Monthly Archives: June 2023

The Book of 1 Kings

1 Reply

By Hans Holbein the Younger – Christian Müller; Stephan Kemperdick; Maryan Ainsworth; et al, Hans Holbein the Younger: The Basel Years, 1515–1532, Munich: Prestel, 2006, ISBN 9783791335803., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5977456

Transitioning into 1 Kings
1 Kings 1 An Uneasy Transition from David to Solomon
1 Kings 2 Bloody Beginnings
1 Kings 3 The Wisdom of Solomon
1 Kings 4 A Prosperous Beginning of Solomon’s Reign
1 Kings 5 The High Cost of Construction
1 Kings 6 The Construction of Solomon’s Temple
1 Kings 7 The Halls of Solomon and the Furnishing of the Temple
1 Kings 8 The Dedication of the Temple
1 Kings 9 Solomon’s Second Vision and Continued Reign
1 Kings 10 The Queen of Sheba and the Golden King
1 Kings 11 The Foolish End of Solomon
1 Kings 12 A Divided Kingdom
1 Kings 13 A Man of God, the King, and a Prophet: A Strange Story
1 Kings 14 The End of Kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam
1 Kings 15: 1-31 Kings Abijam and Asa of Judah, King Nadab of Israel and the Unending Conflict Between the Two Nations
1 Kings 15: 32-16:34 Unrest in Israel
1 Kings 17 Elijah the Prophet Emerges
1 Kings 18 Elijah’s Showdown with the Prophets of Baal
1 Kings 19 Elijah Encounters the LORD at Mount Horeb and the Appointment of Elijah
1 Kings 20 King Ahab and the Conflict with Aram
1 Kings 21 Naboth’s Vineyard
1 Kings 22 The End of King Ahab
Resources on the Book of 1 Kings
Reflections After a Journey Through 1 Kings

Reflections After a Journey Through 1 Kings

1 Reply

By Hans Holbein the Younger – Christian Müller; Stephan Kemperdick; Maryan Ainsworth; et al, Hans Holbein the Younger: The Basel Years, 1515–1532, Munich: Prestel, 2006, ISBN 9783791335803., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5977456

I have been reading scripture for much of my life, but it wasn’t until I was in my second year of seminary that I had any background to understand the narrative of 1 Kings. Over twenty years later it was still a portion of scripture I rarely utilized. I was aware of Solomon, the split between Israel and Judah in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and the conflicts between Elijah and King Ahab but there are always insights gained from the sustained reflection of working through a book. The world of scripture is far more ancient and alien to our world than most people realize and working through both Judges and 1 Kings has helped me peel back some of the modern assumptions I have placed on these books.

The story of Solomon forms a large portion of the book of 1 Kings. The reign of Solomon is the pattern that many later leaders will attempt to follow but from the theological perspective of 1 Kings Solomon is a failed king. Solomon from an external perspective, and in the view of many Christians, is a paragon of wisdom, the builder of the great temple to the LORD, a person whose policies of trade make Israel a significant and wealthy player on the world scene. Yet, Solomon’s wisdom is directed towards acquisition and Solomon’s policies begin to model the policies of the nations that Solomon becomes partners with. Solomon from the theological perspective of 1 Kings is one who ‘gained the world at the cost of his life.’ Throughout Solomon’s story there is a tension between who he is and the model king of Deuteronomy 17: 14-20. Solomon ultimately walks into the path of idolatry as he is influenced by his numerous wives who are a part of his policy of alliance building. Solomon’s aggressive concentration of power, wealth, and the heavily utilization of forced labor begin to look like Pharoah and set the conditions for the rebellion under his son.

Once the Northern tribes break away under Jeroboam the focus of the narrative moves with the northern tribes (or Israel) instead of Judah. Even though Rehoboam and Abijam will be judged as evil kings who reigned over Judah their transgressions will be passed over for the sake of David and their mentions in the narrative are brief. When Asa and Jehoshaphat bring reforms to help bring Judah a long period of stability and faithful leadership they also receive only passing mentions in the narrative. Although 1 Kings is compiled by an author from Judah, the focus throughout the first book is on Israel. The reason for this focus is both the idolatry of the kings of Israel, but also the emergence of the prophets as a major voice in the story. Although the book is named the Book of Kings, it could just as easily be the book of prophets. The kings of Israel are the primary markers of time while the prophets are the primary markers of meaning. The prophets, both named prophets like Elijah and Micaiah and the unnamed prophets, continue to enact the LORD of Israel’s guidance and often are key manipulators of the rising and falling of the dynasties of Israel.

1 & 2 Kings together narrate the journey from Israel at the height of its power when it has fully come into possession of the promised land to its split and then the long journey towards the loss of the promised land in Israel under Assyria and in Judah under Babylon. As a historical reflection it attempts to answer the question why Israel and Judah failed. It evaluates the kings from the perspective of covenant loyalty/faithfulness which is a perspective that the kings probably would not have considered central. Yet, it enables the editor of 1 & 2 Kings to answer the question by showing that Israel and Judah are eventually defeated because they were unfaithful to the LORD the God of Israel who brought them out of Egypt and into the promised land. This God of Israel continually sent messengers to warn the people to return to their ways and these messengers, even with their acts of power, rarely were able to achieve lasting change. As Elijah would say to God, “I am no better than my ancestors.” (1 Kings 19: 4) The prophets for all their strangeness will encounter numerous others claiming to be prophets of God (or a god) while representing the interests of the king of the time. Throughout 1 Kings, Judah still has the Levitical priests and the temple which maintain the connection between the people and their God, but in Israel the kings from Jeroboam to Ahab have set up other images, altars and sometimes have explicitly brought in prophets of the gods of other nations like Baal or Asherah.

Although it is an ancient story, 1 Kings narrates the struggle of remaining faithful to the LORD the God of Israel in a world of numerous alternatives. Israel and Judah struggled to maintain their distinctiveness among the nations and kings often influenced their people to follow the practices of the nations they traded and made alliances with. Even when the prophets, like Elijah, may be ready to give up on Israel the God of Israel continues to act through the slow working of history to remove the unfaithful kings and to give new leaders a chance to be faithful. Even in the midst of the failures that are a part of the story it narrates a God who is slow to give up on this people and who eagerly looks for repentance.

 

 

Resources on the Book of 1 Kings

1 Reply

This is a list of the major sources I used on this seven-month journey through the book of 1 Kings. I selected each resource for a reason and below is a brief evaluation of each source. It is not a comprehensive evaluation of the literature on 1 Kings, but it is a useful place to start for those interested in learning more about this book of scripture.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Publishing Incorporated. 2000

Walter Brueggemann is one of the most prolific Christian writers on the Hebrew Scriptures and brings a wide breadth of knowledge on both the collection of scripture as whole. His writing is consistently readable and insightful and tends to explore challenging perspectives. The Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary series is a very attractive resource bringing together commentary and discussion with artwork, maps, and other visual resources. This resource is closer to the blogging format which I write in than many books. More of a thematic commentary which is useful for preaching and teaching.

Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2001

Mordechai Cogan’s commentary on 1 Kings is a part of the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary which is primarily a textual commentary which focuses on the translation with some notes on historical context. This is the longest and most detailed of the works I used for this journey through 1 Kings. Very insightful about translation, structure, and context. This is a volume more directed to the specialist rather than the preacher or teacher and some knowledge of Hebrew is helpful in using this resource.

 

Israel, Alex. 1 Kings: Torn in Two. Jerusalem. Maggid Books. 2013

I have tried to consult at least one Jewish voice when examining the Hebrew Scriptures since it often opens avenues that Christian scholars have neglected since we share two different interpretation traditions. I received Alex Israel’s volume on 1 Kings as a review copy in 2014 and wrote a fuller review on the piece here. Rabbi Israel’s skill as a teacher is on display in this volume as he writes an approachable text which brings 1 Kings into dialogue with the historical context and rabbinic interpretation. A clear and insightful perspective on the people and events of 1 Kings.

