the enemy is vanquished and the land
repossessed. At every tum in the telling of this tale, Elijah is recalled, both by the
characters and by narratorial comment.
Joshua, at his death, is given the same appellation as that of Moses at his death and
after-"the servant of the LORD" (Josh. 24:29; Judg. 2:8; cf. Deut. 34:5). Elijah and
Elisha too earn the same title at their departures-"the chariotry of Israel and its
232
horsemen." In both cases, the identical designations function to unify the life and
work of these two pairs of prophets, which is to bring the people within the covenant
into possession of the land.
Another feature that may have bearing on the resonance between the characters of
Joshua and Elisha is the possibility of the narrator's depiction of the figure of Joshua
as essentially royal, as noted by several scholars. 140 Nelson's summary lists the major
arguments in support, and of these the following may be relevant to our study: 141 (1)
Joshua takes up office immediately following the death of Moses, recalling the royal
pattern of smooth succession, and contrary to the charismatic pattern of judges or
prophets (Josh. 1:2, cf. 1 Kgs 2:2). (2) To authenticate transfer of power, the LORD
gives Joshua a special sign of favour (Josh. 3:7) and the people respond with awe
(4:14), cf. Solomon (1 Kgs 2:12; 3:12-13, 28). (3) Joshua undergoes a double
installation, 142 first by Moses (Deut. 31:7 -8) and then by the LORD (Josh. 1: 1-9). 143 A
two-stage process may be claimed for Saul (1 Sam. 10:1; 10:20 ff), David (1 Sam.
16:12-13; 2 Sam. 5:1-3), Solomon (1 Kgs 1:17; 1:32 ff), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:29-39;
12:20) and Jehu (2 Kgs 9:6-10; 9: 13). Nelson concludes: "Joshua, therefore, is
pictured by Dtr as a royal figure. He could hardly have made his point clearer without
committing a serious anachronism: Joshua is a sort of proto-king sketched out along
the lines of the ideal deuteronomic monarch." 144 Porter notes the points listed above
with respect to Elisha and concludes that the two groups Moses-Joshua and Elijah-
Elisha reflect a common royal pattern. 145 Though this is arguable, the common
elements in the two procedures of succession (whether derived from the royal model
140
bstborn (1945), 65-66; Widengren (1957), 14-16; Porter (1970), 102-32.
141
Nelson ( 1981 ), 531-40.
142
Some of the texts cited to illustrate this point vary from Nelson.
143
Lind examines the various texts in Deuteronomy and Josh.1 to conclude that "the chain of texts on
the replacement of Moses by his successor, Joshua ... never say the same thing ... Each tells us
something new .. .it is the sum total that constitutes the sharp and differentiated portrayal of the transfer
of office." (1994), 235-36. This is true of the Elijah-Elisha case, as we have argued.
144
Nelson argues this monarch to be Josiah. (1981), 534. McCarthy argues that Josh. 1:1-9 falls into an
installation genre which has most of its examples connected with Davidic monarchy. ( 1971 2), 31-41.
145
Porter (1970), 120-21, adds two other details from Elisha's case which may carry the royal motif:
the mantle; which he likens tcnhe rob€rbf state, p-roperly' worn by kings, cf. Montgomery (1951 ), 316,
and the royal feature in the heavenly chariots, cf. L'Orange (1953), 48-79). See Widengren for the
general possibility of features borrowed from the royal pattern in the call and appointment of prophets.
(1950), 33, n.3.
233
or otherwise) may not be denied; at least, they add to the general evocation of Elisha's
literary counterpart. 146
3.2 The War Theme in Exod. 14-15 and Joshua 1-5; Implications for 2 Kgs 2
Both crossings plainly carry military themes. The Sea event is depicted as a battle.
Miller identifies war vocabulary in Exod. 13-14: Israel goes out of Egypt c~lli~n, "in
battle array" ( 13: 18). The verb "to encamp" and its cognate "camp" are used both of
Israel and the Egyptians (.Vmn; 13:20; 14:2, 9, 19, 20). He acknowledges that these
terms are not necessarily military, but draws attention to the balancing of the "camp of
Egypt," explicitly a military encampment, with the "camp of Israel" in 14:20. 14:14
uses .Vcn',, "to fight/battle." "Discomfited," .Vc~i1, is a term that recurs in the later
battles oflsrael (14:24; e.g., Josh. 10:10; Judg. 4:15). The Egyptian call for a retreat is
again a military procedure, and occurs in the context of the verb "to fight." The
summary statement is in the language of victor and vanquished: "The LORD
overthrew/shook off c·hlJJ) the Egyptians in the midst of the sea" (14:27). 147 Exod. 15
so explicitly defines the event as a battle that we need not stop to examine the details;
the overarching theme is the LORD as a warrior (i1~n',~ lli~K; 15:3) against whom
Egypt has presumptuously taken up position as enemy (:l~,K; 15:6, 9).
At the Jordan, the objective of the crossing is to occupy the land, first having defeated
the inhabitants; thus the trans-Jordan tribes cross over armed for battle, and a detail of
their number is recorded - about forty thousand (Josh. 4: 12-13). Mitchell observes
that just as their joining in marks the beginning of the war, so their departure marks
the end of the conquest. Symmetry is created by the wording of Josh 1:15 being
echoed in 22:4, and with the account of the taking of provisions (Josh. 1: 11) matched
with a booty report (Josh. 22:8; a narrative marker signalling the end of a
campaign). 148 He also points out the military connotations associated with .V1:llJ: an
advance by an invading army/ 49 and an invasion which sometimes involved an armed
146
Both may be understood as succession to a prophetic office, cf. Sir. 46:1. Even though the canonical
traditions do not explicitly refer to Joshua as a prophet, one notes that he speaks the prophetic formula
miT~ 1~K iT~ (Josh. 7:13; 24:2) and 1 Kgs 16:34 records the fulfilment of "the word of the LORD,
which he spoke by the hand ofJoshua the son of Nun."
147
Lind (1980), 54.
148
Mitchell (1993), 105-06.
149
Josh. 6:7; 2 Sam. 29; 1 Kgs 8:21; Isa. 10:28-29; Hab. 1:11; Ps. 48:5, etc. Mitchell (1993), 32.
234
crossing of the Jordan, 150 could be described thus. Further, he points out, "[c]rossing
territory also means encroachment into on someone else's property and implies a
claim to its ownership." 151 Therefore, "the crossing of the Jordan may be understood
as a juridical act" that marks the beginning of the offensive against Canaan. 152
There are yet other elements in the military motif of these two crossings, some less
obvious than others. First, the ark is presented as the locus of the LORD's power and
presence among the people. In the context of goal of the mission - to dispossess the
Canaanites, and inherit the land, the function of the ark as described in Num. 10:33-36
is readily recalled: "So they set out. .. with the ark of the covenant of the LORD going
before them ... to seek out a resting place (v!mJ) for them ... Whenever the ark set out,
Moses would say, 'Arise, 0 LORD, let your enemies be scattered, and your foes flee
before you.' And whenever it came to rest, he would say, 'Return, 0 LORD of the ten
thousand thousands of Israel' ." 153 Joshua speaks of Moses describing Canaan as "[a
place of] rest" (v!mJ; Josh. 1: 13), and the ark itself is positioned as a scout that Israel
is to follow (Josh. 3:2-4) into that rest. One recalls here, too, the defeat that befell the
previous generation when they rebelled and presumed to go out to do battle "even
though the ark of the covenant of the LORD ... had not left the camp" (Num. 14:44-
45).
Second! y, there is the discussion on whether Josh. 1: 1-9 may exemplify an

"installation genre," used for the installation of a person into an official role and
charging him with a specific task (or set of tasks) to carry out. This genre is said to
consist of three elements: an exhortation to be bold, a statement of task and an
assurance of divine presence and support. 154 Rowlett argues at length that each time
this schema occurs in the Deuteronomistic History, it appears in the context of
military action; thus, the three-element formula finds its earliest and most complete
expression as a war oracle where the warrior is commanded to be bold in executing
150
Judg. 6:33; 12:1, etc .. Mitchell (1993), 32.
151
Gen. 31:52; Judg. 11:18-20; 2 Sam. 19:41-43, etc .. Mitchell (1993), 32.
152
Mitchell (1993), 32-33.
153
From a tradition history approach, Cross comments of this text: "Evidently these are liturgical
fragments rooting in holy war ideology, used also in the reenactment of the wars of Yahweh." (1966),
24-25.
154
E.g., McCarthy (1971 2), 31-41; Porter (1970), 109-17.
235
the military task before him since divine presence and help in battle are promised,
thereby assuring a victorious outcome. 155
Thirdly, there is the schema of "holy war." On examining a spectrum of "ritual

