RTS Papers / Hebrew Exegesis / Winter 2019
Exegetical Commentary on 1 Kings 18:20-29
Thesis
Our text is set in the days of the Divided Kingdom and the people of God had a divided heart. There was a worthless king, who had a wicked wife, and they were both hard at work turning the people further away from their covenant Lord and into the arms of Baal. Against such apostasy, God had raised up a prophet whose name meant “The LORD is my God.” 1 Kings 18:20-29 shows how Elijah confronts the king, the false prophets, and the fickle people. The text sets up the powerful response of God, and it does so with very strategic acts of faith and a strong dose of sanctified mockery. The words and actions of this man of God stand in the starkest contrast to the syncretism of Israel. Therefore this paper will show how the narrative in 1 Kings 18:20-29 calls the reader to undivided devotion to the LORD through the boast of the true prophet and silence of the false gods.
Reading through the Text
While the ministry of Elijah extends into 2 Kings in our canon, 1 Kings 17 and 18 form a kind of unit. Here the heightened conflict between the LORD and the wicked kings of the north is introduced. Over and above this is the war between the LORD and Baal; and this war in the heavenlies, in a sense, comes down to an earthly mountain, a theater in that spiritual war in which the people of Israel and their prophets take part. While Elijah has already been introduced (17:1), 18:20-29 shows him to be the main character on the human level.
The larger section (17-18) could be divided into nine units: 17:1-7; 17:8-16; 17:17-24; 18:1-6; 18:7-16; 18:17-19; 18:20-29; 18:30-40; 18:41-46. There is a clear shift in scenery at the break of each of these units. Since this paper is focused on the unit in 18:20-29, we could provide the following basic outline:
I. Ahab’s summons as transition (v. 20)
II. The clarity of Elijah (vv. 21-25)
a. The penetrating question to their syncretism (21a).
b. The people do not answer a word (21b).
c. Unequal numbers, but equal ground rules (22-23).
d. The most powerful evidence offered (24).
e. The people finally speak up (25).
III. The silence of Baal (vv. 26-29)
a. The failure of Baal in the morning (26).
b. Elijah’s mockery at high noon (27).
c. The response of crying out and cutting (28).
d. Silence past the evening sacrifice (29).
Tabling the Text
There are 18 wci verbs that move the action along in this passage: וַיִּשְׁלַ֥ח “So [Ahab] sent” (v. 20); וַיִּקְבֹּ֥ץ “and he gathered” (v. 20); וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ “and [Elijah] came near” (v. 21); וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ “and he said” (v. 21); וַיֹּ֤אמֶר “and he said” (v. 22); וַיַּ֧עַן “So [the people] answered” (v. 24); וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ “and they said” (v. 24); וַיֹּ֨אמֶר “and [Elijah] said (v. 25); וַ֠יִּקְחוּ “so [the Baal prophets] took” (v. 26); וַֽיַּעֲשׂוּ֒ “and they prepared” (v. 26); וַיִּקְרְא֣וּ “and they called” (v. 26); וַיְהִ֨י “So it was” (v. 27); וַיְהַתֵּ֧ל “and [Elijah] mocked” (v. 27); וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ “and he said” (v. 27); וַֽיִּקְרְאוּ֙ “So [the Baal prophets] cried” (v. 28); וַיִּתְגֹּֽדְדוּ֙ “and they cut themselves” (v. 28); וַֽיְהִי֙ “So it was” (v. 29); וַיִּֽתְנַבְּא֔וּ “and they prophesied” (v. 29).
The first wci וַיִּשְׁלַ֥ח suggests immediate follow-up action by Ahab. It shifts the scene, not with a new character but with location [BHRG, 21.2.2.i]. Whereas Cogan sees the subject use in verse 24 as awkward, Olley resolves that in Elijah’s mind, “King and people are brought together, all are responsible” [2].
A few other grammatical and syntactical features are worth noting. At the center of all of the Baal prophets’ activity are the taunts of Elijah. DeVries cites this as the verb’s only occurrence in the Hebrew Bible [229]. Its root הָתַל understood as “deceived” or “mocked” is used in Gen. 31:7; Ex. 8:29; Judg. 16:10, 13, 15; 1 Ki. 18:27; Job 13:9; Isa. 44:20; Jer. 9:5. The string of five jussives all clearly fit under the command use rather than the request, invitation, or wish [BHRG, 19.4.4.i.a]. The final jussive follows a case of fronting.
Commentators differ on the meaning of פֹּסְחִים֮. There is no object for “opinion” but rather something like crutches or the branches of a tree [Davis, 232]. Does it mean hopping [Cogan, 439], skipping or leaping [Walsh, 245], or perhaps faltering or limping? The verb behind it, פָסַח, was even used of God’s action in the Passover (cf. Ex. 12:13, 27).
But we will look only at the surface options here. Conceived one way the Israelites would be very deliberate and nimble in moving from one opinion to the other, whereas the other imagery would suggest that they are very feeble in this indecision. No one doubts, however, that the meaning at least implies syncretism: that Israel was trying to have it both ways in their religion. Bruggemann seems more certain of the connection between the two times the verb is used in this passage, and thus limping “means to engage in a cultic dance in celebration of Baal while professing Yahweh” [223-24].
I agree with DeVries that, “The thematic word in this narrative is עָנָה, ‘answer,’ ‘respond’” [226], although there is another contender. Walsh draws attention to the verb “to come near” as “an important leitmotif” [245]. The root נָגַשׁ can also mean, “draw near, approach, step forth” [VanGemeren, 29]. Compare “[he] came near” (וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ) to Ex. 28:43; 30:20; Jer. 30:21. Elijah draws near in verse 21, then he summons the people to come near to him in verse 30, and they immediately did so. Elijah does the same approaching the altar to pray in verse 36. Thus if we take the Mount Carmel narrative as a whole, this drawing near seems paramount. What I suggest is that the focus in verse 20 through 29 makes the speech and silence between the parties the more dominant theme.
(#Hebrew #exegesis #Kings #Elijah #prophets #exegetical #historical #Baal #Ahab)
Comments