RTS Papers / Hebrew Exegesis / Winter 2019
Exegetical Commentary on 1 Kings 18:20-29
Historical Context
Mount Carmel was a religious high place. Brueggeman suggests a connection between the word and “vineyard of God” and thus fertility. Whether there is any such allusion, it was precisely over which deity could deliver on the fertility of the ground that was at controversy. Mount Carmel was Baal country, “bordering Phoenicia” featuring “a broken down altar of the LORD (v. 30).” Worshipers may have been constantly reminded of how Baal delivers with every rain fall and how YHWH worship was a relic of the past.
Baal was the Canaanite storm god. An alternative contest could easily be imagined due to the drought. There had been no rain. The people would be all the more prepared to turn to the one who could make it rain. However, as Wiseman remarks, Baal was also viewed as a “sun-god” who “sent lightning.” No wonder, concludes Fullilove, that “fire from heaven is a key component of the miracles in Kings.” Now it was the priest’s function to prepare sacrifices, but as DeVries comments, “the sacrifice will remain incomplete … until fire is put to it … The issue is to be left entirely up to the rival gods, eliminating the confusing element of propaganda and ecclesiastical hocus-pocus.”
Sweeney draws this connection between the blood of the prophets and the rain of their god: “The practice reflects ancient mythology concerning the death of the fertility god, whether Baal, Tammuz, Dumuzi, or others, who descends into the netherworld during the dry season and must be brought back to life in order for the rains to come in the fall. By gashing themselves, the Baal prophets ritually identify with the dead in an act that reverses the normal course of the created world. Such identification with the dead Baal plays a role in stimulating his revival.”
Literary Context
DeVries speaks of a “Jehuite redactor” who inserted verses 19 and 20 as a transition in the narrative. He is content to regard this account as “a holy legend.”
Walsh notes that “Elijah’s dialogue with the people is in two unequal parts:
A. Elijah speaks to the people (18:21a)
B. The people do not answer (18:21b)
Aˡ. Elijah speaks to the people (18:22-24a)
Bˡ. The people answer (18:24b)
We have seen that silence and answering seems very crucial to the form of this passage. When the man of God first approaches, the people are tongue-tied with their hands caught in the cookie jar. As he shows himself reasonable they have little choice but to engage. Now on the higher plane of the gods and their representatives, we also see the silence of Baal in spite of the wailing of his spokespeople. The true God reveals and the people are at first silent; then the false prophets call out and the phony god is silent. Wherever we see speech that is ashamed here, we also see a corresponding weak life of worship. For example, both the people and their false prophets suffer from a kind of spiritual effeminacy.
Literary devices here include the use of a “pun” from verse 26, referring back to verse 21. In verse 21 פסחים referred to the “limping between” those two opinions, whereas in verse 26 the same verbal root, now in the piel (וַֽיְפַסְּח֔וּ), refers to the dance of the Baal prophets. One of the taunts is a bit uncertain: וְכִֽי־שִׂ֛יג לֹ֖ו. A common option has been that Baal needed to “relieve himself,” though one commentator assures us this “is only an inference, as the term means simply ‘to move away.” However the word is only used once; and one lexicon renders שִׂ֛יג as a “bowel movement.”
Canonical Context
A parallel is drawn by Lissa Beal here between Elijah and previous covenant mediators, Moses and Joshua, both of whom were instruments through whom God drew near to the people, and both of whom set before the people the choice of God or idols (Exod. 32:26; Josh. 24:14-24). She also infers that, “Like Moses, Elijah prepares an altar of twelve stones (Exod. 24:3-8), which is twice named by YHWH’s covenant name (vv. 30, 32).” So Beal offers confirmation of Walsh’s view that this verb for “come near” is “an important leitmotif in this story.”
What difference would this make? In speaking of the theological emphases of the book of the Kings, Fullilove sees “the theology of Deuteronomy as the evaluative standard for the kings of Israel and Judah, and it assumes the dynamics of covenantal administration from Deuteronomy.” By Elijah drawing near to summon the people, as well as rebuilding the YHWH altar (v. 30), the prophet is at least symbolizing the work of rebuilding the scattered assembly.
Some relationships between Elijah and the false prophets with the prophetic office in general may be discerned. Elijah exaggerates the situation - “even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD” (v. 22) - knowing full well about the prophets that Obadiah had kept hidden (v. 13).
Two activities of the Baal prophets are noteworthy here: the one forbidden the prophets of Israel, the other often erroneously attributed to prophets of Israel. The first is self-mutilation and the second is what we might put under the general category of ecstatic frenzy. Now bodily laceration as a means of manipulating the spiritual realm is condemned in Leviticus 19:28, Deuteronomy 14:1, and Jeremiah 41:5. Ugaritic sources attest that a norm was to be “bathed in their own blood like an ecstatic prophet.” Modern scholars have often spoke of the prophetic experience as “characterized by a detached or abnormal state of consciousness in which normal sensory input and mental function are interrupted and replaced by a consuming focus on revelatory experience.” There were phenomena such as “frenzies and trances” (1 Sam. 10:1-13; 19:18-24), but these are not normative of the true prophetic ministry.
Integrating Text and Life
Who was vindicated that day: the true God or his true prophet? The answer, it seems, it both. Ultimately however it is God over Baal, as this was the danger brought in with Jezebel, and as Baal had recently ascended to the height of the Canaanite pantheon. Of course Elijah’s name is a clue. In the end, the people were not being called to a show, but to repentance.
Looking forward to the New Testament we can still see syncretism as a temptation of the church. In Christ’s message to the Laodicean church, he says, “because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Where are the most flagrant forms of syncretism today? In other words, where is Christian worship and devotion seen “limping between two different opinions”? In probing why Baal worship would be so enticing, Davis suggest that the allure to power is what captivated Ahab, and by extension, his court full of prophets. Jezebel was the “fanatic.” For everyone else it was the means to the end of power. But from the Israelites who “wanted to ‘get on,’” we are instructed that the gods of power do not merely promise high positions, but also everyday results.
It may be significant, as Leithart suggests, that “after 18:17 Ahab never speaks again. Ahab, like Baal his god (18:29), falls silent.” This would be an application of the Scripture, “Those who make them become like them” (Ps. 115:8). The idols are mute because they have no life to begin with. Note that it was already said of the whole people that they “did not answer him a word” (v. 21). The whole people under this spell had nothing to say for themselves.
Many, like Davis, would apply this text to the folly of contemporary Evangelical worship that so often attempts to manipulate the Spirit by our efforts in our services or spiritual disciplines. Undoubtedly, however, the basic application from this passage has to begin with where the people were that day. The majority of us in the church are not in the place of either the true or false prophets (though there is that dimension), but rather in the place of the people, limping between two opinions. Since the true God is sovereign over all creation and will have no other gods before him, we must never limp between true worship and idolatry. If we do, we will grow as limp and deaf and silent as the false gods we serve.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beal, Lissa M. Wray. 1 & 2 Kings. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014
Brueggemann, Walter. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2000
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001
Davis, Dale Ralph. 1 Kings: The Wisdom and the Folly. Ross-shire, UK 2008
DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings: Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004
Holladay, William L. ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971
House, Paul R. 1 & 2 Kings: The New American Commentary, Volume 8. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995
Leithart, Peter. 1 & 2 Kings. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006
Olley, John W. The Message of Kings. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011
Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007
Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999
VanGemeren, Willem, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis,
Volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997
Van Pelt, Miles V. ed. A Biblical Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016
Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings: Berit Olam, Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996
Williams, Michael J. The Prophet and His Message. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003
Wiseman, Donald J. 1 & 2 Kings, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993
Comments