Conquest" texts and traditions, Cross concludes: " ... it becomes apparent that the
normal locus of holy warfare is discovered in the Exodus-Conquest.. ." 156 ; this pairing
is of interest in our discussion of the Sea and River crossings, so we visit this complex
and much-debated concept briefly.
Though Schwally was one of the first of the modem scholars to examine the concept
of "holy war," the classic presentation remains that of von Rad, a study which bears
the stamp of form-critical concerns. Basing his investigation on the use of formulaic
language in the text, he identified a set of features associated with "sacral warfare" of
the "tribal amphictyony" stage of the pre-monarchial period. Among them are: the
mustering of the tribes; the consecration of the men; the divine oracle; the formalized
exhortation including assurance of divine presence; the LORD moving out ahead of
the army; terror falling on the enemy; the LORD's being awarded exclusive credit for
the victory; the l:l1n; the dismissal of the militia with the cry, "To your tents, 0
Israel!" 157 Since von Rad, the focus has changed from the search for a cultic
institution to the search for the characterisitics of warfare conducted in the LORD's
name, with or without formal cultic involvement; further, the terms "wars of
Yahweh"/"Yahweh war" has been favoured over "holy war," the former terms being
biblically derived (m;,, m~n',~; Num. 21:14; 1 Sam. 18:17; 25:28; cf. Exod. 17:16;
1 Sam. 17:47). 158 Still, von Rad's schema makes a reasonable checklist for rhetoric
associated with warfare, sacral or otherwise (distinctions between the two being
nebulous, if not non-existent), and we may use it on the narratives of the two
crossings as we examine the war motif running through each.
At the Red Sea, the people are assembled into a specific campsite by the sea (Exod.
14:2, 9); the divine oracle is given, assuring victory (14:3-4, 15-18); the "angel of the
155
Rowlett (1996), 122-155.
156
Cross (1966), 25.
157
Von Rad (1958), 41-51.
158
Smend (1963); Stolz (1972); Jones (1975), 642-58.
236
LORD" goes before Israel partway before moving to the rear for tactical reasons
(14: 19); the Egyptians are discomfited and attempt to flee (14:24-25). As for the
Jordan crossing, Miller notes that "[t]he journey of the Israelites into the land of
Canaan appears to have been viewed throughout Israel's history from a very early
time as the holy war or Yahweh war par excellence." 159 The people move from
Shittim to the Jordan in preparation for the crossing; there is an emphasis on
representation from all twelve tribes in that the fighting men from the trans-Jordan
tribes are called to join the crossing so as to "help" their brothers (Josh. 1: 12-16). The
people are commanded to sanctify themselves in readiness for the event. 160 The divine
oracle pronounces victory (1 :2-9; 3:7). The ark, the palladium of war, associated with
the LORD in eight out of the fifteen occurrences in Josh. 3-4, moves ahead (3:3-4).
The opposition loses spirit (5: 1). 161
Related to the concept of "holy war" is the concept of "cosmic war." Here, our
narrative critical reading of texts may profit from being informed by comment from
the study of the history of Israelite religion in its Canaanite context.
There is warrant for arguing that Exod. 15 is not to be read via the familiar motif of
chaos, death, sea or the like. Cross and Freedman, for example, point out that the Sea
is never personified in the Exodus text, rather it performs as the LORD's passive tool.
The opposition is a human host, a "historically limited foe." Neither is the Song a
mythologically derived conflict nor a result of "historicizing" myth. 162 On the other
hand, Cross also agrees that "the ideology of holy war. .. was characterized by a
number of cosmic elements ... [which] gave mythic depth to the historical events of the
Exodus and Conquest." 163 Thus, the Song of the Sea, he affirms, preserves a familiar
Canaanite creation myth pattern: the combat of the divine warrior and his victory at
sea, the building of a sanctuary on the mount of inheritance won in battle, and the
159
Miller (1973), 160.
160
Cf. Josh. 7: 13;1 Sam. 21:6; 2 Sam. 11:11; Deut. 23:13-15. "Because the war was sacral, a sphere of
activity in which Israel's God was present, the camp and the warriors had to be ritually purified."
Miller (1973), 157.
161
At the end of the narrative of conquest, Joshua dismisses the fighting men from the trans-Jordan
tribes with "go to your tents"-C::l'',;,K', l:l::l', ,::l',l Cf. 1 Kgs 12:16,2 Chron. 10:16.
162
Cross and Freedman (1955), 237-250.
163
Thus, for example, Isa. 40:3-6, which opens with an apostrophe to the arm of the Divine Warrior
and with allusion to cosmo gonic myth, but then is suddenly penetrated by the historical memory of the
redemption from Egypt. Cross (1966), 28-29.
237
god's manifestation of eternal kingship. 164 Miller observes that the LORD's
incomparability is made vis-a-vis the "gods" (Exod. 15:11). 165 Plausibly, it is this
cosmic dimension that is picked up in the retelling of these crossings in later periods,
where cosmological conflict is used to describe what was conflict on a historical plane
(e.g., Ps. 77: 16-20; Ps. 114). 166 "It is proper," says Cross, "to speak of this ... as the
tendency to mythologize historical episodes to reveal their transcendent meaning." 167
Cross also notes that the episode at the sea was chosen as symbolic of Israel's
redemption and creation as a community, over other possible episodes, and
specifically, myths of creation came to be identified with the historical battle in which
Yahweh won salvation for Israel. This, he emphasizes, was no chance: "In choosing
the event of the sea, Israel drew upon available symbols and language which retained
power and meaning even when the old mythic patterns which gave them birth had
been attenuated or broken by Israel's austere historical consciousness." 168
It can hardly be contested that the narrative of the Jordan crossing used the episode of
the Red Sea as paradigm, a recapitulation that reinforced that though it was the Jordan
that was being crossed, it was the same mighty saving and guiding hand of the LORD
of the Red Sea event that was bringing them through it. The overt military tenor of the
river crossing would then conceptually parallel the battle at sea, and take on the
latter's theme of the LORD as divine warrior. Thus, though the trans-Jordan tribes
cross over armed for battle, it is "the living God who without fail will drive out" the
inhabitants of the land, and the ark is guarantor and sign of this (Josh. 3:10, 11). The
centrality of the LORD's role in the wars to come is climaxed in the episode of the
vision (Josh. 5: 13-15).
The incident happens when Joshua is 1n,1,::l; 169 reading from the previous note that
Israel was encamped on the plains of Jericho (5: 10), and from the note following that
Jericho was shut up (6: 1), the plainest reading would place the episode in the region
164
Cross (1968), 142; Cross and Freedman (1955), 240,249-50.
165
Miller (1973), 115.
166
E.g., Geller (1'990), 179-94.
167
Cross (1968), 144.
168
Cross (1968), 137-38.
169
We are considering here only those readings that see this section as not necessarily incomplete.
238
of Jericho, and chronologically at the start of the campaign. A man stands before
Joshua with a drawn sword, and the latter's question-"Are you one of us, or one of
our adversaries?"-suggests some ambiguity to the vision. Miller considers it
significant that the being identifies himself with a very specific and unusual
designation, different from the more familiar i11ii~ 1~',~, the "angel of the LORD."
This ;,,;r~ ~:l~ 1fl1 "links the heavenly cosmic army with Israel's earliest holy
wars." 170
There are multiple indicators towards the possibility that the vision is a manifestation
of divine presence, and though each in itself need not necessarily indicate deity, their
cumulative effect does move the interpretation in that direction: Joshua falls facedown
to the ground and pays homage; he addresses the vision as "my lord" and positions
himself as his "servant"; the place is rendered holy by the presence of the being and
this demands that Joshua, like Moses before him, must take off his shoe. This last
takes the reader back to the parallel episode in Exod. 3, and the reader notes that there,
the distinction between messenger and the LORD is blurred to the point of
disappearing altogether.
The commander's ~',may be rendered a positive "Indeed!" reading with an emphatic
lamedh; it would then answer positively the first half of Joshua's question, that is,
,)~,~', 0~ ;,n~ ,)',;,, and would be implicitly negative with respect to the second
half of the question. 171 Or, the ~', could be read as a negative, and mean "Neither
one!" since the shape of Joshua's question gives two mutually exclusive choices. This
answer would show the commander as representing a third force, namely, the army of
the LORD, in the conflict to come; this independent and neutral party will judge
which side to support in the coming battles. 172
Miller (1973), 131. Cf. Josh. 10:12-13a; Judg. 5:20. K::l~il ,W is found elsewhere only in Dan.
170
8:11.
171
E.g., Soggin (1972), 76-78.
172
E.g., Nelson (1997), 73-74; Boling and Wright (1982), 197. Thus, Israel succeeds at Jericho (Josh.
6) and is defeated at Ai (Josh. 7). Hawk arrives at this reading from a third angle. He sees the x':l as
evasive, in that it constitutes a refusal to choose between two alternatives. What he finds most
significant is what is tiot said following the coinmand're snoe's. The identiCal command in Exod. 3' had
been followed by comment on Israel's occupation of Canaan (3:8). Since the speech here is terminated
at precisely that part which pertains to the present situation, Hawk sees in this failure to affirm the
promise of the land, taken with the commander's refusal to commit for Israel, an ambiguity re the
239
The general agreement is that this episode, though enigmatic, serves the literary
purpose of marking the start of and authorizing the hostilities in Canaan, and may
even be read as a guarantee of its success, should the divine host align itself with
Israel. The drawn sword speaks of combat readiness; the forces of the LORD have
already been mobilized. 173
Thus, in both narratives, the LORD is the key actor. He dominates the story both
directly and with reference to the theologoumena of cloud or ark, 174 he sets the agenda
and pronounces the oracles, the decisive action is his, and the miraculous nature of the
event makes redundant any human role. The events are described, in fact, as n1K',E:lJ
(Exod. 15:11; Josh. 3:5), the word used of all that befalls Egypt before Pharaoh finally
lets Israel go (Exod. 3:20), and of the deeds that the LORD will do to put Israel in
possession of Canaan (Exod. 34:1 0). The LXX translates with 8aq.tam:& which Soggin
observes "is often used for miracles when they provoke the reactions of astonishment
and marvelling" thus putting the emphasis on the supranormal nature of the event. 175
Thus, victory is not by might of numbers and weapons but by terror (i1~~K: Exod.
15:16, cf. Exod. 23:27f; Josh. 2:9) and dread (1nE:l: Exod. 15:16, cf. Deut. 2:25;
11 :25), establishing among the nations the LORD's supremacy.
It is clear, then, that there is a discernible "cosmic" undertone to the two narratives,
though always subordinate to and fused with the more political, historical aspect of
the Warrior God's activity, namely, the defeat of Israel's enemies. Miller sums up the
concept vis-a-vis the Canaanite context:
By and large, there existed a separation between the historical battles of the kings
aided by the god or gods and the mythological battles of the gods against the gods.
The gods acted to save men, but at the centre of the religious concern was the battle
for order over chaos, life over death, fertility over sterility. At the center of Israel's
faith, however, lay the battle for Israel's deliverance, a conflict involving the
theophany of Yahweh and his mighty armies to fight with and for Israel. This
encounter took place on a definitely historical level, but the forces of the cosmos were
LORD's position in the conflict. Thus, the wars to come will be the LORD's wars for the LORD's own
purposes. Hawk (1991), 21-24.
73
E.g., Nelson (1997), 83;-woudstra (1981), 106.
174
Lind makes a case counting up the number of times the various characters are mentioned in the
narratives of the crossings. (1980), 58-59, 81.
175
Soggin (1972), 57.
240
involved. Insofar as the mythological battle of the gods existed in normative