Seow, Choon-Leong. “The Books of 1 and 2 Kings.” In New Interpreter’s Bible III: 1-295.12 Vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1999.

The NIB (New Interpreter’s Bible) is a solid resource as a resource for preaching and teaching that covers the entire bible and goes into some textual issues, but it primarily is focused on giving a fuller context to the story. Choon-Leon Seow’s contribution on the 1 and 2 Kings goes into a little more depth on translational issues than some other portions of this commentary set I’ve utilized, and this was a positive since it identified some interesting things to explore in the Hebrew text. This was another solid portion of the NIB and it is a resource worth having on the shelf for a pastor.

 

1 Kings 22 The End of King Ahab

2 Replies

The Death of Ahab from Gustave Dore’s English Bible (1866)

1 Kings 22: 1-28 King Ahab and King Jehoshaphat Prepare for War with Aram

1 For three years Aram and Israel continued without war. 2 But in the third year King Jehoshaphat of Judah came down to the king of Israel. 3 The king of Israel said to his servants, “Do you know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us, yet we are doing nothing to take it out of the hand of the king of Aram?” 4 He said to Jehoshaphat, “Will you go with me to battle at Ramoth-gilead?” Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, “I am as you are; my people are your people, my horses are your horses.”

5 But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, “Inquire first for the word of the LORD.” 6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred of them, and said to them, “Shall I go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I refrain?” They said, “Go up; for the LORD will give it into the hand of the king.” 7 But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there no other prophet of the LORD here of whom we may inquire?” 8 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is still one other by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies anything favorable about me, but only disaster.” Jehoshaphat said, “Let the king not say such a thing.” 9 Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, “Bring quickly Micaiah son of Imlah.” 10 Now the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah were sitting on their thrones, arrayed in their robes, at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them. 11 Zedekiah son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron, and he said, “Thus says the LORD: With these you shall gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.” 12 All the prophets were prophesying the same and saying, “Go up to Ramoth-gilead and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king.”

13 The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king; let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably.” 14 But Micaiah said, “As the LORD lives, whatever the LORD says to me, that I will speak.”

15 When he had come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?” He answered him, “Go up and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king.” 16 But the king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?” 17 Then Micaiah said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd; and the LORD said, ‘These have no master; let each one go home in peace.'” 18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy anything favorable about me, but only disaster?”

19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing beside him to the right and to the left of him. 20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ Then one said one thing, and another said another, 21 until a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 ‘How?’ the LORD asked him. He replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then the LORD said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.’ 23 So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has decreed disaster for you.”

24 Then Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came up to Micaiah, slapped him on the cheek, and said, “Which way did the spirit of the LORD pass from me to speak to you?” 25 Micaiah replied, “You will find out on that day when you go in to hide in an inner chamber.” 26 The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah, and return him to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son, 27 and say, ‘Thus says the king: Put this fellow in prison, and feed him on reduced rations of bread and water until I come in peace.'” 28 Micaiah said, “If you return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Hear, you peoples, all of you!”

King Ahab has occupied a significant place in the narrative of 1 Kings since his introduction in 1 Kings 16:29. Ahab as portrayed in 1 Kings serves Baal when it served his interest, strengthening the alliances with Tyre and Sidon and his marriage with Jezebel, has served the LORD when it was beneficial. His reign has seen both remarkable prosperity and crippling drought, miraculous military victories, and continual prophetic condemnation. Ahab seems to have modeled his reign after Solomon. Like Solomon he is led astray to worship other gods by his Phoenician wife. Elijah, other unnamed prophets, members of the sons of prophets, and finally Micaiah will be God’s messengers to this king who reigns over Israel for twenty-two years. In the eyes of many of Ahab’s contemporaries he was a successful king who acquired wealth, military power, land, and who benefited from trade. In the eyes of the narrator of 1 Kings:

Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD, urged on by his wife Jezebel. He acted most abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the LORD drove out before the Israelites. 1 Kings 21: 25-26

No amount of worldly success can mask the pestilence of idolatry and the ways in which the reign of Ahab adopts the practices of the surrounding nations instead of the covenant of God. Now after twenty-two years in power the LORD has decided to entice Ahab into a battle where will fall.

Three years[1]after the LORD delivered a crushing defeat to King Ben-hadad of Aram and King Ahab’s negotiation of a treaty with the humiliated Ben-hadad (see 1 Kings 20) the situations are reversed. Now King Ahab feels like he has the military might to be the aggressor and claim the land that was supposed to be returned in the treaty. The longstanding conflict between Judah and Israel has been settled and now King Jehoshaphat of Judah is called upon to be an ally in the coalition to retake Ramoth-gilead. King Ahab has been successful against the emergent Assyrian force to the north and now seems to be in a position of power to reclaim land that was once a part of the territory of Israel. The text suggests an unequal alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab, where Jehoshaphat is subservient to Ahab. It is likely that Israel is the stronger power, and that Jehoshaphat has negotiated peace with his northern neighbor at least initially by military alliance where the men and horses of Judah will fight under the King of Israel. Even after the negative prophecy by Micaiah, Jehoshaphat will not pull out of the fight.

The role of the prophet has increased throughout the narrative of 1 Kings. Prophets existed prior to 1 Kings in Hebrew society, the most well-known example is Nathan who confronts David, but in Northern Israel after separation from the temple in Jerusalem prophets are central to the story. There are probably several factors for this including the loss of access to the temple in Jerusalem where priests performed many of the ‘divination’ functions of discerning God’s will that now prophets will fill. Prophets also are portrayed as a part of the surrounding culture and throughout the narrative of 1 Kings there are prophets of Baal and Asherah and the rise of the prophetic may evolve out of the experience of the surrounding cultures having people who have the role of speaking on behalf of their gods. Finally, the narrative of Israel after the separation from Judah is one where the priestly functions have been taken over by non-Levite members appointed by the kings who have introduced the use of images like the golden calves of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12: 25-33) or directed towards other gods like Baal or Asherah. The rise of the prophetic role (both for the LORD and other gods) may explain why for the first-time prophets are asked to discern God’s will before going to battle instead of priests. Previously the priests would use the Urim and Thummim (part of the priestly breastplate built for Aaron) to discern God’s will. (Numbers 27:20, 1 Samuel 30:7-8)

The four hundred prophets of Ahab echo the four hundred prophets of Asherah which were mentioned in 1 Kings 18:19. The NRSV’s translation of this passage seems to indicate that Ahab’s prophets are all ‘prophets of the LORD’ but there are several variations of this text in Hebrew and the affiliation of these prophets with the LORD the God of Israel is often ambivalent in these texts. For example, the interpreters of the NIV show the ambivalence of the text in several choices. King Jehoshaphat asks for an inquiry for guidance from the LORD the God of Israel whom he faithfully follows. When these four hundred prophets answer the NRSV goes with the translation of the name of the God of Israel (YHWH) which is indicated by the capitalized LORD.[2] Yet the NIV in contrast goes with some of the best manuscripts which render Adonai here instead and thus translates it as Lord, which may not refer to the God of Israel. The NIV also follows the Septuagint and Vulgate[3] by translating Jehoshaphat’s response to Ahab as, “Is there not a prophet of the LORD here whom we can inquire of?” Choon-Leong Seow in the NIB translates the Hebrew literally as, “Is there not here a prophet of the LORD anymore of whom we may inquire?” (NIB III:162) At best the linkage of Ahab’s four hundred prophets with the God of Israel is ambiguous. Even if they are linked to the God of Israel they clearly are aligned with the royal desires of the king and are intent on promoting Ahab’s expansionist policies. To appease Jehoshaphat the prophet Micaiah is sent for who is unambiguously a prophet of the LORD.