Yahwism it was brought into this complex. 176
This is the rationale for the prime place that these two crossings occupied in the
national consciousness-as embodied by the memorials (e.g., Josh. 4) and by liturgy
(e.g., Exod. 15). In both categories, the conceptual linkage is made between the event
of the sea and that of the river: the stone piles set up in Josh 4 stand testimony to the
fact that the LORD acted on behalf of a later generation just as he had for the one that
participated in the Red Sea miracle (v.20-23); in liturgy (e.g., Ps. 66:6; 114:3, 5), as
Nelson observes, the correlation extends beyond the typological to the mythic as a
mode of affirming that the Jordan crossing was a prototypical and foundational event
for Israel. 177 Thus, even though the Jordan event is rarely found in confessional
summaries other than Josh. 24:11 and Ps. 114, 178 Micah 6:5 puts the events that
transpired between Shittim and Gilgal on a par with the Sea crossing by counting
them among the LORD's "saving acts" (mn~ n,p1~; cf. 1 Sam. 12:7).
These are the many nuances that are evoked when the narrator of 2 Kgs 2 embeds his
story into the matrix of the two great crossings in Israelite history. The fiery chariotry
of the theophany presents the LORD in his established function as a man of war, and
gathers together the many implications of the hostilities between the LORD and Baal
in the narrative thus far; here, discernible to the human eye, are the symbols of the
m~:J~ mn~ whom Elijah has thrice invoked. The enemy has been routed once at
Carmel, and now may expect a final, decisive defeat by the swords of two kings and a
prophet. If on a "cosmic" level that enemy is Baal, 179 on the ground, it is those knees
that bow to Baal and those lips that kiss his image. Miller rightly reminds:
Judgement .. .is the other side of the coin, the negative dimension of the activity of the
divine warrior. As he fought for Israel to deliver her, so he could and did fight against
her to punish. The prophets especially drew this obvious conclusion form Israel's
176
Miller (1973), 164-65.
177
Nelson (1997), 71.
178
See Thomson (1981) 346.
179
There is much comment on the possible polemic against the Baal myths in the Elijah-Elisha corpus.
As regards the story in 2 Kgs 2, Bronner (1968), reads hints of a polemic against Baal in the ascension
of Elijah. She argues that ~~~, can mean "to ascend." This may be used in allusion to Baal, the one
who mounts clouds. However, unlike Elijah, he dies, and again unlike Elijah whose body cannot be
located, his is found lying on the earth. 123-27. Again, she reads the miracle of the parting of the
Jordan by Elijah and Elisha as polemical; Baal too splits a river. 127-33. Also, Battenfield (1988), 19-
37; Miller (1973), 24-48.
241
theology. And it was this important assumption that kept the theology of Yahweh's
wars from being purely ideological or a nai've and simple 'God is on our side' faith.
To speak about the judgement of God in the Old Testament is to be confronted again
with the imagery of the divine warrior. 180
The divine warrior intervenes in history, as at the Red Sea and in the Conquest, with
salvific intent; here, he saves a faithful remnant. The end point of that salvation is
regularly God's people dwelling in the land promised to their ancestors. Thus, the Red
Sea crossing, and more pointedly, the Jordan crossing, had as its key purpose the
occupation of Canaan. "[T]he Jordan," comments Soggin, "is not any river but the
traditional frontier of the promised land to the east, which is now crossed in order to
take possession of this land. Thus the crossing of the river is synonymous with the
conquest and the beginning of the fulfilment of ancient promises." 181 In this context,
Elisha's miraculous crossing becomes the symbol that anticipates the victory
promised at Horeb, whereby God's people will once more possess the land and dwell
in safety. Joshua's military associations and the militant nature of the task he succeeds
to colour Elisha's "inheritance." 182
As in the former events, the "unique relationship of the Israelite prophet to Yahweh's
holy war" is asserted in that the prophet-leader, "as God's messenger dare[s] to
engage the enemy political leader"; 183 Elijah has done as much,· and Elisha will
follow. Victory is possible because the Divine Warrior, the LORD of Hosts,
participates side by side with the prophet. The Jordan crossing by Joshua had had as
one of its purposes the demonstration that God was with Joshua (Josh. 3:7). Elisha's
question-"Where is the LORD ... ?"-is answered to say that the LORD is with
Elisha.
180
Miller (1973), 173-74.
181
Soggin (1972), 54.
182
Moore finds in the Elisha stories a store of detail that fits with the schema of "holy"/"cosmic" war:
Elisha's "Fear not, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them" to his servant (2
Kgs 6: 16) can be identified with the language and function of the holy-war call to faith." The divinely-
wrought deliverance that follows is the tradition's most essential characteristic, one that is repeated in
the story of the Aramean siege (2 Kgs 7). In the latter, the sudden panic of the army is another
distinctive feature of the ·schema: In the Moabite war ii formulaic oracle is delivered lmd an enemy-
confounding miracle occurs (2 Kgs 3). Joash is awarded a battle oracle (2 Kgs 13). (1990), 132-34.
183
Miller (1973), 63.
242
The historical and liturgical dimensions appealed to in the 2 Kgs 2 narrative

dramatically and unambiguously extrapolate into the present, with pointed relevance,
the ancient and celebrated triumphs of Israel. Since these triumphs rest on the legal
and promissory relations between the LORD and Israel, their being recalled, at this
point in the Elijah-Elisha stories, anticipates an ultimate deliverance from the bondage
of Baalism and the possession of the land by the faithful.
4. Conclusion
2 Kgs 2 skilfully treats two important themes, that of the ascension of Elijah and that
of the succession of Elisha, with impeccable impartiality. Thus the narrator achieves
the twin ends of according Elijah a departure that pointedly glorifies his life work as
Israel's great defence, and assuring that Elijah has been replaced by a fully worthy
successor. Simultaneously, the narrative sets up resonance with the great historical
paradigm of continuity in discontinuity re leadership, that of Moses and Joshua. This
is accomplished using as axis the defining experiences in the history of Israel under
these leaders, namely the crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan. This automatically
imports into the 2 Kgs 2 narrative the salvific overtones so relevant to faithful Israel
in her critical struggle against another enemy, this time from within. The story of the
transition from Elijah to Elisha speaks the hope that as at that key era when Israel was
forged into a landed nation against daunting odds, the LORD of Hosts has raised up
leaders through whom he will repeat that ancient, miraculous victory.
243
Chapter Seven: Conclusion: Is Elijah a Prophet Like Moses?
Chapter Seven
Conclusion: Is Elijah a Prophet Like Moses?
Standing back from our close reading of the texts, we study the larger picture, to see
how it informs us on the question that directed this study: is, and if so, how is, Elijah a
prophet like Moses? To aid the exercise, we set out the full contours of the resonance,
as we have argued it. In this, we cannot avoid a mix of levels; considering the key
nature of the conceptual parallels, we will emphasize these over the verbal and story
level resonances.
The Elijah Stories The Moses Stories
1 Kgs 16:29-34-18:19 Ex. 2; 5-14; 16

1. Ahab' s forsaking of the LORD invites drought Pharaoh puts Israel in bondage; later, his refusal
on Israel; he continues resistant to correction. to acknowledge the LORD brings plagues on his
people.
2. Elijah confronts Ahab; hides at Cherith. Moses resists the establishment, and incurs
Pharaoh's wrath; flees to Midian (2:11-15).
3. Elijah is miraculously sustained with bread Israel is fed with manna and quails in the desert
and meat in the wilderness. (Ex. 16).
4. Elijah mediates the miracle of the oil and flour, Elijah's miracle verbally echoes the description
enabling the household to survive the drought. of manna (Num.11 :8), the staple of the nation's
wilderness years.
1 Kgs 18 Ex. 19-20; 24

1. All Israel is assembled at a mountain, Carmel. All Israel is assembled at a mountain, Horeb
(Ex. 19).
2. The issue is covenant loyalty, as evidenced by The issue is covenant making, as seen in
- the accusation against Ahab ( 17: 18)
- the symbolic altar of 12 stones (18:31-32) -the altar and symbolic 12 pillars (24:4)
- the possible covenant-sealing ritual meal by - the ritual meal by the institutional
Ahab (18:41-42). representa.tives (24:9-11 ).
3. Elijah sets out the choice between the LORD Moses is instructed to proscribe the worship of
244
and Baal. other gods alongside the LORD (20:23).

4. Elijah mediates between the LORD and Israel, Moses mediates between God in the "devouring
the former making himself known in a fire that <'-'"~N) fire" and Israel (19:18; 20:18ff; 24:17).
5. Israel confesses allegiance to the LORD in Israel confesses acceptance of and obedience to
words identical to Elijah's, implying their the covenant with God as laid out by Moses
acceptance of his authority as God's (Ex. 24:3-7).
representative.
6. The theophany proves The theophany is

- that the LORD is God alone, vis-a-vis Baal - sufficient reason for Israel to serve the LORD
alone (Ex. 20:2-4; 22-23)
- that Elijah is his obedient servant. - affirmation of Moses' position as the LORD's
representative (19:9).
1 Kgs 19 Ex. 32-34

1. Israel returns to apostasy (as divinely judged Israel turns to another god (32: 1).
in vv.17-18).
2. The crown and Baalist Israel seek Israel dismisses Moses as prophet/leader (32:1).
Elijah's life (vv.1, 10, 14).
3. Elijah is discouraged by failure and desires to Moses desires to die if he should fail to obtain
die (v.4). Israel's pardon (32:32).
4. Elijah presents sinful Israel before the LORD Moses presents sinful Israel before the
at Horeb (v.10). LORD at Horeb (32:30-34).
5. The LORD uses a personal theophany to The LORD proposes to withdraw his Presence
symbolically propose that he should reciprocally from among Israel (33: 1-6); Moses requests and
forsake Israel (vv.ll-12). is granted a personal theophany (33: 19-34:7).
6. The LORD invites feedback from Elijah (v.l3b). The LORD involves Moses in deciding what he
should do with Israel (32: 10; 33:5).
7. Elijah returns the conversation to pre-proposal Moses refuses the LORD's proposal, and presses
stage, in effect rejecting the proposal, and for an alternative (33: 12-16; 34:8).
pressing for an alternative for Israel (v.14).
245
8. The LORD presents an alternative operation The LORD renews his covenant with Israel, with
of the covenant-a remnant "Israel" within Israel a new element of dependence on Moses
(vv.l5-l8). (34: 10-28).
9. Elijah's prophetic authority in Israel is Moses' prophetic authority in Israel is affirmed

affirmed by Elisha's response to his mantle by the people's response to his shining face
(vv.l9-21). (34:29-35).
2 Kgs 1
Faint echoes of Moses, in that Elijah is once more on a mountaintop, is pitted against the crown and
militia, and is theophanically affirmed as the LORD's representative.
2Kgs2
Regarding succession, we note that the Moses-Joshua and Elijah-Elisha prophetic succession narratives
are the only two of their kind in the OT. Key comparable features are:
Deut. 34; Josh. 1-6

1. Elijah leaves with his mission against Baalism Moses dies while Israel is still to enter Canaan;
only partly completed; Elisha carries it to the it falls to Joshua to complete this leadership task
finish. (Deut. 34).
2. Elijah's "spirit" rests on his successor, Moses' "spirit" may likewise be imparted (Num.
Elisha. 11: 16-30); he mediates the "spirit of wisdom" to
his successor Joshua (Deut. 34:9).
3. Elisha's first miracle replicates Elijah's Joshua's first miracle recalls Moses' parting
parting of the Jordan; with this, the prophetic of the Red Sea; with this, all Israel accepts him as
community accepts him as legitimate successor worthy successor to Moses (Josh. 4:14).
to Elijah.
4. The circumstances of the investiture have Joshua's task is clearly military; this is enhanced
"holy/cosmic war" overtones, viz., the vision by the "holy/cosmic war" connotation at the
of heavenly chariots. outset of hostilities, viz., the encounter with the
commander of the LORD's host (Josh. 5:13-15).
5. Post Jordan, Elisha opens his prophetic career Post Jordan, Joshua begins the conquest of
with a miracle in Jericho. Canaan with the miraculous victory over Jericho
(Josh. 6).
246
As relates to the exits of Moses and Elijah:

Deut. 32; 34
1. Elijah is aware of the day and place of his Moses is informed of the time and place of
departure. his death (Deut. 32: 48-50).
2. Elijah leaves the earth in the wilds east of the Moses dies and is buried in the mountains east
Jordan, across from Jericho. of the Jordan, across from Jericho (Deut. 32:49;
34:1).
3. The LORD takes Elijah up in a whirlwind; he The LORD commands Moses' death and buries
is never seen again. him; the whereabouts of the grave are unknown
(Deut. 34:5-6).
As comment on this table, we borrow Walsh's conclusion on his own brief

comparison of the geographical, and life and work frameworks of Elijah and Moses:
"The congruence of the frameworks shows that we are to compare the whole Elijah
story with the whole Moses story, not simply the isolated episodes alluded to in the
individual narratives about Elijah." Walsh continues: "In other words, Moses is the
paradigm by which Elijah is to be measured." Whether this is the intention of the
resonance it is not possible to be dogmatic about, but the setting up of parallels does
invite comparison. Indeed, the extraordinary and exceptional intertextuality between
these two sets of prophetic narratives warrants Walsh's question: "Is Elijah, in the
words of Deuteronomy 18: 15-19, the 'prophet like Moses' whom Yahweh promised
to raise up?" 1
Walsh's answer is representative. He agrees that through 1 Kgs 17-18 "Elijah

corresponds quite closely to the Moses paradigm," in that he and those in his care are
miraculously provisioned, in that he intercedes for both individuals and all Israel, and
in that he mediates a powerful theophany which becomes the basis of a covenant
renewal. In 1 Kgs 19, he argues, the parallels become contrasts. While Moses'
complaints of solitude are tied to his leadership role, Elijah's preoccupation is with
himself; while Moses intercedes for Israel, Elijah accuses them; the personal
theophany granted Moses (Ex. 33-34) is a scene of cooperation and harmony, while
1
Walsh (1996), 287.
247
with Elijah it is one of stubborn resistance between God and a prophet who desires to
abandon his ministry. 2 This view is in line with that of the literary critics we have
engaged with at length in the course of arguing our thesis, for example, Provan,
Fretheim, Robinson, Nelson, DeVries, Brueggemann and Hauser; all are agreed that at
Horeb Elijah's prophetic career is at its ebb. Robinson is particularly articulate in his
criticism of Elijah as a "latterday Moses": "He is a figure devoured by egotism ... a
propheta gloriosus ... He falls far short of Moses' example." The LORD dismisses
Elijah, "not interested in continuing to employ this tetchy and arrogant prima donna of
a prophet.. .the future lies with Hazael, Jehu and Elisha." "Elijah has Mosaic
aspirations, does he?" asks Robinson. "Well, has he forgotten that Moses, great
prophet as he was, was removed from the scene before the climax of the Exodus story
was reached, and had to hand over the leadership to another ... ? In this respect at least
he resembles Moses." 3
However, as Walsh commends, any assessment of Elijah as a second Moses would

require us to compare the "whole Elijah story with the whole Moses story." That
comparison, when plotted, yields an uneven graph. 1 Kgs 17 and the first half of
chapter 18 are, at most, preparatory. The parallels begin to pick up with the Carmel
episode, but undeniably, it is at 1 Kgs 19 that the resonance peaks, following which it
falls away with chapter 21 and 2 Kgs 1. The second peak, again undisputed, is at 2
Kgs 2, on which point the narrative ends.
If we follow the proposal that the first peak, namely the Horeb episode, discredits
Elijah, we run into problems with respect to the immediate context, the context of the
Elijah cycle and the wider context of Mosaic resonance. First, as concerns the episode
itself, there is the matter of the reliability of the character, the LORD, which is of
course, in Hebrew narrative, absolute. The reader notes the LORD's radical action on
Elijah's presentation of Israel's sin; he proposes a bloody purge so as to birth an Israel
within Israel. This moves the reader to appreciate that the narrator embeds Elijah's
reliability in the absolute reliability of God, and to rethink a negative evaluation of
Elijah.
2
Walsh (11996), 287-88.
3
Robinson (1991), 528-30, 535.
248
Secondly, as regards the larger narrative, any unreliability on the part of Elijah at
Horeb must be reconciled at multiple points with the narrative that follows, namely,
the high-profile commissions he is entrusted with; his return to business as usual in
faithfully discharging his duty in confronting Ahab (1 Kgs 21) and more powerfully,
Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1); and, the undeniable commendation granted him by way of his
departure. Especially considering that there is no mention of any rehabilitation, one
questions that there was any act by which the prophet discredited himself in the first
place.
Thirdly, as concerns the intertexuality with the Moses stories, there is the issue of
penalty for bad behaviour, particularly stringent as regards Moses. The divine
displeasure Moses incurs over a single act debars him from carrying his commission
to completion. If Elijah, in his capacity as prophet, has twice misrepresented Israel at
Horeb, surely this qualifies him for reprimand, if not outright dismissal. That none is
forthcoming either from the LORD or the narrator weakens the case against him.
Thus, what contrasts are depicted in 1 Kgs 19 apply to the contexts rather than to the
prophetic characters; that is, the phenomena of the Exodus theophany (Exod. 19-20)
unambiguously portend the presence of the LORD, but the earthquake, wind and fire
of 1 Kgs 19 are explicitly empty of his presence; the ',,p of Exodus comes in the
context of God covenanting himself to Israel, but the ',,p of Kings is set in the context
of God proposing to abandon the covenant. However, as concerns the characters
Moses and Elijah, we conclude that the Horeb episode, peaking the resonance chart as
it does, does not contrast Elijah with Moses, but rather climaxes the build up of the
similarity. There are several ways to argue for this.
First, from the resonance graph vis-a-vis the plot progression: the reader would expect
Carmel to make a natural resting point for the Mosaic comparisons being drawn,
especially since it resolves the rain issue with which the plot opened. However the
peak of the resonance lies beyond Carmel, at Horeb, and this alerts the reader that this
is where the climax lies, as far as the setting up of parallels is concerned. It is here that
the defining strokes of a Moses redivivus are painted. Once the narrator establishes
Elijah as a second Moses, he continues with two other stories of his prophetic
249
authority, building up to a second peak in resonance. It is the Horeb depiction of