Micaiah is instructed when he is summoned to align his words with the prophets already assembled outside of Samaria. Micaiah declares that he will only declare what the LORD the God of Israel shares for him to speak. When Micaiah responds initially to the king to, “Go up and triumph” we are unable to read his mannerisms or tone into the text, but whether it is the positive words or some combination of mannerism and tone it is immediately apparent to King Ahab that he is being mocked. King Ahab in making Micaiah swear to tell the truth by the LORD seems to indicate he is aware that is prophets are not speaking truthfully by divine inspiration. Micaiah’s later reference to Israel being scattered on the mountains is a reference to Ramoth-gilead which is literally ‘the height of Gilead.” The shepherd is a common symbol for the king in Israel, and the reference to sheep without a shepherd is a people without a king or leader.

Micaiah’s vision of a heavenly council debating how to entice[4] Ahab to go to battle at Ramoth-gilead to cause his death indicates the point of the narrative from the divine perspective. The conflict as Ramoth-gilead is a place where the God of Israel is using the conflict between nations to eliminate King Ahab after twenty-two years of leading the people astray. This is a strange story for modern readers who often question the morality of God working through a lying or deceitful spirit[5], but the text is not concerned with morality. As Brueggemann states:

The text does not argue for morality. Rather it argues for willful inscrutability that operates in, with, and under human events in order to curb and finally overthrow excessive human ambition. (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 280)

A spirit in the council argues for a plan to entice Ahab by placing a lying spirit in the words of his prophets, and the LORD declares that this enticement will succeed because Ahab will be hearing what he wants to hear. The truthful message of Micaiah is an uncomfortable truth in the midst of pleasant royal propaganda which is forcefully and graphically articulated by the four hundred prophets of Ahab.

Zedekiah son of Chenaanah has graphically illustrated the message of victory over Aram by placing iron horns on his head and declaring that Israel with gore the Arameans. This imagery of a bull being linked with the northern kingdom goes back to the blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy:

A firstborn bull—majesty is his! His horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he gores people, driving them to the ends of the earth; such are the myriads of Ephraim, such the thousands of Manasseh. Deuteronomy 33: 17

The association of the image of the bull with Ephraim and Manasseh (the largest tribes of the north) is probably one of the major reasons for the image of the golden calves that Jeroboam uses in 1 Kings 12: 25-33. Yet, the image of the bull is also associated with the golden calf made during the Exodus. (Exodus 32) The prophetic theater between Zedekiah and Micaiah is similar to the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah in Jeremiah 27-28. There are two conflicting voices declaring that they are the faithful messengers of the divine will. Zedekiah’s slap of Micaiah is likely a backhanded strike which is gesture meant to humiliate. Like Jeremiah, Micaiah is imprisoned for speaking the unpopular truth and placed in the hands of Joash the ‘king’s son.’[6]

The narrative with its prophetic theater, alliances between kings is all setting the stage for the conflict at Ramoth-gilead where Ahab will be killed. The king has chosen to listen to the lying spirits sent to entice him into the conflict. From the point of view of 1 Kings the primary mover in this scene is the God of Israel who is working in, with, and under the workings of Israel, Judah, and Aram. Ahab and Jehoshaphat seem to know that the words of the four hundred prophets are not true, but they go into battle anyways. Jehoshaphat may not be in a position where he can back out of the conflict without endangering his peace with Israel, but the political consideration of the kings is far less important to the narrative of 1 Kings. What matters in the movement of the LORD of Israel to bring about the death of Ahab.

1 Kings 22: 29-40 The Disastrous Conflict with Aram and the Death of Ahab

29 So the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead. 30 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will disguise myself and go into battle, but you wear your robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle. 31 Now the king of Aram had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots, “Fight with no one small or great, but only with the king of Israel.” 32 When the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, they said, “It is surely the king of Israel.” So they turned to fight against him; and Jehoshaphat cried out. 33 When the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, they turned back from pursuing him. 34 But a certain man drew his bow and unknowingly struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate; so he said to the driver of his chariot, “Turn around, and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded.” 35 The battle grew hot that day, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans, until at evening he died; the blood from the wound had flowed into the bottom of the chariot. 36 Then about sunset a shout went through the army, “Every man to his city, and every man to his country!”

37 So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; they buried the king in Samaria. 38 They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; the dogs licked up his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it, according to the word of the LORD that he had spoken. 39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house that he built, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel? 40 So Ahab slept with his ancestors; and his son Ahaziah succeeded him.

From the perspective of the narrator of 1 Kings the physical battle’s result has already been determined by the LORD. Ahab will die, the coalition of forces to recapture Ramoth-gilead will collapse and the people will return like sheep without a shepherd. Ahab seems aware of the danger to himself when he disguises himself as a common soldier while telling Jehoshaphat to fight wearing his royal robes. The king of Aram has also declared that King Ahab of Israel is the primary target of his chariot corps. Yet, the scheming of all these kings will be undone by an accidental shot.

The dynamic of Ahab being the primary leader of the army and Jehoshaphat being the subordinate is indicated both by Ahab using Jehoshaphat as a decoy by having him dressed in royal robes while Ahab is disguised as a common soldier, and by the army remaining engaged in the conflict once the chariots of Ben-hadad pursue Jehoshaphat. It is unclear how exactly the chariots of Aram determine that King Jehoshaphat is not their intended target, whether his exclamation is something that indicates he from Judah rather than Israel or whether they get close and identify by sight, but Jehoshaphat’s life is delivered by this realization. From the perspective of 1 Kings the important decision is the divine decision which has determined that Jehoshaphat shall live, and Ahab shall die.

An unknown soldier’s arrow finds the weak point in King Ahab’s armor and wounds him. The soldier ‘innocently’ or ‘unknowingly’ strikes the king of Israel, and it is possible this could be a friendly fire incident where he is wounded by one of his soldiers.[7]Although Ahab orders his driver to take him out of the fighting, the king does not receive the medical attention the wound requires. Perhaps to maintain the momentum of the battle he tries to continue to direct the conflict, but by nightfall blood loss, heat, and exertion have exhausted his strength and he dies. Without the leadership of King Ahab the forces of Israel and Judah disperse and return to their homes.

King Ahab’s reign ends with his blood pooling in a chariot only to be washed in the pool of Samaria where the dogs will drink his blood and prostitutes wash themselves in it. There is some tension between this description and the prophecy of Elijah in 1 Kings 21: 19-24 and the text does not attempt to fully harmonize between the words of Elijah and the testimony of Ahab’s death. Instead, it is content to report the return of the dead king who is buried as a king of Israel, but still who is dishonored by dogs drinking his blood as it is washed away of people (including prostitutes) bathing in the waters which have his royal blood in them.

King Ahab’s reign may be prosperous for Israel’s military and financial might, but it also leads the people further from the ways of the God of Israel. He is able to develop Israel into a military power in the region and through trade to build up Samaria and several other cities into walled cities with significant buildings. The house of ivory is likely an ostentatious structure, perhaps with panels and appointments of ivory (Cogan, 2001, p. 495) where ivory is one of the many signs of wealth in the ancient world. Ultimately the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel would probably paint a prosperous picture of the reign of Ahab, but 1 Kings views Ahab as a king who was repeatedly confronted by the prophets and demonstrations of the power of the LORD and chose to continually attempt to find his path to self-reliance through his military might, trading partnerships, and diplomatic maneuvering. Regardless of the prosperity Israel may find under Ahab, the narrator of 1 Kings views his reign as a time that brings evil to the land.