Elijah that legitimises this final representation of him, east of the Jordan. Without the
affirmative parallelism drawn at Horeb, 2 Kgs 2 would be too extravagant a
compliment when paid to a would-be Moses who failed the crucial test for a prophet,
namely, that of prioritising Israel over self.
Secondly, when the frameworks of the two sets of narratives are set side by side, the
Carmel story, with its themes of confession and covenant renewal, is seen to evoke
Exod. 19-20, 24. Though the Horeb story also recalls elements from this stretch of the
Moses narratives, the themes that dominate the Horeb story belong to Exod. 32-34,
namely, the themes of a backslidden and covenant-breaking Israel, a prophet's
personal theophany at Horeb, and an angry God announcing punishment on a
catastrophic level. Israel's story in the Exodus texts turns on the covenant-its
making, breaking and coming back into operation. If this is the story template for 1
Kgs 19, then the demand is for Elijah's profile to match Moses' re the task of
reconciling Israel with God. Since the Horeb episode does conclude with the covenant
in operation with the true Israel within Israel, it may be argued that Elijah is set up in
favourable comparison, rather than contrast, with Moses.
Thirdly, one considers the relevance of the Exodus event in the telling of this story.
Fishbane argues the exodus motif as "one that emphasizes the temporal-historical
paradigm in whose image all future restorations of the nation are to be manifest."
Kept alive through historical sermons, national liturgies and individual prayers, "a
more penetrating means of preserving the exodus in national consciousness was its
reuse as a literary motif' especially "as a hedge against despair and a catalyst towards
renewed hope. " 4 The Omride rule under Ahab, strengthened by its Sidonian
connection, not only plumbed the depths of apostasy, but more dangerously, also
intended the wiping out of Yahwism-the permanent alienation of Israel from their
covenanted God. The narrator, it would appear, seizes this story of kings, prophets
(named and anonymous), people, God and gods and, within the parameters of a regnal
chronicle, tells it in the fashion of Israel's deliverance story par excellence. In such a
tale, told for such a need, the likelihood is that the resonances with the transhistorical
4
Fishbane (1979), 121-22.
250
paradigm would be strongest where that resonance spells hope. Thus, setting up Elijah
as a prophet like Moses, especially at Horeb, is a step in this direction, as is recording
Elijah's departure from the Transjordan.
To conclude: the Elijah narratives portray a prophet who models Deut. 18: 18-"I will
raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my
words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him." Elijah
obediently represents the LORD, be it to hostile kings or a contrary people; is fiercely
zealous for the sanctity of the covenant; intercedes for and protects, sinful Israel; and
departs in a blaze of divine approval. To the reader who responds to the richly
nuanced resonance of this prophetic narrative with the Exodus stories, it appears that
Kings recreates for a new generation in dire need of deliverance-from their own king
and from their own waywardness-a prophet like Moses.
251
Appendix
Appendix
Piska 4.2, Pesikta Rabbati. Translated by William G. Braude. Vol. 1. Yale Judaica Series 18.
London: Yale Univ. Press. 1968.
R. Tanhuma Berabbi began his discourse as follows: And by a prophet the Lord brought
· Israel out of Egypt (Hos. 12: 14), that prophet being Moses; and by a prophet he was
preserved (ibid.)-that is, by Elijah.
You find that two Prophets rose up for Israel out of the tribe of Levi; one the first of all the
Prophets, and the other the last of all the Prophets: Moses first and Elijah last, and both with a
commission from God to redeem Israel: Moses, with his commission, redeemed them from
Egypt, as is said Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh (Exod. 3: 10). And
in the time-to-come, Elijah, with his commission, will redeem them, as is said Behold, I will
send you Elijah the prophet (Mal. 3:23). As with Moses, who in the beginning redeemed them
out of Egypt, they did not return to slavery again in Egypt; so with Elijah, after he will have
redeemed them out of the fourth exile, out of Edom, they will not return and be enslaved-
theirs will be an eternal deliverance.
You find that Moses and Elijah were alike in every respect: Moses was a prophet; Elijah was
a prophet. Moses was called man of God (Deut. 33: 1); and Elijah was called man of God (1
Kings 17:18). Moses went up to heaven: And Moses went up to God (Exod. 19:3); and Elijah
went up to heaven, as it is said And it came to pass when Elijah would go up ... into heaven (2
Kings 2: 1). Moses slew the Egyptian; and Elijah slew Hiel, as it is said But when [Hie/]
became guilty through Baal, he died (Hos. 13:1). Moses was sustained by a woman, by the
daughter of Jethro: Call him, that he may eat bread (Exod. 2:20); and Elijah was sustained by
the woman of Zarephath in Zidon: Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread (1 Kings 17:11).
Moses fled from the presence of Pharaoh; and Elijah fled from the presence of Jezebel. Moses
fled and came to a well; and Elijah fled and came to a well, as it is written he arose, and
went ... and came to Beer-sheba [the well of Sheba] (1 Kings 19:3). Moses: And the cloud
covered him six days (Exod. 24: 16); and Elijah went up in a whirlwind: And it came to pass,
when the Lord would take up Elijah by a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:1). The power of Moses: If
these men die the common death of all men, etc (Num. 16:29); and the power of Elijah: As the
Lord, the God of Israel, liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew not rain these
years, but according to my word (1 Kings 17:1). Of Moses: And the Lord passed by before
him (Exod. 34:6); and of Elijah: And, behold the Lord passed by (1 Kings 19:13). Moses
252
Appendix
gathered Israel about Mount Sinai; and Elijah gathered them about Mount Carmel. Moses
exterminated idolaters: Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, etc. (Exod. 32:27); and
Elijah exterminated idolatry, when he seized the prophets of Baal and slew them. Moses was
zealous for the Lord: Whoso is on the Lord's side, let him come unto me (Exod. 32:26); and
Elijah was zealous for the Lord: Elijah said unto all the people: "Come near, I pray ye, unto
me" ... And he repaired the altar of the Lord that was thrown down (1 Kings 18:30). Moses
hid in a cave: I will put thee in a cleft of the rock (Exod. 33:22); and Elijah hid in a cave,
spending a night there: And he came unto a cave, and lodged there (1 Kings 19:9). Of Moses:
he ... came to the mountain of God (Exod. 3: 1); and of Elijah: And came to ... the mount of God
(1 Kings 19:8). Moses went to Horeb, and Elijah went to Horeb. Moses went into the
wilderness: He led the flock to the farthest end ofthe wilderness (Exod. 3:1); and Elijah went
into the wilderness: But he himselfwent into the wilderness (1 Kings 19:5). Moses spent forty
days and forty nights, during which he did not eat and did not drink; so too, Elijah went in the
strength of that meal forty days (1 Kings 19:8). Moses made the orb of the sun stand still: by
means of this day will/ begin to put the dread of thee ... upon the peoples that are under the
heaven (Deut. 2:25); and Elijah made the orb of the sun stand still; By means of this day let it
be known that thou art God in Israel (1 Kings 18:36). Moses prayed in [sic] behalf oflsrael:
Destroy not Thy people and Thine inheritance (Deut. 9:26); and Elijah prayed in [sic] behalf
of Israel: Hear me, 0 Lord, hear me .. .for Thou didst turn their heart backward (1 Kings
18:37). Moses, when he prayed in [sic] behalf of Israel, seized upon the merit of the Fathers:
Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel (Exod. 32: 13); so, too, Elijah: 0 Lord, the God of
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel (1 Kings 18:36). Moses-through him Israel accepted love
for God, saying: All that the Lord hath spoken we will do, and obey (Exod. 24:7); and
Elijah-through him they accepted love for God, saying: The Lord, He is God (1 Kings
18:39). Moses made the Tabernacle in an area in which two se' ah of seed might be sown;
and Elijah made a trench about the altar in an area in which two se' ah measure of seed might
be sown.
In only one way do we find Moses presented as greater than Elijah. For God said to Moses:
But as for thee, stand thou here by Me (Deut. 5:28); whereas God said to Elijah: What doest
thou here, Elijah? (1 Kings 19:9).
Moses brought down fire; and Elijah brought down fire. Moses-when he brought down fire,
all Israel stood by and saw it, as is said There came a fire from before the Lord... which, when
all the people saw, they shouted (Lev. 9:24); and Elijah, when he brought down fire, all Israel
stood by and saw it: When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces (1 Kings 18:39).
Moses built an altar; and Elijah built an altar. Moses called the altar by the name of the Lord:
253
Appendix
Moses ... called the name of it Adonai-nissi (Exod. 17: 15); and Elijah-the name of his altar
was the Lord: And with twelve stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord ( 1 Kings
18:32). Moses, when he built the altar, built it with twelve stones, according to the number of
the children of Israel; and Elijah, when he built the altar, built it according to the number of
the Tribes of Israel, as is said And Elijah took twelve stones, etc (1 Kings 18:32).
254
Works Consulted
Works Consulted
Primary Sources
A. Biblical
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (eds). Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft. 1997.
LXX Septuaginta. A. Rahlfs (ed.). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1979.
NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 1989.
B. Other
Dionysius
1937 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicamassus. Translated by Earnest Cary.
Vol. 1. London/ Cambridge, Mass.: Wm. Heinemann/ Harvard Univ. Press.
Josephus
1926-65 Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge:
Harvard Univ. Press/London: Heinemann.
Philo
1993 The Works of Philo. Translated by C. D. Yonge. New updated edn. USA:
Hendrickson.
Pseudepigrapha
1985 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Translated by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2.
London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
Pseudo-Philo
1971 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Translated by M.R. James. The Library of Biblical
Studies. New York: Ktav.
Sophocles
1982 Oedipus at Co/onus in The Three Theban Plays. Translated by Robert Fagles.
London: Allen Lane.
Talmud
1935 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezi.fdn, Sanhedrin I. Translated by I. Epstein.
London: Soncino.
1938 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo 'ed. Translated by I. Epstein. London: Soncino.
1948 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Kodashim, Hullin I. Translated by I. Epstein. London:
Soncino.
1963 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nashim. Translated by I. Epstein. London: Soncino.
255
Works Consulted
Targums
1987 Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J.
Saldarini (eds). The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 10. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
1988 The Targum Onqelos to Exodus. Bernard Grossfeld (ed.). The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 7.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
1991 The Targums of Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth. Celine Mangan, O.P., John F. Healey, Peter
S. Knobel (eds). The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 15. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
1994 Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Martin McNamara and Robert Hayward (eds). Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. Michael Maher (ed.). The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 2.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Other Judaica
1968 Pesikta Rabbati. Translated by William G. Braude. Vol. 1. Yale Judaica Series 18.
New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
1987 Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation. Jacob Neusner. Vol. 2. Brown
Judaic Studies 101. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars.
Secondary Sources
Ackerman, Susan
1993 "The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel," JBL 112:385-401.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli
1986 "Function and Interpretation of~;:, in Biblical Hebrew," JBL 105:193-209.
Albrecht, Karl
1896 "Das Geschlecht der hebdiischen Hauptworter," ZA W 16:41-121.
Allen, R. B.
1979 "Elijah the Broken Prophet," J Ev Th Soc 22:195-201.
Alsop, John E.
1985 "Atonement," in Paul J. Achtemeier (ed.), Harper's Bible Dictionary. USA, San
Francisco: Harper and Row. P. 80.
Alt, Albrecht
1966 "The Monarchy in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah," in Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old
Testament History and Religion. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell. Pp. 239-59.
Alter, Robert
1981 The Art of Biblical Narrative. USA: Basic Books.
1996 Genesis. London: W.W. Norton.
1999 The David Story. New York: W. W. Norton.
256
Works Consulted
Appler, Deborah A.
1999 "From Queen to Cuisine: Food Imagery in the Jezebel Narrative," Sem 86:55-71.
Ap-Thomas, D. R.
1960 "Elijah on Mount Carmel," PEQ 92:146-55.
1970 "All the King's Horses?," in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter (eds), Proclamation and
Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. London:
SCM. Pp. 135-151.
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich
1957 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature.
A translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu
den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der iibrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 41h ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press/Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Arnold, William R.
1905 "The Word W,El in the Old Testament," JBL 24:45-53.
T T
Ashley, Timothy R.
1993 The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Auld, A. Graeme
1994 Kings Without Privilege. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Bailey, R. C.
1990 David in Love and War. The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12. JSOTSup 75.
Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press.
Bakon, Shimon
2001 "Elisha the Prophet," JBQ 29:242-48.
Balentine, Samuel
1983 The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon
1989 Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond.
Barr, J.
1963 "Expiation," in James Hastings (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Frederick
C. Grant and H. H. Rowley. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: T &T Clark. Pp. 280-83.
Battenfield, James R.
1988 "YHWH's Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha," in
Avraham ,Gileadi (ed), Israel's Apostasy and Restoration. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker. Pp. 19-37.
257
Works Consulted
Baumann, A.
1978 "il~, II," in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds), TDOT. Translated
by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Brorniley and David E. Green. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp. 260-61; 64-65.
Beek, M.A.
1972 "The Meaning of the Expression 'The Chariots and the Horsemen of Israel' (2 Kings
2:12)," OTS 17:1-10.
Begg, Christopher T.
1985 "Unifying Factors in 2 Kings 1.2-17a," JSOT32:75-86.
1990 " 'Josephus' Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah and Moses': Some
Observations," JBL 109:691-93.
Bergen, Wesley J.
1999 Elisha and the End of Prophetism. JSOTSup 286. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press.
Binns, L. E.
1927 The Book of Numbers. WC. London: Methuen.
Bird, Phyllis
1989 " 'To Play the Harlot': An Enquiry into an Old Testament Metaphor," in P. L. Day
(ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress. Pp. 75-
94.
Blank, S. H.
1950/51 "The Curse, the Spell and the Oath," HUCA 23:73-95.
Blommerde, A.
1969 Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job. Biblica et Orientalia 22. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute.
Boling, R. G.
1975 Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. New York: Doubleday.
Boling, Robert G. and G. Ernest Wright
1982 Joshua. AB. New York: Doubleday.
Bratsiotis, N. P.
1974 "W~K ilWK," in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds), TDOT.
Translated by John T. Willis. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp. 222-35.
Bright, J.
1981 A History of Israel. 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Bronner, Leah
1968 The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship. Leiden: Brill.
258
Works Consulted
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs

1906 The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin
and Company. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. 2000.
Brown, Raymond
1971 "Jesus and Elisha," Per 12:85-104.
Brueggemann, Walter
1985 David's Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory. USA: Fortress.
1990 First and Second Samuel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox.
2000 I and 2 Kings. Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys.
Budd, Philip J.
1984 Numbers, WBC. Vol. 5. Waco, Tex.: Word.
Burney, C. F.
1903 Notes on the Hebrew Text of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon.
Carlson, R. A.
1969 "Elie a L'Horeb," VT 19:416-39.
Carroll, R. P.
1969 "The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel,"
VT 19:400-15.
Cartledge, Tony W.
2001 I and 2 Samuel. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth &
Helwys.
Cassuto, U.
1967 A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
Childs, B. S.
1970 "A Traditio-Historical Account of the Reed Sea Tradition," VT 20:406-418.
1974 Exodus: A Commentary. London: SCM.
1986 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Chinitz, Jacob
1997 "Two Sinners," JBQ 25:108-113.
Claassen, Walter T.
1983 "Speaker-Orientated Functions of kf in Biblical Hebrew," JNSL 11 :29-46.
259
Works Consulted
Clements, R. E.
2004 "i~W," in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 14. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp.
272-286.
Clines, J. A.
1989 Job 1-20. WBC. Vol. 17. Dallas, Tex.: Word.
Coats, George W.
1969 "The Song of the Sea," CBQ 31:1-17.
1977 "The King's Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32-34," in
George W. Coats and Burke 0. Long (eds), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old
Testament Religion and Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 91-109.
1993 The Moses Tradition. JSOTSup 161. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press.
Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor
1988 2 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. Vol. 11. USA:
Doubleday.
Cohn, R. L.
1982 "The Literary Logic of 1 Kings 17-19," JBL 101:333-50.
Conroy, Charles
1996 "Hiel Between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha: 1 Kgs 16, 34 in Its Immendiate Literary
Context," Biblica 77:210-18.
Cook, F. C. and T. E. Espin
1871 The Fourth Book of Moses called Numbers, The Holy Bible according to the
Authorized Version Vol. 112. London: Murray.
Coote, Robert B.
1981 "Yahweh Recalls Elijah," in Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (eds), Traditions
in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns. Pp. 115-120.
1992 Elijah and Elisha in Socio-Literary Perspective. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars.
Cross, F. M.
1966 "The Divine Warrior in Israel's Early Cult," in Alexander Altmann (ed.), Biblical
Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Pp.
11-30.
1968 "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth," JTC 5: 1-25.
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
260
Works Consulted
Cross, Frank M. and David Noel Freedman

1955 "The Song of Miriam," JNES 14:237-250.
Dahood, M.
1960 "Textual Problems in Isaia," CBQ 22:400-09.
1967 "S'RT "Storm" in Job 4,15," Bib 48:544-45.
Daube, David
1963 The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. London: Faber and Faber.
de Vaux, Roland
1933 "Le "reste d'Israel" d' apres les prophetes," RB 42:526-39.
De Vries, Simon
1978 Prophet Against Prophet. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
1985 1 Kings. WBC. Vol. 12. Waco, Tex.: Word.
Deem, Ariella
1978 " ... And the Stone Sank into his Forehead: A Note on 1 Samuel XVII 49," VT28:349-
51.
Dhorme, E.
1967 A Commentary on the Book of Job. London: Nelson.
Driver, S. R.
1918 Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
1926 The Book of Genesis: With Introduction and Notes. London: Methuen.
Driver, S.R. and G. B. Gray
1921 The Book of Job. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Durham, John I.
1987 Exodus. WBC. Vol. 3. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.
Eakin, Jr., Frank E.

1967 "The Reed Sea and Baalism," JBL 86:378-84.
Edelman, Diana Vikander
1991 King Saul in the Historiography of Judah. JSOTSup 121. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad.
Press.
Eichrodt, Walther
1961 Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. Vol. 1. London: SCM.
1967 Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. Vol. 2. London: SCM.
Eissfeldt, Otto
1922-23 Konige. 41h ed. HSAT. Tiibingen.
1967 "Bist du Elia, so bin ich Isebel," VTSup 16:65-70.
261
Works Consulted
Ellul, Jaques
1972 The Politics of God and the Politics of Man. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Emerton, J. A.
1997 "The House of Baal in 1 Kings xvi 32," VT47:293-300.
Enns, Peter
2000 Exodus. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Feldman, L. H.
1984 Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980). Berlin: de Gruyter.
1992 "Josephus' Portrait of Ahab," ETL 68:368-84.
Fensham, F. C.
1980 "A Few Observations on the Polarisation between Yahweh and Baal in 1 Kings 17-
19," Z4W 92:227-236.
Fishbane, Michael
1979 Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken.
1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon.
1989 "Israel and the 'Mothers'," in The Garments of Torah. Bloomington: Indiana Univ.
Press.
Flanagan, James W.
1976·77 "The deuteronomic meaning of the phrase 'kol yisra' el' ," SR 6:159-68.
Fahrer, George
1957 Elia. ATANT 31. Zurich: Zwingli.
Fokkelman, J.P.
1975 Narrative Art in Genesis. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
1986 The Crossing Fates. Vol. 2 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel.
Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
1999 Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit. Leiden:
Deo.
Fox, Everett
2002 "The Translation of Elijah: Issues and Challenges," in Athalya Brenner and Jan
Willem van Henten (eds), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the 2r' Century:
Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion. JSOTSup 353. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad.
Press.
Frank, Richard M.
1963 "A Note on 3 Kings 19:10, 14," CBQ 25:413.
262
Works Consulted
Fretheim, Terence E.
1991 Exodus. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox.
1999 First and Second Kings. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox.
Fritz, Volkmar
2003 1 and 2 Kings. Translated by Anselm Hagedorn. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Galling, Von Kurt

1956 "Der Ehrenname Elisas und die Entriickung Elias," ZTK 53:129-48.
Garsiel, Moshe
1985 The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies
and Parallels. Ramat Gan, Israel: Revivim.
Gaster, Theodor H.
1969 Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament. London: Duckworth.
Geller, S. A.
1990 "The Language of Imagery in Psalm 114," in Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, Piotr
Steinkeller (eds), Lingering over Words: Studies in Near Eastern Literature in
Honour of William L. Moran. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Pp. 179-94.
Gerstenberger, E.
1999 ":lTl.7," in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Pp. 584-92.
Gertel, Elliott B.
2002 1 "Moses, Elisha and the Transferred Spirit: The Height of Biblical Prophecy? Part 1,"
JBQ 30:73-79.
20022 "Moses, Elisha and the Transferred Spirit: The Height of Biblical Prophecy? Part 2,"
· JBQ 30:171-77.
Gesenius, W.
1846 Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Translated and edited by S. P. Tregelles. London:
Bagster.
Gesenius, William and E. Kautzsch
1898 Gesenius-Kautzsch Hebrew Grammar. Translated by Collins, G. W. Revised by
Cowley, A. E. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ginzberg, Louis
1910 Bible Times and Characters from Joseph to the Exodus. Translated by Henrietta
Szold. Vol. 2 of Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: JPSA.
263
Works Consulted
1911 Bible Times and Characters from the Exodus to the Death of Moses. Translated by
Paul Radin. Vol. 3 of Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: JPSA.
1913 Bible Times and Characters from Joshua to Esther. Translated by Paul Radin. Vol. 4
of Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: JPSA.
Gooding, D. W.
1964 "Ahab according to the Septuagint," ZA W 76:269-80.
Gordis, R.
1943 "The Asseverative Kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew," JAOS 63:176-78.
1978 Book of Job. New York: JTSA.
Gowan, Donald E.
1994 Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville,
Ky.: Westminster/John Knox.
Graupner, M. and Heinz-Josef Fabry
2004 "~1W," in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 14. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp. 461-522.
Gray, John
1964 1 and 2 Kings: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM.
Greenberg, Moshe
1957 "The Hebrew Oath Particle I:Iay/I:Ie," JBL 76:34-39.
1983 Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Los
Angeles: Univ. of California Press.
1995 Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought. Jerusalem: JPS.
Gunkel, Hermann
1929 "Elisha- The Successor of Elijah (2 Kings ii: 1-18)," ExpTim 41:182-86.
Habel, N.
1965 "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," Z4. W 77:297-323.
Halpern, B. and D. S. Vanderhooft,
1991 "The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B. C. E.," HUCA 62:179-244.
Hamilton, Victor P.
1990 The Book of Genesis; Chapters 1-17. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
1995 The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Hartley, John E.
1988 The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
264
Works Consulted
Hasel, Gerhard F.
1980 The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah.
3rd edn. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press.
2001 "~',£:)," in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Translated by David E. Green. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp.
551-67.
Haupt, Paul
1909 "Some Assyrian Etymologies," AJSL 26:1-26.
Hauser, Al.an J. and Russell Gregory
1990 From Carmel to Horeb. Sheffield: Almond.
Hawk, L. Daniel
1991 Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster/John Knox.
2000 Joshua. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press.
Hay, Lewis S.
1964 "What Really Happened at the Sea of Reeds?," JBL 83:397-403.
Hayward, Robert
1978 "Phinehas- the same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition," JJS 29:22-34.
Henton, E. W.
1952 "The Root 1~lli and the Doctrine of the Remnant," JTS 3:27-39.
Hertzberg, H. W.
1965 Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth. Gottingen: V andenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Hess, Richard
1991 "Yahweh and His Asherah? Epigraphic Evidence for Religious Pluralism in Old
Testament Times," in Andrew D. Clarke and Bruce W. Winter (eds), One God, One
Lord in a World of Religious Pluralism. Cambridge: Tyndale. Pp. 5-33.
1996 Joshua. TOTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Hobbs, T. R.
1984 "2 Kings 1 and 2: Their Unity and Purpose," SR 13:327-34.
1985 2 Kings. WBC. Vol. 13. Waco, Tx.: Word.
Holt, Else K.
1995 " ' ... urged on by his wife Jezebel.' A Literary Reading of 1 Kgs 18 in Context,"
SJOT 9:83-96.
House, Paul R.
1995 1, 2 Kings. The New American Commentary. Vol. 8. USA: Broadman and Holman.
265
Works Consulted
Hulst, A.R.
1965 "Der Jordan in den alttestamentlichen Uberlieferungen," OTS 14:162-188.
Hvidberg, Fleming Friis
1962 Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill.
Imschoot, P. van
1954 Theologie de L'Ancien Testament. Bibliotheque de Theologie Serie 3. Vol. 1.
Tournai: Desclee.
Janzen, Waldemar
2000 Exodus. Waterloo, Ontario: Herald.
Jepsen, A.
1971 "Elia und das Gottesurteil," in Hans Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honour
of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore: John Hopkins. Pp. 291-306.
1980 "inn," in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds), TDOT. Translated by
David E. Green. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp. 280-90.

Jeremias, Jorg
1965 Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer altentestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Jobling, David
1978 The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament.
JSOTSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1998 1 Samuel. Berit Olam Series. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press.
Johnson, Aubrey R.
1962 The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press.
Jones, G. H.
1975 "'Holy War or 'Yahweh War'?," VT 25:642-58.
1984 1 1 and 2 Kings. NCB Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans/London:
Marshall, Morgan and Scott.
2
1984 1 and 2 Kings. NCB Commentary. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans/London:
Marshall, Morgan and Scott.
Joiion, Paul
1993 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Vol. 1.
Reprint of 151 edn. with corrections. Subsidia biblica 14/1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
266
Works Consulted
Keil, C. F.
1869 The Book of Numbers. Translated by J.D. Martinet al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Kidner, Derek
1967 Genesis. TOTC. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press.
Kirsch, Jonathan
1998 Moses: A Life. New York: Ballantine.
Kissling, Paul J.
1996 Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and
Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press.
Klein, Ralph W.
1983 1 Samuel. WBC. Vol. 10. Waco, Tex.: Word.
Koch, Klaus
1969 The Growth of Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method. Translated by S. M.
Cupitt. London: Adam and Charles Black.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner
1994 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Revised by Walter
Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. M.E. J. Richardson (ed.). Vol. 1. Leiden:
Brill.
Kraus, H.-J.
1951 "Gilgal; Ein beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte Israels," VT 1:181-99.
1966 Worship in Israel. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. Richmond, Va.: John Knox.
L'Orange, H. P.
1953 Studies in the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World. Oslo:
Aschehoug.
LaBarbera, Robert
1984 "The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in 2 Kings 6:8-7:20," CBQ
46:637-51.
Labuschagne, C. J.
1965 "Did Elisha Deliberately Lie?- A Note on 2 Kings 8.10," Z4 W 77:327-28.
Lambdin, T. 0.
1971 Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Scribner.
Lang, B.
1990 "n:lT," in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds), TDOT. Translated by
David E. Green. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp. 8-29.
267
Works Consulted
LeMaire, A.
1984 "Who or What was Jahweh's Asherah?" BAR 10:42-51.
Lehmann, M. R.
1969 "Biblical Oaths," Z4. W 81:74-92.
Levine, Baruch
1993 "Silence, Sound and the Phenomenology of Mourning in Biblical Israel," JANESCU
22:89-106.
Levine, Nachman
1999 "Twice as much of your spirit: Pattern, Parallel and Paronomasia in the Miracles of
Elijah and Elisha," JSOT 85:25-46.
Licht, Jacob
1978 Storytelling in the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Lind, Millard C.
1980 Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel. Scottdale, Pa.:
Herald.
1994 "The Deuteronornistic Picture of the Transfer of Authority from Moses to Joshua: A
Contribution to an Old Testament Theology of Office," in Norbert Lohfink (ed.),
Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy.
Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Pp. 234-47.
Long, Burke 0.
1984 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. FOTL. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans.
1977 "Prophetic Authority as Social Reality," in G. W. Coats and B. 0. Long (eds), Canon
and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Authority. Philadelphia:
Fortress. Pp. 3-20.
1991 2 Kings. FOTL. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Lundbom, Jack R.
1973 "Elijah's Chariot Ride," JJS 24:39-50.
Lust, J.
1975 "A Gentle Breeze or a Roaring Thunderous Sound? Elijah at Horeb: 1 Kings xix 12,"
VT 25:110-15.
McCarter, Jr., P. Kyle

1987 "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphical data,"
in Patri~;;k D. Miller, Jr., Paul Hanson and S. Dean McBride (eds), Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honour of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 137-
55.
268
Works Consulted
McCarthy, D. J.
1971 1 "The Theology of Leadership in Joshua 1-9," Bib 52:165-175.
1971 2 "An Installation Genre?," JBL 90:31-41.
1981 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in the Form of Ancient Oriental Documents and in the
Old Testament. Analecta Biblica 21A. New edn. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
McClellan, W. H.
1940 "Dominus Deus Sabaoth," CBQ 2:300-307.
McNeile. A. H.
1908 The Book of Exodus: With Introduction and Notes. London: Methuen.
1911 The Book of Numbers: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Canbridge Univ.
Press.
Meek, T. J.
1959/60 "Translation Problems in the Old Testament," JQR 50:45-54.
Milgrom, J.
1990 Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. New York: JPS.
Miller, J. M.
1967 "Fall of the House of Ahab," VT 17:307-24.
Miller, J. Maxwell and Gene Tucker
1974 The Book of Joshua. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Miller, Patrick D.
1973 The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
1994 They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Miscall, Peter D.
1983 The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress/Chico, Calif.:
Scholars.
1989 "Elijah, Ahab and Jehu: A Prophecy Fulfilled," Proof 9:73-83.
Mitchell, Gordon
1993 Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua. JSOTSup 134. Sheffield:
Sheffield Acad. Press.
Moberly, R. W. L.
1983 At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34. JSOTSup 22.
Sheffield: JSOT Press.
2006 Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
rylontgomery, James A.
1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by Henry
Snyder Gehman. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
269
Works Consulted
Moore, Rick Dale

1990 God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories. JSOTSup 95. Sheffield: Sheffield Acad.
Press.
Morgenstern, J.
1925 "Moses with the Shining Face," HUCA 2: 1-44.
1942-43 "The Ark, the Ephod and the Tent of Meeting," HUCA 17:153-265.
1943-44 "The Ark, the Ephod and the Tent of Meeting," HUCA 18:1-52.
Mosis, R.
2001 "1~l7." in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Translated by David E. Green. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp.
67-71.
Mowinckel, Sigmund
1962 "Drive and/or Ride in 0. T.," VT 12:278-99.
Muilenberg, James
1961 "Usages of Particle~~ in the Old Testament," HUCA 32:135-160.
Na'aman, Nadav
1997 "Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Ornrides," Bib
78:153-73.
Nelson, Richard D.
1981 "Josiah in the Book of Joshua," JBL 100:531-40.
1987 First and Second Kings.lnterpretation. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox.
1997 Joshua. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox.
2002 Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. London: Westminster John Knox.
Newman,M.
1962 "The Prophetic Call of Samuel," in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds), Israel's
Prophetic Heritage. London: SCM.
Noordtzij, A.
1983 Numbers. Translasted by E. van der Maas. BSC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Nordheim, Eckhard von
1978 "Elia am Horeb," Bib 59:153-73.
Noth, Martin
1953 Das Buch Josua. HAT. Vol. 7. Ttibingen: Mohr Siebeck.
1962 Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. London: SCM.
1968 Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by J. D. Martin. OTL. Philadelphia:
Westminster.
270
Works Consulted
O'Brien, Mark
1998 "The Portrayal of Prophets in 2 Kings 2," ABR 46:1-16.
Olley, John W.
1998 "YHWH and his Zealous Prophet: The Presentation of Elijah in 1 and 2 Kings," JSOT
80:25-51.
Olson, Dennis T.
1996 Numbers, Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox.
Olyan, Saul M.
1988 Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBLMS 34. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars.
Organ, Barbara E.
2001 "Pursuing Phinehas: A Synchronic Reading," CBQ 63:203-18.
Ostbom, G.
1945 Torii in the Old Testament. Lund: Hakan Ohlsons.
Overholt, Thomas W.
1982 "Seeing is Believing: The Social Setting of Prophetic Acts of Power," JSOT23:3-31.
Parzen, Robert
1940 "The Prophets and the Omri Dynasty," HTR 33:69-96.
Patai, Raphael
1939 "The 'Control of Rain' in Ancient Palestine," HUCA 14:251-86.
Paul, Shalom M.
1983 "Job 4:15- A Hair Raising Encounter," ZA W95:119-21.
Pedersen, Johannes
1926 Israel: Its life and Culture. Vols. 1-2. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
Peterson, Eugene H.
1999 First and Second Samuel. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster/John Knox.
Phillips, Anthony
1968 "The Ecstatics' Father," in Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars (eds), Words and
Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press. Pp. 183-94.
Polzin, Robert
1980 Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part 1.
New York: Seabury.
271
Works Consulted
Porteous, Norman W.
1962 "The Prophets and the Problem of Continuity," in Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter
Harrelson (eds), Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honour of James Muilenberg.
London: SCM. Pp. 11-25.
Porter, J. R.
1970 "The Succession of Joshua," in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter (eds), Proclamation and
Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. London:
SCM. Pp. 102-32.
1981 "l:l~~~::lJ:1 ~J::l, " JTS 32:423-28.
Porubcan, Stefan
1963 Sin in the Old Testament: A Soteriological Study. Rome: Herder.
Pro van, lain W.
1995 1 and 2 Kings. NIDC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson /Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster.
Rad, Gerhard von