1 Kings 22: 41-50 The Faithful Reign of King Jehoshaphat of Judah

41 Jehoshaphat son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of King Ahab of Israel. 42 Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azubah daughter of Shilhi. 43 He walked in all the way of his father Asa; he did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD; yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places. 44 Jehoshaphat also made peace with the king of Israel.

45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his power that he showed, and how he waged war, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? 46 The remnant of the male temple prostitutes who were still in the land in the days of his father Asa, he exterminated.

47 There was no king in Edom; a deputy was king. 48 Jehoshaphat made ships of the Tarshish type to go to Ophir for gold; but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber. 49 Then Ahaziah son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, “Let my servants go with your servants in the ships,” but Jehoshaphat was not willing. 50 Jehoshaphat slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of his father David; his son Jehoram succeeded him.

Jehoshaphat was introduced in the conflict at Ramoth-gilead, but now we are finally introduced to him in the typical format of 1 Kings. Since the split of Israel and Judah, the majority of the attention of 1 Kings has been focused on Israel, and the trend continues as the report of the positively evaluated reign of Jehoshaphat is dwarfed by the reports of the shorter reigns of Ahab and Ahaziah. Although the books of 1 and 2 Kings are named for the procession of kings, the interest of the narrator is drawn to the prophets who are mainly active in Israel instead of Judah at this point. As Israel continue to know instability, even while it may be militarily and financially prosperous, Judah will know sixty-six combined years of good Davidic rulers (as evaluated by 1 Kings) under Asa and his son Jehoshaphat.

Jehoshaphat continues his father’s religious reforms and does eliminate the cultic prostitutes[8] and his reign is viewed (from the perspective of 1 Kings) as a faithful one. His major achievement is ending the long-standing war with Israel. This may be viewed ambivalently by the text since there are multiple times where his alliance with Israel leads to disaster. We will learn that a part of this alliance is marrying his son Jehoram to the daughter (or granddaughter) of Ahab and Jezebel which will later lead to disaster in 2 Kings. Judah is able to reign over Edom as well and the possession of Ezion-geber leads Judah to create a trading fleet to reconnect with Solomon’s trade for the gold of Ophir. We do not know why Jehoshaphat rejected the offer of King Ahaziah to send his people with the ships of Judah, but Ahaziah’s trading expertise was probably significantly greater due to their linkage with Tyre and Sidon. Jehoshaphat attempts to bring the prosperity of Solomon back to Israel but despite the loss of ships, and the frustrating defeats when he partners with Israel his long and faithful reign is summarized by only nine verses in the text.

1 Kings 22: 51-53 The Brief Reign of King Ahaziah of Israel

51 Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah; he reigned two years over Israel. 52 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father and mother, and in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin. 53 He served Baal and worshiped him; he provoked the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger, just as his father had done.

1 Kings ends in an awkward place with the brief notation on the beginning of the brief reign of Ahaziah. 2 Kings will begin with Elijah denouncing Ahaziah as he continues to oppose God’s ways in Israel. The kings of Israel may be the primary markers of time, but the primary markers of meaning are the prophets. Elijah has been absent from the scene at various moments in Ahab’s reign, but he will return for one final condemnation as Ahaziah seeks the intercession of Baal-zebub instead of the LORD of Israel. But for now, I am ending this journey through the books of Kings at the ending of 1 Kings. The canonical division of the story is at an odd place since it pauses in the midst of the reign of Ahaziah. Although this is the pause in the middle of a story, it is also the completion of a journey through 1 Kings. I will be taking a break from the narrative of the history of Israel for a time but will likely return to complete the second half of the book of Kings in the future.

[1] Three is a ‘typological number’ indicating a short period of time in Hebrew so the conflict may not be literally three years after the defeat of Ben-hadad in 1 Kings 20. Historical scholars who have tried to fix a date for this based on Ahab’s participation with Aram in the conflict against Shalmaneser III at Qarqar have said that if Ahab is the king it would take place in 852 BCE.

[2] Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the divine name YHWH is always marked with vowels to indicate the reader is to say Adonai instead of uttering the name of God (the commandment of honoring God’s name is behind this practice), but the consonants are left to indicate the name of God. This is reflected in English translations by the word LORD written in all capital letters. When the consonants for the word Adonai is present in Hebrew it is written Lord with the only the first letter capitalized when appropriate.

[3] The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Vulgate is the Latin translation which are both ancient translations of the text. Mordechai Cogan notes this (Cogan, 2001, p. 490)

[4] Hebrew patah throughout this passage.

[5] Reference to a deceitful spirit seems to come from the LORD are rare but they are present in scripture. See for example Ezekiel 14:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11

[6] The title ‘king’s son’ may refer to a person who is literally an offspring of the king but may also refer to various court officials and servants loyal to the king. (Cogan, 2001, pp. 492-493)

[7] Even with disciplined professional soldiers, friendly fire occurs in the chaos of combat. Much of the armies of Israel, Judah, and Aram would not be professional soldiers. Whether this is a ‘lucky shot’ by an Aramean or an ‘unlucky shot’ from the army of King Ahab is ultimately irrelevant because this innocent shot accomplishes the divine will.

[8] There is some controversy over the translation of the Hebrew qedesim as male prostitutes. It is unclear exactly what role these individuals had and whether it was sexual in nature, but it is definitely viewed in the text as a sign of idolatry. I am following Choon-Leong Seow’s recommendation of translating this as cultic prostitutes which may not be exclusively male. (NIB III: 168)

Review of I, Claudius by Robert Graves

1 Reply

Time Magazine Top 100 Novels

Book 46: I, Claudius by Robert Graves

This is a series of reflections reading through Time Magazine’s top 100 novels as selected by Lev Grossman and Richard Lacayo published since 1923 (when Time magazine was founded). For me this is an attempt to broaden my exposure to authors I may not encounter otherwise, especially as a person who was not a liberal arts major in college. Time’s list is alphabetical, so I decided to read through in a random order, and I plan to write a short reflection on each novel.

I, Claudius is a fascinating first-person narration of the life of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (or Claudius) who would become the fourth emperor of Rome. The novel takes the historical backdrop of Rome under emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula and portrays the world of the elites of the Roman empire. Claudius is often overlooked because of his lameness and his stuttering, but he learns to use his sharp mind as a historian. He is despised initially by Augustus and his wife Livia but late in his life Augustus realizes that his evaluation of Claudius has been mistaken. The novel portrays Claudius, presumably late in his reign as emperor, setting down an honest history of the Roman empire complete with assassinations, the debauchery of those in power, and the dangerous world that those in proximity to the Caesars must navigate.

As a person with some familiarity of the early Roman empire the book was a fascinating interweaving of fact and conjecture. Robert Graves gives a personality to these figures so often portrayed in statues and shows the humanity and sometimes the depravity of these men who will be viewed as deities throughout the empire. Livia occupies a major place in the narrative and is portrayed as a ruthless manipulator of Augustus and Tiberius. Yet, after her death it also becomes clear how she has kept the worst tendencies of Tiberius under control. Claudius is presented as a character who it is easy to empathize with, who endures the loss of his brothers, his first love, and is constantly at risk of being eliminated by Livia, Tiberius, and eventually Caligula. Yet, he survives all of them and to his dismay is eventually named the emperor of Rome.

This is a great example of early twentieth century historical fiction. Graves does a masterful job of inviting the reader into the time of Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula without expecting the reader to be well versed in the history of the first century, but remains believable by a reader who is familiar with it. I look forward to reading more from Robert Graves and will probably read Claudius the God the sequel next.