1953 "The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Books of Kings," in Studies in
Deuteronomy. Translated by D. M.G. Stalker. SBT. Vol. 9. London: SCM. Pp. 74-
91.
1958 Holy War in Ancient Israel. Translated by Marva J. Dawn. 1991. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans.
1962 Old Testament Theology: The History of Israel's Historical Traditions. Translated by
D. M.G. Stalker. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
1965 The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman
Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
1972 Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. 3rd rev. edn. London: SCM.
1975 Old Testament Theology: The History of Israel's Prophetic Traditions. Translated by
D. M.G. Stalker. Vol. 2. London: SCM.
Rand, Herbert
1996 "David and Ahab: A Study in Crime and Punishment," JBQ 24:90-97,
Reif, Stephan C.
1971 "What Enraged Phinehas?," JBL 90:200-06.
Rendtorff, Rolf
1967 "Reflections on the Early History of Prophecy in Israel," JTC 4:14-34.
Rice, Gene
1990 Nations Under God: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Kings. Edinburgh:
Handsel/Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
272
Works Consulted
Riggans, Walter
1983 Numbers. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press/Philadelphia:
Westminster.
Roberts, Kathryn L.
2000 "God, Prophet and King: Eating and Drinking on the Mountain in First Kings 18:41,"
CBQ 62:632-44.
Robinson, J.
1976 The Second Book of Kings, CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Robinson, Bernard P.
1991 "Elijah at Horeb, 1 Kings 19:1-18: A Coherent Narrative?," RB 98:513-36.
Rofe, Alexander
1970 "The Classification of the Prophetical Stories," JBL 89:427-40.
Ross, J.P.
1967 "Jahweh Sebaot in Samuel and Psalms," VT 17:76-92.
Rowlett, Lori L.
1996 Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis. JSOTSup 226.
Sheffield: Sheffield Acad. Press.
Rowley, H. H.
1952 The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. London:
Lutterworth.
1956 The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM.
1970 Job. NCB. London: Nelson.
Ruppert, L.
2003 "11£l," in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp.
114-21.
Sarna, Nahum M.
1989 Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: JPS.
1991 Exodus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: JPS.
Schick, George V.
1913 "The stems dum and damam in Hebrew," JBL 32:219-243.
Schniedewind, William M.
1993 "History and· Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book of
Kings," CBQ 55:649-61.
273
Works Consulted
Schoors, A.
1981 "The Particle ,~," OTS 21:240-76.
Schulte, Hannelis
1994 "The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-Ethical Observations on the Subject of
Power and Violence," Sem 66:133-48.
Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin
1987 "The Flexible Word of God: Thoughts on the Other Pole of Biblical Authority,"
Judaism 36:331-38.
Seebass, Horst
1973 "Elia und Ahab auf dem Karmel," ZTK 70:121-36.
Seybold, Klaus
1973 "Elia am Gottesberg," EvT 33:3-17.
1998 "n!Li~," in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds),
TDOT. Translated by Da\'id E. Green. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pp.
43-54.
Simon, Uriel
1997 Reading Prophetic Narratives. Translated by Lenn J. Schramm. Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press.
Skinner, John
n.d. 1 and 2 Kings. The Century Bible. Edinburgh: T. C. and E. C. Jack.
1910 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. Edinburgh: Clark.
Smend, R.
1963 Jahwekrieg und Stiimmebund. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
1975 1 Der Biblische und der Historische Elia. VTSup 28:167-84.
1975 2 "Das Wort Jahwes an Elia," VT25:525-43.
Smith, Henry P.
1899 Samuel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Smith, MarkS.
2002 The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd edn.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Snaith, Norman
1975 "The verbs zabaiJ, and Sa/Jat,'' VT 25:242-46.
Soggin, J. Alberto
1972 . Joshua. OTL. London: SCM.
Speiser, E. A.
274
Works Consulted
1964 Genesis. AB. New York: Doubleday.

Stamm, J. J.
1966 "Elia am Horeb," in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Festschrift for T. C. Vriezen.
Wageningen: Veenman and Zonen.
Steck, 0. H.
1967 "Die Erzahlung von Jahwes Einschreiten gegen die Orakelbefragung Ahasjas (2 Kon
1, 2-8)," EvT 27:546-56.
1968 Oberlieferung und Zeitgeschichte m den Elia-Erziihlungen. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
Sternberg, Meir
1985 The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
Stolz, F.
1972 Jahwes und Israels Krieg: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des
a/ten Israel. Ziirich: Zwingli Verlag.
Sturdy, J.
1976 Numbers. Cambridge Bible. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Tabor, James D.
1989 " 'Returning to the Divinity': Josephus' Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch,
Elijah, and Moses," JBL 108:225-38.
Terrien, Samuel
1978 The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. Religious Perspectives. Vol.
26. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Thackeray, H.
1967 Josephus the Man and the Historian. New York: Ktav.
Thomas, D. Winton
1953 "A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,"
VT 3:209-24.
Thomson, Leonard L.
1981 "The Jordan Crossing: ~idqot Yahweh and World Building," JBL 100:343-58.
Tov, Emmanuel
1992 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress/Maastricht: Van
Gorcum.
Trible, Phyllis
1995 "Exegesis for Storytellers and Other Strangers," JBL 114:3-19.
275
Works Consulted
Waldman, Nahum M.
1988 "Ahab in Bible and Talmud," Judaism 37:41-47.
Wallace, H. N.
1986 "The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings," Bib 67:21-40.
Walsh, Jerome T.
1996 I Kings. Berit Olam Series. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Connor
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Wambacq, B. N.
1947 L'epithete divine Jahve Seba'ot: Etude Philologique, Historique et Exegetique
Bruges: Desclee.
Warne, D. M.
1958 "The Origin, Development and Significance of the Concept of the Remnant in the Old
Testament." Ph. D. Dissertation, Univ. of Edinburgh.
Weinfeld, Moshe
1972 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
1991 Deuteronomy I-11. AB. Vol. 5. London: Doubleday.
Weisman, Ze'ev
1981 "The Personal Spirit as Imparting Authority," Z4 W 93:225-34.
Wenham, Gordon J.
1981 Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity
Press.
1987 Genesis I-I5. WBC. Vol. 1. Waco, Tex.: Word.
1994 Genesis I6-50. WBC. Vol. 2. Dallas, Tex.: Word.
Werblowsky, R. J.
1956 "Stealing the Word," VT 6: 105-06.
Westermann, Claus
1984 Genesis I-11: A Commmentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. London: SPCK.
1987 Genesis 37-50: A Commmentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. London: SPCK.
Widengren, G.
1950 The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book. Uppsala: Lundequistska
Bokhandeln/Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
1957 "King and Covenant," JSS 2:1-32.
1984 "Yahweh'~ (}at!II!ring of the Pi11persed," in W. Boyd Barrick and _John R. Spencer
(eds), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in
Honour of G. W. Ahlstrom. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
276
Works Consulted
Widmer, Michael
2004 Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer. FAT 2. Reihe 8. Ti.ibingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
Wiener, A.
1978 The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism: a Depth-Psychological Study.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wildberger, H.
1997 "iK!li," in Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds), TLOT. Translated by Mark E.
Biddle. Vol. 3. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.

Williams, James G.
1966 "The Prophetic 'Father': A Brief Explanation of the Term 'Sons of the Prophets',"
JBL 85:344-48.
Williams, R. J.
1976 Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd edn. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
Winjgaards, J. N. M.
1969 The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools. OTS 16.
Wiseman, Donald J.
1993 1 and 2 Kings: An Interpretation and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Woods, Fred E.
1992 "Elisha and the Children: The Question of Accepting Prophetic Succession," Brigham
Young University Studies 32:47-58.
Woudstra, M. H.
1981 The Book of Joshua. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Wright, Christopher J. H.
1998 Deuteronomy. NffiC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
Wurthwein, Ernst
1970 "Elijah at Horeb: Reflections on 1 Kings 19:9-18," in John I. Durham and J.R. Porter
(eds), Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne
Henton Davies. London: SCM.
Young, E. J.
1952 My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Zakovitch, Yair -
1982 "A Still Small Voice: Form and Content in 1 Kings 19," Tarbiz 51:329-46.
277 0

A Prophet Like Moses A Narrative-Theological Reading of The Elijah Narratives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Prophet Like Moses A Narrative-Theological Reading of The Elijah Narratives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Prophet Like Moses A Narrative-Theological Reading of The Elijah Narratives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durham E-Theses

A prophet like Moses? A narrative-theological reading

• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses

The copyright of this thesis rests with the

Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A Prophet Like Moses?

Such a comparison becomes a legitimate exercise considering the promise in Deut.

A Prophet Like Moses?

Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Chapter One: Introduction: What May be Expected of a Prophet Like Moses?

Chapter Two: 1 Kgs 16:29-17:24: The Drought

Chapter Three: 1 Kgs 18: The Resolution of the Drought

Chapter Four: 1 Kgs 19: Horeb

2. 1 Kgs 19:11-13a: The Earthquake, Wind, Fire and ",p .................................. 76

2.1 The Text of 1 Kgs 19:11-13a ............................................................. 76

2.1.3 ;,p, ;,~~, "1p ............................................. ······ ...... 80

2.1.3.1 "1p ............................................................. 81

2.1. 3.2 ;,p, ............................................................ 83

2.1.3.4 The Two ""1p"s ................................................... 93

2.2 The LORD's Absence and Presence in vv.ll-13a ..................................... 97

3.1.11n1,~:l ,~m ~"~, ,;,~"~ lmw:;, ~;,~,.. .......................... 113

3.1.2 :-t1!1~:-t nn::l ,~!1~, ~~~1.. .......................................... 115

3.3.2.1 Noah: Gen. 7:17-24 .............................................. 141

Chapter Five: 1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18: Elijah and Ahaziah

Chapter Six: 2 Kgs 2: Elijah's Ascension and Elisha's Succession

Chapter Seven: Conclusion: Is Elijah a Prophet Like Moses? .............................. 244

SBLMS Society" of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

1. A Prophet Like Moses

"expresses a relation of either perfect (equality), or imperfect (resemblance)

2. The Critical Method Applied

3. The Text Under Study

As is common in the regnal accounts in Kings, the prophetic narrative is embedded

1. Ahab Begins his Reign

V.34 is the briefly narrated episode of the rebuilding of Jericho, seemingly

LORD. If Ahab's buildings directly contravene the covenantal obligations, Riel's is in

Elijah's announcement of the drought is immediately followed by the divine

2.2 1 Kgs 17:8-16: The Oil and the Flour

Sandwiched between word and event, in both episodes, is a summary statement of

17:15a ,;,~',K 1:l1;:, :-ttvlm, 1',n,

presumably (following Elijah's prediction) till the rains returned.

2.3 1 Kgs 17:17-24: The Widow's Son

t:l'iT"Ki1 W'K 1"1 '" ;,~

Elijah relays the widow's need to God thus:

n1.l71;"1 n~.l7 11,Jn~ ':IK 1WK n:I~"Kn ".l7 CJ;"l

Yahweh's word, so Yahweh in tum is responsive to Elijah's." 29 He argues that since

This second episode at Zarephath creates an anti-parallel to previous one. Earlier,

unfair treatment of the Israelites (:"'tnl11:-t; Exod. 5:22). More comprehensively, as we

With respect to Mosaic resonance, the narrative framework immediately establishes

Thematically, the confrontation, as in the Moses stories, is between a disobedient king

1. Towards the Resolution of the Drought

1.2. 1 Kgs 18:17-19: Ahab and Elijah

The language of Elijah's indictment is characteristically deuteronomic: Ahab and his

powerful monarch, especially considering the ad hominem nature of the argument. 19

2. The Contest at Carmel

with a pair as unlikely as Elijah-Ahab, the command-compliance pattern is richly

Secondly, and of critical significance, is the conceptual resonance, embedding within

prosperity (:J1~) as against calamity (.V1) (v.15); to increase (,,i1:J1) as against to

At Carmel, in the third year of a life-threatening drought brought on by apostasy,

2.21 Kgs 18:25-40: The LORD vs. Baal