 

1 Kings 21 Naboth’s Vineyard

2 Replies

1 Kings 21: 1-16 Two Competing Worldviews: Naboth and Ahab/Jezebel

1 Later the following events took place: Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel, beside the palace of King Ahab of Samaria. 2 And Ahab said to Naboth, “Give me your vineyard, so that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house; I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.” 3 But Naboth said to Ahab, “The LORD forbid that I should give you my ancestral inheritance.” 4 Ahab went home resentful and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, “I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.” He lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat.

5 His wife Jezebel came to him and said, “Why are you so depressed that you will not eat?” 6 He said to her, “Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard for it’; but he answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.'” 7 His wife Jezebel said to him, “Do you now govern Israel? Get up, eat some food, and be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.”

8 So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal; she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who lived with Naboth in his city. 9 She wrote in the letters, “Proclaim a fast, and seat Naboth at the head of the assembly; 10 seat two scoundrels opposite him, and have them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out, and stone him to death.” 11 The men of his city, the elders and the nobles who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them. Just as it was written in the letters that she had sent to them, 12 they proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth at the head of the assembly. 13 The two scoundrels came in and sat opposite him; and the scoundrels brought a charge against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, “Naboth cursed God and the king.” So they took him outside the city, and stoned him to death. 14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, “Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.”

15 As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, Jezebel said to Ahab, “Go, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead.” 16 As soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab set out to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.

The story of competing worldviews about land has occurred many times throughout history. As white settlers moved across the United States they understood land ownership as something that could be bought legally while the Native Americans understood their relationship with the land very differently, they were tied to the land. Similarly in this story the understanding of land as inheritance comes into conflict with the view of land as commodity. Modern readers live in a commodity-based understanding of land, and yet the covenant that Israel was to live under was always an alternative to this worldview.

The story of Naboth and Ahab takes place in Jezreel, a town in the tribal holding of Issachar roughly nine miles east of Megiddo. (Cogan, 2001, p. 477) It is unclear whether the Omri family (which king Ahab is a member of) had land in Jezreel prior to becoming a royal family or if this is land acquired after their dynasty began, but there is some royal compound here that Ahab hopes to expand. The lower elevation in comparison to Samaria has led some to label this as a ‘winter palace’ which would be warmer in the winter season (NIB III: p. 155) but Jezreel has already figured prominently in the story as the location where King Ahab returned to after Elijah’s duel with the prophets of Baal.

The last of the Ten Commandments addresses coveting that which belongs to the neighbor, and here the importance of this commandment becomes demonstrated through the injustice of the story. Ahab desires the vineyard of Naboth to be converted into a vegetable garden for his own possession. From a commodity-based perspective he offers a fair exchange for the value of the vineyard either in money or in property. The key feature of the vineyard is its proximity to the property that Ahab already owns; he will be joining his neighbor’s property to his own. It is possible that Ahab’s indication that it will be a ‘vegetable garden’[1] may be a subtle way to suggest the land is less value since the only other time this word is used in the Hebrew Scriptures is Deuteronomy 11: 10 which contrasts the bountiful promised land with the ‘vegetable gardens’ which require irrigation in Egypt to be productive. Regardless of appraised value Ahab’s desire to obtain the vineyard is frustrated by Naboth’s adherence to the view that the land is an inheritance which cannot be sold.

Within the law of Israel there is a deep understanding of the land as a gift from God that cannot be sold. Leviticus 25: 23-24 for example states:

The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants. Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land.

Leviticus 25 outlines the expectation for families to redeem the land of their kin who have fallen into a position where they sell a piece of property. Even if the land is sold it is to revert back to the original family in Jubilee years. This concept of redeeming land underlies the actions of Boaz in the book of Ruth. The prophets often protest against the wealthy who acquire the inheritance of their neighbors and who, in the words of Isaiah: “Ah, you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left alone in the midst of the land.” (Isaiah 5: 8, see also Micah 2:2) Naboth stands in the tradition of the law of Israel when he proclaims that to sell his land would be a profanation of the LORD because it would be viewing the land as his possession to dispose of rather than the land that God has provided for him to work. Yet, Solomon viewed the land as a possession which could be sold off to King Hiram to pay his debts (1 Kings 9:11-13) and the kings of the Omri dynasty parallel many of the actions of Solomon which model their wisdom off the wisdom of the nations which is based on trade and accumulation rather than trusting the provision of the LORD.

Jezebel, who learned the Phoenician values of her family and nation, views the lands as a commodity which can be acquired and royal power as an implement to be used to take what the king desires. The narrative does not include Ahab explaining the rationale for Naboth’s rejection to Jezebel, he merely relates his refusal. Jezebel acts on the king’s behalf, telling him to get up[2] eat and be cheerful as she gifts him the desire of his heart. Whether Ahab is involved in Jezebel’s action of coordinating the fall of Naboth is unclear, but she is acting in Ahab’s name and utilizes his seal to give weight to her letters. Writing letters is a way in which nobles have distanced themselves from being the instrument of death but it is clear that Jezebel and Ahab are behind the death of Naboth. Similar to David sending a letter to his general Joab with instructions that lead to Uriah’s death, Jezebel’s instructions to place two belial[3] men opposite Naboth at the fast and to accuse him cursing God and the king. Exodus 22:28 declares that one is not to revile God or curse a leader of the people, yet the death penalty in the law seems to be reserved for someone who blasphemes the name of God. (Leviticus 24: 16) It does take two witnesses to testify against another, thus the need for two ‘scoundrels’, but the plan involves the knowing consent of the elders and nobles to put the ‘scoundrels’ in place and being complicit in the accusations that these men make at the instructions of Jezebel in the name of Ahab. It takes many accomplices for the innocent man to be declared guilty and stoned outside of town and possibly left unburied.[4]

Ahab’s coveting of Naboth’s vineyard has led to these two ‘scoundrels’ bearing false witness while the elders and nobles maintain a conspiracy by their silence which allowed for the unjust murder of an innocent man. The death of an innocent in the land contaminates the land. Just as the blood of Abel cried out from the ground, the blood of Naboth cries of to God. This is why there is a method of making atonement for an unsolvable death (Deuteronomy 21: 1-9) so that innocent blood may not continue to testify against the people. Now the innocent blood of Naboth speaks against the entire conspiracy of the rulers that have schemed to join field to field and who have disregarded the ways of the God of Israel.

The land is not for Ahab to take, just as the booty from the LORD’s victory was not Ahab’s to spare. (NIB III: 156) Ahab and Jezebel chafe at the way the Israelite way of viewing land which constrains their power to acquire what they desire. Ahab is told to “go”[5] and take possession, which Ahab does. Ahab, Jezebel, and the elders and nobles may feel that their actions have no consequences, but the LORD is ready to respond to the protest of the innocent blood of Naboth which cries out from the land. Desiring has led to death and death is answered by the proclamation of God’s prophet.

1 Kings 21: 17-29 Elijah Confronts Ahab and Ahab’s Repentance

17 Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying: 18 Go down to meet King Ahab of Israel, who rules in Samaria; he is now in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone to take possession. 19 You shall say to him, “Thus says the LORD: Have you killed, and also taken possession?” You shall say to him, “Thus says the LORD: In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.”

20 Ahab said to Elijah, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” He answered, “I have found you. Because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, 21 I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel; 22 and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin. 23 Also concerning Jezebel the LORD said, ‘The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat.”

25 (Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD, urged on by his wife Jezebel. 26 He acted most abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the LORD drove out before the Israelites.)

27 When Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth over his bare flesh; he fasted, lay in the sackcloth, and went about dejectedly. 28 Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: 29 “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster on his house.”

Elijah emerges on the scene once more to carry the condemnation of the LORD to Ahab. Elijah becomes the LORD’s voice to advocate for Naboth. Naboth’s condemnation is similar to the condemnation that David receives when he manipulates the battlefield by letters to cause Uriah’s death and takes ‘possession’ of Bathsheba as his wife. (2 Samuel 12:9) The short declaration to Elijah is essentially blood will pay for blood, the blook of the king for the blood of the innocent Naboth. One may attempt to defend the distance that Ahab introduces into the situation since Jezebel wrote the letters and the elders and nobles put the ‘scoundrels’ in place and carried out the sentence on Naboth, but in God’s view the king is ultimately responsible. His actions and his allowing Jezebel to use his name and seal are leading the elders and the nation astray.

Elijah is viewed by Ahab as his enemy, and Elijah’s role throughout his ministry has been to confront Ahab when he has turned away from the ways of the LORD. His actions are evil, and they are modeling these evil ways for the people of Israel. The LORD is repaying ‘evil’ for ‘evil.’[6] Ahab will bear the same fate as his predecessors who deviated from the way of the LORD, and his punishment parallels the declarations against their houses. (1 Kings 14:11, 16: 4) Some believe that the declaration about Jezebel is a later addition which parallels the story of 2 Kings 9: 30-37. Regardless Elijah’s declaration to Ahab pierces his bluster, perhaps it is the parallels with what happened to his predecessors or the thought of his own life being the cost of ‘purchasing’ the field of Naboth. Jezebel tried to make her king cheerful, but now after the confrontation with Elijah he goes about dejectedly.

The text makes a side note to indicate that Ahab, from the point of view of 1 Kings, is the singular example of doing evil in the sight of the LORD. Yet, the LORD quickly responds with mercy towards Ahab when he fasts, puts on sackcloth, and shows signs of repentance. Like David, the LORD wants to forgive Ahab. The consequences are delayed until the next generation as Ahab is given yet another chance to amend his ways. Elijah has been sent multiple times to the king to get him to change his ways, and this seems to be the nature of God. God does not want to give up on these kings, but when the choose to follow the ways of acquisition and exploitation the God must answer the blood that testifies from the land. God’s forgiveness and God’s justice are always in tension, but it is the tension of a God of hesed (covenant faithfulness) and mercy.

[1] Hebrew gan yaraq

[2] Hebrew qum  (rise, get up, arise)

[3] This is the Hebrew word (beliya’al)that will eventually become one names for the devil or a demon (2 Corinthians 6:15). “It refers to an act that is sinful (Deuteronomy 15:9) and evil (1 Sam 30: 22; cf. Nah 1:11) that upsets “a basic behavioral norm…the violation of the relationship between the individual, community and God.” (Cogan, 2001, p. 479)

[4] Later in verse 19 the indication is that dogs lick up the blood of Naboth and the parallelism with the accusation in verse 24 indicate that Ahab’s curse is to be left unburied and consumed by dogs.

[5] Again, the Hebrew qum. The parallelism between the first time Jezebel tells Ahab to ‘arise’ and here when she again tells him to ‘arise’ is obscured by the NRSV using two words to translate this verb.

[6] The NRSV’s translation: I will bring ‘disaster’ obscures the parallelism in the text.

Review of Life Worth Living: A Guide to What Matters Most by Miroslav Volf, Matthew Croasmun, and Ryan McAnnally-Linz

Leave a reply

Miroslav Volf has been an influential theological voice for me since his publication of Exclusion and Embrace and I have learned a great deal from his writing over the past two decades. Volf has been wrestling with the question of what makes a life worth living in his publications for the last eight years and this book feels like the successful culmination of years of writing, teaching, and seeking wise partners from his position at the Yale Divinity School and the Yale Center for Faith and Culture. His previous books on this topic (Flourishing: Why we Need Religion in a Globalized World and For the Life of the World: Theology that Makes a Difference) have helped frame the questions that now A Life Worth Living provides a guide for working through. A Life Worth Living models the class that Volf, Croasmun, and McAnnally-Linz teach at Yale, as well as at Danbury Federal Correctional Institute where they invite their seekers to consider several faith and wisdom traditions as they pose several key questions that are a part of seeking an authentic life. These questions include: What is worth wanting? What is the place of happiness in an authentic life? What is the authority are we responsible and what traditions form our vision of truth? How does a good life feel and what role do negative emotions/suffering have in the good life? What is worth hoping for? How should we live and what provides for a meaningful life? How do the various answers come together to form a life worth living? How does our good life fit within our bigger picture of the world? What do we do when we fall short of our visions of what life should be? How do we react to the suffering we experience and the suffering we encounter in the world around us?

One of the gifts of this book is it invites the reader into an encounter with a diverse set of wise voices who provide very different answers to each of the questions the book poses and provides a spectrum of possible answers for one willing to engage the questions. It is not a difficult book to read and it does not expect any previous engagement with philosophy or theology, instead coming out of the experience of teaching both undergraduates and inmates it simplifies the voices which come from across the religious and non-religious spectrum into an approachable set of stories. But the simplicity of the presentation does not take away from the deep nature of the reflection prompted by the questions that the book presents. This is an invaluable resource for those seeking to live a life that authentically reflects the values of the person trying to construct a life worth living.

1 Kings 20 King Ahab and the Conflict with Aram

2 Replies

1 Kings 20: 1-21 The Conflict with King-Hadad of Aram Begins

1 King Ben-hadad of Aram gathered all his army together; thirty-two kings were with him, along with

Assyrian stela of Shalmaneser that reports battle of Qarqar By Yuber – from en wiki, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=869262

horses and chariots. He marched against Samaria, laid siege to it, and attacked it. 2 Then he sent messengers into the city to King Ahab of Israel, and said to him: “Thus says Ben-hadad: 3 Your silver and gold are mine; your fairest wives and children also are mine.” 4 The king of Israel answered, “As you say, my lord, O king, I am yours, and all that I have.” 5 The messengers came again and said: “Thus says Ben-hadad: I sent to you, saying, ‘Deliver to me your silver and gold, your wives and children’; 6 nevertheless I will send my servants to you tomorrow about this time, and they shall search your house and the houses of your servants, and lay hands on whatever pleases them, and take it away.”

7 Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, “Look now! See how this man is seeking trouble; for he sent to me for my wives, my children, my silver, and my gold; and I did not refuse him.” 8 Then all the elders and all the people said to him, “Do not listen or consent.” 9 So he said to the messengers of Ben-hadad, “Tell my lord the king: All that you first demanded of your servant I will do; but this thing I cannot do.” The messengers left and brought him word again. 10 Ben-hadad sent to him and said, “The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria will provide a handful for each of the people who follow me.” 11 The king of Israel answered, “Tell him: One who puts on armor should not brag like one who takes it off.” 12 When Ben-hadad heard this message — now he had been drinking with the kings in the booths — he said to his men, “Take your positions!” And they took their positions against the city.

13 Then a certain prophet came up to King Ahab of Israel and said, “Thus says the LORD, Have you seen all this great multitude? Look, I will give it into your hand today; and you shall know that I am the LORD.” 14 Ahab said, “By whom?” He said, “Thus says the LORD, By the young men who serve the district governors.” Then he said, “Who shall begin the battle?” He answered, “You.” 15 Then he mustered the young men who serve the district governors, two hundred thirty-two; after them he mustered all the people of Israel, seven thousand.

16 They went out at noon, while Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the booths, he and the thirty-two kings allied with him. 17 The young men who serve the district governors went out first. Ben-hadad had sent out scouts, and they reported to him, “Men have come out from Samaria.” 18 He said, “If they have come out for peace, take them alive; if they have come out for war, take them alive.”

19 But these had already come out of the city: the young men who serve the district governors, and the army that followed them. 20 Each killed his man; the Arameans fled and Israel pursued them, but King Ben-hadad of Aram escaped on a horse with the cavalry. 21 The king of Israel went out, attacked the horses and chariots, and defeated the Arameans with a great slaughter.

This story of conflict between King Ben-hadad of Aram and King Ahab of Israel has puzzled many readers of 1 Kings.  Several historical scholars have argued that this conflict between Aram and Israel may actually have occurred during the reign of King Jehohaz (2 Kings 13: 1-9) at least thirty-five years later when Ben-hadad continues his father King Hazael’s work of oppressing Israel. It is possible that a later story was brought forward to make a point about King Ahab, but it is also plausible that a Ben-hadad attempted to oppress Israel at different times (names were often repeated in families).[1] Perhaps even more perplexing than the historical question is the vastly different allegiances of King Ahab from the previous chapters where he was in conflict with Elijah. Baal and the prophets of Baal are absent, a lone prophet of God becomes a central advisor, and the king is well acquainted enough with the prophets of the LORD to recognize a member of the ‘sons of the prophets’ when they speak to him later. (Israel, 2013, p. 273) Also missing in action are Elijah and Elisha. The ‘sons of the prophets’ will feature heavily in the Elisha stories, and it is possible that Elijah is preparing Elisha to assume the mantle of his work. Yet, as a foreign oppressor comes and the LORD promises to demonstrate God’s power by handing over a vastly superior force into the hands of Ahab these key prophets are absent.

Despite all the perplexing elements for the narrative the central theological point is clear: the fate and security of Israel rests in the LORD’s hands and not in the hands of the king or his limited military. King Ahab is not going to deliver Samaria by his military might, his political acumen, or his leadership through the conflict. The victory is a demonstration of the sovereignty of the LORD the God of Israel and the proper response is obedience. Ahab will ultimately fail, like many previous leaders, in this final test of obedience and will trust in his own ability to negotiate a favorable peace rather than trusting in the LORD who provided the victory. In the eyes of 1 Kings this is a critical theological error.

King Ben-hadad of the Arameans gathers a large coalition of leaders and sends a large force of chariots and horsemen which besiege Samaria. His initial demand is received as a demand that King Ahab become a vassal king of this large well-equipped coalition,[2] paying tribute and surrendering captives to ensure his loyalty. King Ahab initially consents to this proposal seeing it as a way to avoid a larger conflict and his initial response declares his willingness to subjugate himself to King Ben-hadad, yet the second demand is a more arduous invasion of King Ahab’s sovereignty and the kingdom. Ben-hadad’s promise to send his servants to take whatever pleases them is viewed as a provocation because it strips Ahab of his power to protect the people and his household. Ahab and the elders refuse to consent and in the initial war of words Ben-hadad taunts that he will reduce Samaria to destruction so completely that his followers will not be able to gather a handful of dust from their remains. Ahab replies with a taunt that one who is just preparing to fight should not boast like a victor taking off his armor. The negotiations are over, King Ahab has failed to avoid conflict with a superior coalition and the siege begins in earnest as the Aramean forces take positions around Samaria.

An unnamed prophet enters the narrative. Unlike previous times when the prophets of the LORD were hunted by Jezebel and those loyal to her, now a prophet has access to the king. The prophet declares that the upcoming victory is another demonstration to Ahab of the power of the LORD. This improbably victory is not due to the skill of the vastly outnumbered forces that Ahab can command, but instead is a way for Ahab and the people to know ‘that I am the LORD.’  Knowing that the God of Israel is the LORD is to acknowledge the sovereignty of the LORD the God of Israel also means obedience to the LORD’s expectations. The prophet does not invoke that this falls under the rules of a ‘holy war’[3] but instead answers the king’s questions about how to initiate the battle and how the king is to lead. The identity of the two hundred thirty-two men who serve the district governors[4] is not clear from the context and has been a source of debate. It is unlikely that they are ‘professional soldiers’ as we think of people who are a part of a standing military, and they may be the personal protectors or enforcers for the regional leaders. Regardless of their identity they will be the first ones sent out, followed by the seven thousand Israelites that will engage the Arameans. The number seven thousand intentionally links the reader to the seven thousand who have not bent their knee to Baal who are the faithful remnant that the LORD identifies to Elijah. (1 Kings 19:18)

When the initial representatives of Israel emerge from the city an already drunk King Ben-hadad gives the order to capture them alive whether they are seeking peace or conflict. In the early stage of a siege the expectation is that there is not much that the leaders need to supervise so the drunken kings may not be as surprising as it would be for a modern leader to be drunk on the battlefield. From a military perspective the Israelites have the element of surprise, and the momentum of the battle quickly springs in their favor as they encounter an opponent who focused on a later clash rather than the emergence of an immediate threat. The leaders of the Aramean coalition are inhibited from leading their forces by their heavy drinking and Ahab’s forces take advantage of this surprised force. Yet, 1 Kings writes from a theological perspective and from that perspective the entire strategy, execution and victory is the work of the LORD and a demonstration of the LORD’s power over a superior military force.

1 Kings 20: 22-30a The Defeat of King-Hadad

22 Then the prophet approached the king of Israel and said to him, “Come, strengthen yourself, and consider well what you have to do; for in the spring the king of Aram will come up against you.”

23 The servants of the king of Aram said to him, “Their gods are gods of the hills, and so they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. 24 Also do this: remove the kings, each from his post, and put commanders in place of them; 25 and muster an army like the army that you have lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot; then we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.” He heeded their voice, and did so.

26 In the spring Ben-hadad mustered the Arameans and went up to Aphek to fight against Israel. 27 After the Israelites had been mustered and provisioned, they went out to engage them; the people of Israel encamped opposite them like two little flocks of goats, while the Arameans filled the country. 28 A man of God approached and said to the king of Israel, “Thus says the LORD: Because the Arameans have said, ‘The LORD is a god of the hills but he is not a god of the valleys,’ therefore I will give all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.” 29 They encamped opposite one another seven days. Then on the seventh day the battle began; the Israelites killed one hundred thousand Aramean foot soldiers in one day. 30 The rest fled into the city of Aphek; and the wall fell on twenty-seven thousand men that were left.

The surprising victory at Samaria buys some time for King Ahab, but the survival of King Ben-hadad means that in the spring the Arameans will return to continue the fight. Again, the unnamed prophet is the central advisor in the story giving King Ahab advice which follows. Yet, on the opposite side of the conflict Ben-hadad’s advisor also gave him advice to prepare for the next battle. Both sets of advisors are coming from different theological perspectives as they provide military guidance for their respective leaders.

The advisors of Ben-hadad follow pretty conventional military advice for the technology of the day couched in a theological proposition about the God of Israel. There is a distinct advantage for a military force which depended on chariots as a key maneuver element to fight on level ground. Military planners often look for ground that will enhance their technological advantage or reduce their disadvantages. The Arameans will be the ones who choose the next battlefield, and they choose Aphek. There are multiple places in the region named Aphek, but this is most likely the Transjordan site near the modern day Golan Heights.[5] (Cogan, 2001, p. 466) Yet, the theological rationale for encouraging King Ben-hadad to make these decisions is that they believe the gods of Israel is are ‘gods of the hills’ whose ability to influence the fight will be negated by moving the location of the conflict.[6]

A second man of God comes to the king of Israel with a promise that the LORD will deliver this force into the hands of Israel both to demonstrate to the Arameans the error in their thinking and to demonstrate once again to Ahab that ‘I am the LORD.’ Even though the Arameans fill the country, and the Israelites look like two little flocks of goats, Israel is not reliant upon its military might but the LORD’s deliverance. The seven days wait before the conflict echoes the six days of marching and the fall of Jericho on the seventh day.[7] Like Jericho the defeat for the Arameans is massive. The number of one hundred twenty-seven thousand dead seems impossibly large, but the theological effect is that this massive army is removed by God’s action on the battlefield and at the wall of Aphek. Although the battle is never declared a ‘holy war’ the parallels with Jericho begin to give the battle that feel which will prove crucial in Ahab’s decision in the aftermath of the LORD’s triumph.

1 Kings 20: 30b-43 King Ahab’s Political Choice and Theological Blunder

Ben-hadad also fled, and entered the city to hide. 31 His servants said to him, “Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings; let us put sackcloth around our waists and ropes on our heads, and go out to the king of Israel; perhaps he will spare your life.” 32 So they tied sackcloth around their waists, put ropes on their heads, went to the king of Israel, and said, “Your servant Ben-hadad says, ‘Please let me live.'” And he said, “Is he still alive? He is my brother.” 33 Now the men were watching for an omen; they quickly took it up from him and said, “Yes, Ben-hadad is your brother.” Then he said, “Go and bring him.” So Ben-hadad came out to him; and he had him come up into the chariot. 34 Ben-hadad said to him, “I will restore the towns that my father took from your father; and you may establish bazaars for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria.” The king of Israel responded, “I will let you go on those terms.” So he made a treaty with him and let him go.

35 At the command of the LORD a certain member of a company of prophets said to another, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike him. 36 Then he said to him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, as soon as you have left me, a lion will kill you.” And when he had left him, a lion met him and killed him. 37 Then he found another man and said, “Strike me!” So the man hit him, striking and wounding him. 38 Then the prophet departed, and waited for the king along the road, disguising himself with a bandage over his eyes. 39 As the king passed by, he cried to the king and said, “Your servant went out into the thick of the battle; then a soldier turned and brought a man to me, and said, ‘Guard this man; if he is missing, your life shall be given for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver.’ 40 While your servant was busy here and there, he was gone.” The king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it.” 41 Then he quickly took the bandage away from his eyes. The king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets. 42 Then he said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Because you have let the man go whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his people.'” 43 The king of Israel set out toward home, resentful and sullen, and came to Samaria.

Throughout the conflict agents of the LORD the God of Israel have informed King Ahab that by these victories that Ahab will know that “I am the LORD.” These surprising military events should demonstrate to Ahab that God is the only refuge and support that the king needs. Yet, when presented with an opportunity to negotiate the reclamation of territory and trading rights for Israel, Ahab chooses to rely upon his skills in making a treaty. Ahab makes a political choice and a theological blunder. In the end Ahab trusts in crafting a commonsense deal rather than a zealous adherence to trusting in God and the results are disastrous for his household and Israel.

Ben-hadad’s servants convince their king to allow them to attempt to negotiate for his life. When they declare that the kings of Israel are ‘merciful’ kings they reference a central theological word often related to God: The Hebrew word hesed. Hesed is a rich word which can be rendered covenant faithfulness, grace, or mercy. It is God’s hesed that Israel relies upon. Now Ahab is to be manipulated by this property of hesed. The servants come out in sackcloth and with ropes on their heads to indicate their subservience to the Israelites. This has echoes of the way the Gibeonites trick the Israelites into sparing them in Joshua 9. These servants who may have been the same ones that would have been sent to plunder the house of Ahab, now come to make a humble appeal for the life of their king. Even though Ahab was previously treated with disdain by Ben-hadad, he extends the courtesy of calling him ‘brother’ and this allows Ben-hadad and Aram to negotiate terms of peace. With territory restored and trading rights promised King Ahab makes the political choice to allow his enemy to live. Peace between Aram and Israel will only last for three years.

King Ahab may have several political reasons to negotiate with the king of Aram. The return of land and the ability to expand trade with a neighbor are powerful incentives on their own. Ahab is also aware of the emergence of the Assyrians which will pose a threat to both Israel and Aram and may be looking for a military alliance with Aram to bolster the nations security. (Israel, 2013, p. 282) There is also the possibility that ‘class solidarity’ may play a part in Ahab’s considerations. (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 250) It may be fine for thousands of soldiers to be slaughtered but kings may be seen as ‘brothers.’ Ahab and Ben-hadad make a covenant[8] and the battle has ended.

Yet, the messengers of the LORD have to relay God’s displeasure at Ahab’s covenant which spares the life of Ben-hadad. We see the ‘sons of the prophets’ (NRSV company of prophets) appear for the first time. The sons of the prophets will feature heavily in the Elisha cycle, but now we encounter an unnamed prophet who declares to another to strike him. The failure of the first man to strike this prophet results in his death in a similar manner to the prophet who disobeyed in 1 Kings 13:24. Once the second man strikes the prophet and wounds him he departs to wait for the king. He is disguised with a bandage over his eyes because he is apparently known by sight to the king and portrays himself as a wounded soldier from the battle.

The prophet tells the king a ‘juridical parable’ where the offender is caught in the trap thinking the narrative is about someone else and then finding it refers to them. The most famous example of this type of parable is when the prophet Nathan confronts King David after sleeping with Bathsheba and ordering Uriah’s death.[9] Here the disguised prophet portrays himself as responsible for a man’s life and allows him to disappear in the chaos of the battlefield. Aram allows the words of the narrative to condemn the prophet only to find himself the one who has release one he was responsible for. King Ben-hadad was to be ‘devoted to destruction’ which translates the Hebrew herem. Herem is the practice of war referred to for the people that the Israelites were to eliminate in Deuteronomy 20: 16-18 (see also Deuteronomy 7: 1-5, 25-26). The story bears striking similarities to King Saul sparing King Agag of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15) which results in the LORD’s rejection of Saul-although in the battle with the Amalekites the prophet Samuel invokes this concept of herem where they are to be completely committed to destruction. Only at the end of the narrative do we hear that the King of Aram was ‘devoted to destruction’ but like Saul, Ahab’s life and lineage are now marked.

This is a difficult passage to wrestle with. The theological blunder of Ahab is clear: he trusted in his own ability to bring about a better settlement for Israel even in the demonstration of the LORD’s might. The LORD wanted Ahab to acknowledge his power, authority, and protection and to respond with obedience and trust.  Even if the number of deaths here are significantly inflated, one of the difficult challenges for any reader of scripture is reconciling the God of hesed with the God who calls for herem. How does one balance mercy with obedience, political realism with faithfulness. These are not easy questions. I’ve wrestled with Violence and the Bible in other places in these reflections. But the overarching message that I believe the narrator of 1 Kings wants us to understand is that we are to orient our trust to be in the LORD and the LORD’s provision and protection and not in our own ability to negotiate.

[1] The prefix ‘Ben’ in names means ‘Son of’. Ben-hadad is literally the son of Hadad, likewise the common name Benjamin means ‘son of my right hand.’

[2] Chariots and horses were still viewed as the central military advantage in warfare of this time period.

[3] Hebrew herem, see the discussion of below on 20: 30b-43.

[4] Hebrew naari sarei hamedinot. This term not used at other times to help provide contextual clues for these ‘young men.’

[5] The Golan Heights is still a contentious piece of land that both Israel and Syria claim. Israel captured most of this territory in 1967 and annexed it in 1981. Syria still claims that the land is theirs.

[6] Judges also makes note of the Israelites being unable to clear the Canaanites and Philistines from the planes because of their iron chariots. (Judges 1:19) See also Joshua 17:16-18.

[7] Joshua 6

[8] Hebrew b’rith another key theological concept in the Hebrew Scriptures often linked with hesed.

[9] 2 Samuel 12, see also 2 Samuel 14 for another example when the woman of Tekoa confronts King David.